Manitoba Committee Hansard — 24 June 1982 (Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee, Sitting 7, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-sro7

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on STATUTORY REGULATIONS and ORDERS 31 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Don Scott Constituency of lnkster VOL. XXX No. 7-8:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 24 JUNE, 1982. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R� (Dave) BROWN, Arnold 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 GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA,Ho n. 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 Gi mli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lake side Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kir kfield 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 Pe mbina Selkir k Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere ln kster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon 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 Thursday, 24 June, 1982 Time - 8:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN, Mr. D. Scott. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have some delegations from the public here. I'd like to explain why we're a few minutes late starting this evening. The House is sitting parallel with the Committee. it's the first time this Session that has happened so we have to run in and pull people out of the House as well so that we have a quorum to start this Committee. We're going to start off with Mrs Judy Olson this evening.

Before we get going we have, I believe it's up over 40 presentations, in total now, to come before the Committee. This morning we gave a great deal of leeway in letting presentation go on for almost two hours. In the interests of the other people who are also behind you in line, I would ask people to limit their presentations, to make them as concise as possible. Some that are very extensive we may permit 20 min utes to half an hour on; most we would like to have people keep them within 15 minutes if that is at all possible. Okay, could I call Mrs. Olson, please. Yes, Mr. Nordman. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr.

Chair man, I can appreciate what you were just saying, but are we going to allow them more than, say, 20 minutes? MR. CHAIRMAN: That'! I be determined by the Com mittee. I'll ask Committee for leave for the person that's giving the presentation. In the interest of the people who are further down the list, the chances of you having your presentation made before some time mid-Saturday is very very slim if each delegation takes half an hour to three-quarters of an hour. You know, just multiply it out yourself.

We're only here for between two and a half and four hours at a sitting and you find yourself with 17 or 18 hours of delegations very easily. So that means we 're running into the latter stages of next week and we'd like, if possible, to have · the process sped up, to some degree at least, and if the Committee is willing to give leave, we will give leave for an extended presentation, Mr. Nordman. MR. R. NORDMAN: Fine, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: Yes, just for my own interest at this point.

I see the first two people making presentations belong to the same group, the Central Region Child Care Association. Are you going to allow each person coming to make a presentation or are you going to limit the presentations to particular groups or is everybody from a group allowed to speak? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, perhaps we can limit the groups the mselves, or ask the groups to try and make their comments within the time limit and they can share between two or three people or whatever. if they 124 wish, if they have a couple of different people coming forward.

If the briefs are totally different or coming from different directions, then I would think that would be possible as well to recognize them as separate. MR. A. KOVNATS: lt seems fair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, may we start? Mrs. Olson, please. MRS. J. OLSON: We are pleased to see that this government's definition of Day Care is broad enough to include licenced Family Day Care homes. We feel that in order to facilitate greater accountability on the part of licenced Family Day Cares, they must also be included in the same set of standards as other Child Care services.

We strongly feel this type of care, although necessary, has been constantly overlooked in several important areas: 1. The qualifications of the provider - Currently licensing of a Family Day Care home is processed by one individual and no particular qualifications are required. 2. The quality of programming - Apart from the two se mi-annual reports, there is no consistent monitor ing of care given. 3.

The Child-Staff ratio i.e. one staff to as many as eight children and at this time three of those children may be under the age of two years. lt should be noted there is no back-up or relief person required in the event of illness or emergency. There is still a certain traditional stigma toward group infant care and it has been the policy of deci sion makers, to our knowledge, to encourage Family Day Care placement for infants. We cannot support this policy. Group infant care is required by fire regulations to provide a ratio of one staff person to three children.

These staff spend their eight hour shift attending only to the physical, em otional, and intellectual needs of the children. Their time is totally devoted to "quality of care" and to program. How can a Family Day Care provider possibly provide the same "quality of care" and program when working alone with as many as eight children in the home, three of whom may well be under the age of two? The ratio contradicts fire regu lations.

As well as caring for the children the Family Day Care provider is also expected to be the cook, the caretaker, the telephone receptionist and be available to deal with any callers, professional or otherwise. In order to support and monitor Family Day Cares it would be advantageous for Family Day Cares to become satellites of group centres within their geo graphical area. The monitoring of care and program ming could be the responsibility of the Group Day Care Directors with the co-operation of the Family Day Care giver.

Directors would be used as resource people in the following way: The Family Day Care providers could select Com munity Board Me mbers to formulate a Community Board to determine the policies of the Family Day

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 Care homes. The Group Day Care Director would be responsible to that Central Board. The Group Day Care Director would be involved in licensing, avail able for consultations, regular visits to the home, toy and library exchange, staff meetings, regular Board meetings with the Family Day Care provider and the elected Board.

The Group Centres would also be a resource for relief staff, either with the Family Day Care home itself, or by caring for the children from the Family Day Care in the Group Centre when necessary. lt is im portant that parents are able to choose the type of care that they desire for their child, Group Care or Family Day Care. However, it is equally impor tant that once that choice is made the parent is assured that the care their child receives will be "qual ity care." MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mrs. Olson, are there any questions from members of the Committee? MS M.

PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Judy, for the brief from your area Association. Again, I'd like to pose the two questions to you that I did to the person that presented the brief this morning. One in terms of the staff ratios or the number of children allowed in Family Day Care. You don't say in your brief how many children you thin k would be an acceptable li mit. Do you agree with the Day Care Coalition on their limit of five? MRS. J. OLSON: lt sounded to me this morning like there might have been some misinterpretation there.

The current regulations are five children of preschool age, under the age of six, including the providers own home, plus they may also have three additional school-age children when they' re not in school. I don't have a lot of difficulty with that given the resources and the backup that I thin k they need, to provide quality care to that age group. I do have a lot of diffi culty with the Family Day Care providers being allowed to have three children under the age of two, as well as two between two and five, and three over the age of six. MS M.

PHILLIPS: In your suggestions in terms of Family Day Cares as being satelites to a Group Day Care Centre - it sounds to me, first of all, this idea of a community board of Family Day Care providers, I haven 't heard that idea before, it intrigues me - in your suggestion, when you say the Day Care providers would select community board me mbers, would that be from amongst themselves? MRS. J. OLSON: No, that would be from amongst their parents or interested citizens within their com munity. Presumably it would be largely parents. MS M. PHILLIPS: I see.

And you're suggesting that the Group Day Care Director would work in co operation with this board over and above the duties that he or she might have running and operating their own Day Care Centre at, you know, an average salary of less than $1 ,000 a month, that they should take on all these responsibilities that you've suggested here. 12 5 MRS. J. OLSON: Not for nothing, not for nothing, no.

I see the Group Day Care Directors, at least in the community which I am from have all had several years' experience and I believe would be good resource people to the Family Day Cares, and it would certainly provide more in the way of contact for the Family Day Care parents to be involved in some kind of staff meet ing, staff development, and certainly in order to pro vide that backup. MS M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairperson, I'd like to follow up on that. If you're saying not for nothing, would their Day Care Centre pay them extra for ta king on these duties?

Would the Family Day Care providers in the community all chip in for this extra assistance in resource, or are you suggesting that we, as govern ment, should in our program provide extra funds for this additional time? MRS. J. OLSON: I haven' t solved that problem, if that' s what you're asking me. One suggestion would be that perhaps a portion of the Family Day Care 's per diem, or of their maintenance grant would perhaps go towards that. Certainly no board of a Group Centre is going to say we'll pay your total salary but you can spend half your time looking after Family Day Cares.

That obviously would have to be negotiated and worked out. The other side of that coin is that if my total salary was being paid by my Group Centre then it would probably be getting 100 percent of my energy and e xpertise because that's where I would feel my loyalty lay. You know, so that kind of thing would certainly have to be worked out. MS M. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to pick up on this part because I thin k that there's a vehicle there that sounds very interesting. I'd be very interested as time goes on if you have more suggestions in that vein if you could bring them to us.

For instance, the same thing, if you're looking at staff people in a Day Care Centre, and as you and I know most of them are very harried, and working under pretty severe circu mstances to try to keep up with delivering a quality program where they are, if you're asking them to go out into a Family Day Care home, if the Day Care provider is ill, and act as a relief person, I thin k we have to thin k on that quite extensively before that concept, the satellite kind of concept, could be put into place. MRS. J.

OLSON: There is that type of system happen ing quite frequently in the States at this time where certai nly the number of Family Day Care homes would be li mited to a per-group centre. One of the things that happens is that the family, in the States I'm referring to, the Family Day Care mother and her children have regular weekly visits to the Centre so that the children are familiar with the staff. and the staff are familiar with those children, that there is an interchange. lt might be more feasible to have the children brought to the Centre, rather than a staff go out.

That would certainly depend on the cir cumstances and the number of children. As you're aware, I have a very keen interest in infant care because I provide infant care in Portage and one of my chief concerns is the care of infants under two in

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 Family Day Care when there is no back-up and there is no resource for those Moms. MS M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairperson, could you give me information on what states and what research you have on that kind of a program at some point? MRS. J. OLSON: Yes, I would certainly be willing to look that up for you. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you. That's all the questions I have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mrs. Olson, is the Central Region Child Care Association from Portage la Prairie? MRS. J. OLSON: I am from Portage la Prairie.

The me mbers of the Child Care Association are from throughout Central Region. MR. A. KOVNATS: Of the Board of Directors of the Central Region Manitoba Child Care Association, are all parents of children attending Day Care Centres? Are you aware of the Board of Directors that's listed on the ... MRS. J. OLSON: Yes, I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. MR. A. KOVNATS: Are all of these parents or could some of them be interested parties, other than parents of children attending Day Care Centres? MRS. J. OLSON: I understand your question now. Some of them are Day Care Directors.

There is a Board member from one of the Day Cares from Cen tral Region. I am a parent and one of the other people is a parent within our own region and group centres. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? That being all, thank you very much, Mrs. Olson. I call Jan Lucas. Would you just hold for a second while your presentation is passed out Mrs. Lucas? MRS. J. LUCAS: I'm Jan Lucas and I'm the Chairper son of Central Region MCCA and I would like to take the opportunity of thanking the Committee for this opportunity.

Since the conception of the Day Care Program in '72 we have seen many changes take place regarding this necessary but still controversial program. As care givers we are im pressed with the priority of im por tance this government has given to the Day Care Pro gram. We realize this government considers Day Care to be a very im portant service to safeguard the well being of Manitoba children and to protect and streng then family life.

During the past few years we have seen many changes, all of them beneficial to meeting the chang ing social and economic needs of the users of this service, however , we do have some concerns. We do not oppose the principle of standards that are outlined in Bill 21. In fact, what concerns us is not in the bill , 12 6 rather in the regulations that will certainly be sur rounding this bill. In addressing our concerns as outlined, may we include the following observation?

We believe the general value of our Canadian society is one of plural ism which suggests that our communities are best suited to getting needs met by a variety of indepen dent voluntary associations. May we re mind ourselves that this is only possible if organizations, which would include Voluntary Community Day Care Boards, are independent of government authority. Indeed , when the converse of this happens, i.e., government author ities appointed by the province and accountable to the province, a totalitarian structure exists.

The impor tance of understanding the relationship between de mocracy and bureaucracy cannot be underesti mated in the specific issues as related to "enforce ment" in the Day Care Standards. We believe in our B.N.A. Act which defines educa tion as a provincial rather than federal concern and this again reinforces the design of community elected Boards dealing with decisions in both the primary and secondary level of education.

We find it an easy paral lel to extend our vision to the community volunteer Boards determining and enforcing policies for Day Care Centres rather than the enforcement being car ried out by a paid government employee. We cannot stress enough the great necessity of keeping the taxpayers' dollar in the proper category, directly related to enhancing existing programs - rather than the horrendous drain of monies that would be incurred by the hiring of civil servants needed to do the job that Volunteer Community Boards are now doing.

Day Care guidelines are presently being monitored by 16 civil servants whose salaries total approximately $360,000 per annum. In order to monitor standards in both Group and Family Day Care homes, these Civil Service positions would need to double - hence a cost of approxima tely $720,000 in salaries alone, to say nothing of operating expenses. We acknowledge the need for standards and wel come them. We acknowledge the tremendous resource of concerned skilled volunteer community citizens and we welcome their direction.

We do not accept, however , the concept of only one person being given the power to enforce these standards, nor do we wel come this concept. The value of retaining Volunteer Community Boards would ensure the Centre's autonomy rather than one person monitoring the individuality established by each Centre's elected Board. Canada is a multicultural society and in order to best meet the needs of multicultures, the election of community based citizens must be in the best interest of preschool Centres.

The obvious advantage of rataining volunteer Community Boards as "Enforcers" is the continuous interchange of communication between said Board and Director through monthly Board meetings, fund raising activities and parent committees. The Com munity Board also has daily access in and out of Centres and this would be the proper measuring stick to determine the consistency of care being extended in the co mmunity. As we expect parents to constitute at least 30 percent of the Board- is it not expected that

Thursday, 24 June, 19 82 they would also be constantly aware of the quality of care being given? May we stress that in order that volunteer Boards maximize their potential there must be available to them volunteer leadership develop ment programs. We would also like to propose the formation of a Regional Advisory Board which would consist of representations elected from Volunteer Community Board in each region. This Board would act as an Arbitration Board and would be in direct communica tion with and responsible to the Day Care Office and its Director.

The dissolution of any complaint would be worked out at this level of unbiased input. The social reaction of too much government invol vement in the legislation of young children is a well known fact. We believe the ramifications of hired gov ernment employees used to enforce the Day Care Standards would be cause for much concern across this province.

Section 29(1) of the Act calls for qualified staff. At present approximately 90 percent of budgets are going out to pay minimal salaries which presently are well below the forthcoming minimum wage of $4 an hour. Once trained, do you not believe these people should command a professional salary? We must be realistic at this point. Teachers and Nurses once trained immediately command a salary of $1 ,700 to $1 ,900 per month. Is it not reasonable to expect the same for Day Care workers whose training is now mandatory? Have they not earned the right to the same expectations salary-wise?

The Day Care budget is small in comparison to other expenditures. We must be responsible to see that any expenditure of tax dollars is going to enhance existing staffing and child care programs rather than establishing bureaucratic positions.

In conclusion may I add that it is imperative that we remind ourselves that we the Day Care community are here as a support to families. lt is too easy at this point in the brief history of Day Care to forget that as we look to forming the regulations that will have such impact upon today's child as well as the children of tomorrow: let us not usurp the responsibilities of par ents and the community. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Lucas, are there any questions from ihe members? Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mrs. Lucas. I take it, since you and Mrs.

Olson both participate in the Central Region Child Care Association that your two Briefs are really part and parcel of the same position being advanced by the Central Region Child Care Association, is that cor rect. or are they being submitted as individual briefs entirely independent and separate of each other? MRS. J. LUCAS: No, the both presentations tonight are condensed from an original Brief that was pres ented to this Committee April 29th. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you. On the last page of your Brief. in the second paragraph, Mrs.

Lucas, I understand what you're saying there, but I would appreciate some clarification on the point you're try- 12 7 ing to make. You say that we must be realistic at this point, teachers and nurses, once trained, immediately command a salary of $1 ,700 to $1 ,900 per month, etc .. etc.

Are you suggesting that the Central Region Child Care Association has reservations about qualifica tions and about standards and training parameters because of the fact that once in place they will neces sarily imply salaries that are unrealistic or salaries that the Day Care Program and Day Care Centres would have difficulty in meeting? MS J. LUCAS: I don't think I can answer no or yes; there are several answers to that question. First of all we are not, in any way, apprehensive of the proposed training program that is going to be required for staf fing Day Care Centres.

However we must be realistic in realizing that the money in our present budgets just is not there, that there is going to have to be some kind of infusion of monies from either maintenace grants or whatever. We simply cannot expect girls to take a two-year training course and have them come out and make $4 an hour. What is the difference between a two-year child-care training program and a two-year RN training program? MR. B. SHERMAN: Let me put it this way, Mr. Chair man, if I might, to Mrs. Lucas. Are you suggesting that

Section 29(1) of the Act is unrealistic? Are you sug gesting that it's impossible to adhere to what the Cen tral Region Child Care Association fears will be the regulations drafted by the government with respect to qualifications and training because they will impose requirements that will cost a great deal more than society can afford to pay? MS J. LUCAS: That's right. In

Section 29(1) is only one of the qualifications that is going to be necessary. We won't be able to meet any one of the regulations unless there's a change in budgetary monies coming our way. As I say, 90 percent of all Day Care budgets right now are going out on salaries and the salaries are at minimal wages usually. We're having difficulty try ing to meet this year's budget with the increase in the $4 an hour put forth for July 1st. MR. B. SHERMAN: This may be an unfair question. but it isn't intended as an unfair question, Mr. Chair man.

Have you had any indication in your discussions with government or with the Minister's office or repre sentatives of his office as to how tough those qualifi cation standards are going to be or are you waiting like the rest of us for the regulations? MS J. LUCAS: As I mentioned in the first of my Brief, my concerns lay with the regulations that are forth coming, that Bill 21 , if it's passed the way it is. enables government to build in the regulations and unless we have some input into those regulations, then we will be concerned. I have had assurance that we will be approached.

We, as rural people, represent 50 percent of the total Day Care Community and we feel that we certainly should have some kind of voice in some of the decisions that will be made or at least consulted with. MR. B. SHERMAN: What kind of qualifications would

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 you require at the present time in terms of training and competence in the Day Care Centres with which you're familiar at the present time? MS J. LUCAS: Because of the shortage of trained staff, we look for people that have the characteristics of good care givers which are an understanding of young children, that have a lot of stamina. We have to scrounge. it's a sad scene in rural. MR. B. SHERMAN: Have you had any difficulties though in terms of what could be described I suppose as quasi-professionalism. Have you had any difficul ties with underqualified or incompetent people? MS J.

LUCAS: Certainly. MR. B. SHERMAN: So you have an idea in your mind of how qualified you think a person should be before they would be employed as a regular staff in a Day Care Centre? MS J. LUCAS: Yes we do. We certainly go through quite a procedure in selecting our staff people, but at the same time we have to be very flexible in our employees simply because we. again, have to be real istic. The trained people are not there and it's going to be a horrendous job getting qualified staff in the Cen tres. This again is probably a concern that will have to be looked at and worked out.

We need to have grand father clauses worked into regulations to ensure that we have the time that it's going to take. I understand that the Red River Community College turns out about 30 trained people in two years and they don't end up in rural centres. MR. B.

SHERMAN: So at the present time, what you're saying though esentially to the Committee, is that 29(1) is too nebulous and too wide open and it could do more damage than good unless the govern ment is prepared to examine very closely, with people who have had the kind of experience that the Central Region Association has had, the levels of qualification required and the source from which the funds are going to be available to fund that kind of training. MS J.

LUCAS: That's right and we only selected Sec tion 29(1) simply because we wanted to make the point that the Day Care budget would have to be increased to meet any one of the proposed standards. That's the bottom line for it all. MR. B. SHERMAN: Do you have any objections in principle to Day Care Centres offering enriched pro gramming and charging fees over and above the regu lar approved provincial fee or subsidy rate, in order to pay for those enriched services, if parents are willing to pay for them? MS J.

LUCAS: I hate answering hypothetical ques tions. 'If' is a very big word and I don't know whether there are too many parents around that would be -they may be willing but I think, economically speaking, they certainly would not be able to pay more than what is being charged to them at this point. 12 8 MR. B. SHERMAN: Well, it's not entirely a hypotheti cal question because there are Day Care Centres that do it.

I guess what I'm trying to get at with you is whether you think this objective of the government, under what is at this point, a pretty open-ended clause, 29(1 ), can be achieved, unless there's some flexibility in terms of the costs that are charged. Do you think it can be done under a standardized pro gram that limits and regulates the amount of fees that can be charged?

Do you think it's practical or realistic to suggest that the government and the province can supply the kind of Day Care spectrum that's proposed in the legislation and the kind of qualifications that are suggested, somewhat vaguely, by 29(1) without per mitting a range of opportunities for Day Care Centres to charge over and above the standard rate if parents can afford to pay more than the standard rate? MRS. J. LUCAS: I don't understand all the ramifica tions of a sliding scale, however, I do know that along with

Section 29(1) and any other

section in this bill, unless there is more money from someplace, we will not be able to implement one of the regulations. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thanks very much, Mrs. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you Mrs. Lucas. I was very interested in the overlying theme in most of your brief which seems to express a concern that somehow we are going to be taking the authority away from volun tary Boards. Was there something in the Act that led you to believe? MRS. J. LUCAS: There is nothing in the Act and that probably, again I will state, is one of our concerns.

I! is not outlined in the Act as to who the ultimate power will be given to regulate or to ensure that the stan dards are being adhered to. The point that we are trying to make from Central Region is, because of the amount of monies involved in the total program, we feel that because the volunteer community boards are doing a good job that it would not be in the best interest of the Care givers to have the kind of monies that would be going out to hire more Civil Service jobs. MS M. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to follow that up, first of all, one reference in the Act which, in fact, is incorporated in the name of the Act is the word "com munity" which I had hoped would give an indication to the Day Care community that we felt that Day Care was, indeed, a community responsibility, both in the determining of programming and the delivery of the service within the broad parameters of the Act; but also that funding for child care in this province is a community responsibility.

Now, obviously when you and your Association read the legislation that was not the message you picked up, am I correct in assuming that? MRS. J. LUCAS: No, we certainly were encouraged when we saw the emphasis on the word "community." However, we also are sti 11 concerned with the fact that it has not been laid out in black and white as to what is going to be happening.

Thursday, 24 June, 19 82 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Phillips. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you. With that then, you are concerned about Day Care personnel taking over the function of boards, somehow. Does that fear stem on anything that you found in the Act, or from past prac tice. considering that Day Care for the most part has been operated by co-operative or non-profit boards that have had autonomy, even if they are under the government program, and have been getting assis tance from Day Care Co-ordinators or the Day Care office? I'm curious as to where your concern comes from? MRS. J.

LUCAS: Well, let me say, that we have found the existing program to be working very well, at least as far as rural is concerned. We feel that the community-based boards have done a darn good job and are still doing a darn good job and we also feel that the position of a Co-ordinator as a resource per son is an advantage to each Centre, as long as the Co-ordinators have the sufficient training in child development, etc. And, as resource people, we plug into them for those kinds of things.

We would see a conflict arising if that job of the Co-ordinator would be expanded to, not only include a resource person, but then too also come into the Centre as an enforcer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Phillips. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I'm concerned about where you get that fear that that's the way it will happen from the Act. I'm justtryng to track down, you're quite firm throughout the first two pages of your brief, that that is a genuine concern of yours and so I'm trying to pick up. MRS. J. LUCAS: Well, are you assuring us that this is what will be then? MS M.

PHILLIPS: Well, I think under the existing reg ulations where a Day Care Board must have X percentage of parents. etc. under the Acts which incorporate co-ops and non-profit organizations, there are provisions for the makeup of those Boards and the duties of those Boards.

Under the concept that we have that perhaps we haven't communicated, being that our staff people would be there to assist Day Care Boards to develop a quality program if, say for instance. no one on the board had the expertise to lay out a program or your Day Care Director needed some assistance in program development, especially in rural areas. as you say, with the difficulty of obtain ing qualified staff. I see the Day Care office more as a resource function to help Day Care Centres through their Parent Boards and their Community Boards developing quality programs.

So, perhaps, as I say, we haven't communicated that as well as we might. MRS. J. LUCAS: That could be possibly so. MS M. PHILLIPS: In fact, we generally have kept most of those kind of things in the regulations so that flexi bility can be there. Now. all I can do at this point is assure you that on Page 2, where you have one person monitoring the individuality established by each Cen- 12 9 Ire's elected Board. I guess all I can do is assure you that that is definitely not our intention. MRS. J.

LUCAS: No, that's right and I suppose I should clarify that we have responded to certain other briefs with the suggestion in there that the Co ordinators would would be the enforcers and that probably is what we're responding to. MS M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in fact.

I would like to concur with you that Day Care Centres, up to this point, with voluntary Boards and Boards made up of working parents who usually, when they get home after a hard days work and have to do the housework as well, take time out to sit on Boards and do fund raising, etc. etc., have done a splendid job under hor rendous circumstances in the last 10 years of the Day Care Program. I guess I would also like to explore the issue that the Member for Fort Garry raised about staff qualifica tions.

First of all, in terms of the fact that in our Budget this year we increased the Day Care Budget by 30 percent as one of our key moves in terms of the Budget we presented. I guess I wonder whether that message got out, too, that Day Care does have a rather high priorty with us. MRS. J. LUCAS: Well, it certainly has and I would, again, say that we appreciate the emphasis that this government has placed on the Day Care Program. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Phillips. MS M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I also would like to concur with you that when you talk percen tages you always have to say 30 percent of what?

So I think the message that you're bringing that 30 percent of $9 million is certainly not adequate to do the kind of job that most of us know needs to be done out there. In terms of salaries then and money, and salaries commensurate with whatever qualifications end up in the regulations, and I am looking forward to having working papers, and going out to the community dur ing the interim of the session to work on those regula tions, and discuss what one does think the minimum qualifications should be.

In your response to the Member for Fort Garry, I guess I would like to have you clarify whether or not your Association from your experience trying to get staff that do a quality job with children in terms of early childhood education, whether you would con cur that a two-year Red River - Community College course, excuse me, I say Red River because that's all we have at the present and I'd like to add on to that -whether you would concur that would be desirable. MRS. J. LUCAS: Yes, it would be.

We hire girls with the understanding - in fact, that's one of the processes that they go through at the initial interview, that they make themselves available for any of the Red River extension courses that are available, and that is one of the areas that we start training our girls right away. I myself have been involved in a training program with staff from my particular Centre and we use every resource available to us.

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 MS M. PHILLIPS: So it's not a question then -e xcuse me, Mr. Chairperson, we're not supposed to have a conversation, you know, without going through him and ask a question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and ask a question. MS M. PHILLIPS: Well, I do want to get to the bottom of this. Mr. Chairperson, and Mr. Minister, of the fact that your Association would be then concerned about having (

a) the training available and (

b) the funds then to pay people who had gone to the trouble to upgrade themselves. MRS. J. LUCAS: That's right. MS M. PHILLIPS: it's not a concern that we will be expecting under this Act for people in the Day Care fields to over a period of time phased in achieve the goal of having some formal qualifications. MRS. J. LUCAS: That's right. MS M. PHILLIPS: Okay, thank you. In terms of, what was I going to say next? Somebody's singing. Oh, in terms of the Community College courses I guess I would like to make you aware that we are planning on extending the numbers and not just at . MRS. J.

LUCAS: Yes, I understand that. MS M. PHILLIPS: Not just at Red River but in the other Community Colleges. We have to look at this in terms of implementing the sections in the Act and the regulations of providing those facilities, so that will have to be worked out. MRS. J. LUCAS: That is one of our concerns also regarding some of the regulations that are forthcom ing. Can I just give you an example of what is going to be facing two of my staff this summer in order for them to get a three week course that is being offered?

They are giving up their holidays and they are also losing $900 in salary in order to take that three week course. MS M. PHILLIPS: There's nothing I can add to that. it's abominable. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: Yes, just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I'm a bit confused by your reference to the value of retaining Community Boards as Ms. Phillips sug gested, it's our hope that all the nonprofit organiza tions would, of course, in fact we would require them to have Community Boards. But I don't understand your reference to ensuring autonomy and then object ing to monitoring by staff.

You suggest that you want standards but it seems to me that you're suggesting that Voluntary Community Boards would ensure those standards are maintained to the point that we would not need anyone from the government, from the department, to go and make sure that standards were being maintained. We're being asked to raise stand ards, so how do you propose that we can satisfy our selves that a nutritious lunch is being served; that staff 130 ratios are being abided by; that the health care is adequate; that the children are not just sitting watch ing TV all day?

You know, the developmental pro gram, if one is put in place, how do we ensure that? Are you suggesting we simply rely on the Voluntary Community Board that that will be done? MRS. J. LUCAS: Well, first of all, Mr. Evans, if you had a child in a Centre, and you were one of the 30 percent of the parents that sat on the Board, I am sure that you would be more than aware of the kind of consistent care that was going on in the Centre. We feel that parents because they are going to be part of the Board, at least 30 percent of the Board, certainly are going to be up on the kind of things that goes on in the Centres.

For Centres that may be in arrears, that are maybe not living up to the proposed standards, we have pro posed that a Regional Advisory Board be selected. That would be where one Board member be selected and they would form a Regional Advisory Board. They would be in direct communication with the Day Care Office and would be under the direction of the Day Care Office Director. Between them they would work out a satifactory solution to the problem. When you are offering care, a community service, you cannot for very long fool all of the people all of the time and your reputation precedes you. HON. L.

EVANS: Are you at all unhappy about the degree of monitoring that goes on at the present time where we do have Regional Co-ordinators who go in and ensure that certain basic health standards, physi cal standards are being maintained. MRS. J. LUCAS: None at all. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms Phillips, do you have another question? MS M. PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, if you'd be quick please, we're running on. MS M. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll make it quick. In terms of the staff qualifications again; the

section that deals with the staff qualifications review committee. We intended to have that be able to deal with equivalency in terms of experience of all those Day Care workers that are out there in the field and have gained a lot of experience. Does that mechanism sound satisfactory to your Association in terms of recognizing the expe rience they have and maybe requiring that they then add on with additional courses to get their certificate? MRS. J. LUCAS: Yes, it's very intriguing and it sounds very exciting that, you know, the foresight would be displayed in this sort of a way.

Our concern would be certainly that rural would have some representation on that review committee Board. MS M. PHILLIPS: That committee sounds acceptible, say, to the Day Care workers in the Centres that you

Thursday, 24 June, 19 82 -------------- represent? MRS. J. LUCAS: Yes. MS M. PHILLIPS: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much Mrs. Lucas. Could I call next either Ann Barr or Rose Parker. Okay we have a Brief, and we'll present that as you're getting ready to speak. Could you identify yourself, please? MRS. A. BARR: I'm Ann Barr and I'm representing the Manitoba Association of Social Workers. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. A. BARR: The Manitoba Association of Social Workers wishes to commend the Government of Manitoba for bringing Bill 21 before the Legislature.

There's an ever-growing need for Day Care facilities for children in this province, and we feel strongly that to place priority on high quality Day Care is an investment in our future. We trust that

an Act to set standards for Day Care will result in better care for a larger number of children who are looked after out side of their homes for a significant portion of each working day. The Manitoba Association of Social Workers sup ports the general requirements of the Bill, 3(1) and 3(2), calling for an environment conducive to the health, safety and well-being of the children, and for the provision of activities to promote physical, social, emotional and intellectual development of the chil dren cared for within Day Care facilities. We are aware of the importance of meeting these needs in young children.

Many social workers come into contact with children, adolescents and adults who have not had their basic personal needs met. and who subsequently become involved in the child welfare and justice sys tems. or who require treatment because of mental health problems or because of difficulties in their fam ily relationships. The long term consequences of this are very costly to society in human and financial terms.

While we would not assert that Day Care can prevent all of these problems, we feel it should be a priority of the community to provide the best possible care to young children, as one way to promote the development of well-adjusted, productive adult citizens. lt follows that the establishment of a Day Care Staff Qualifications Review Committee, to advise the Minis ter on requirements for and qualifications of staff and training thereof. is most important. lt is necessary for the staff to be aware of the various needs of young children and to have the skills to create a social envi ronment and specific programs that will help them to develop to the maximum of their potential for each developmental stage.

We also feel it is important that staff relate to the children in ways that will enhance their sense of self-esteem, as this is basic to their positive emotional development. A certificate in child care from a community college, or its equivalent, should be required of Day Care Cen tre Directors and at least one worker in each group of children. We are aware that many individuals have 13 1 acquired the personal qualities and knowledge required to do the job from their work and life expe rience.

We recommend that Day Care staff have the opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications and skills through Challenge Credit Exams or some other mechanism. We feel that the care of children should not necessarily become restricted to professionals. This is particularly so in the case of family Day Care, which we feel should remain as it presently is designed, a service provided by competent individuals who are screened and assessed regularly by professional Day Care co-ordinators.

Adequate supervision by trained professionals would seem to be the key to maintaining standards of care and I mean there, specifically in relation to qualifications and skills. In addition, we recommend adequate access to child care related courses that could lead to a certificate, in-service pro grams and extension courses. lt should be noted that many of the children in Day Care have special needs because of physical, mental or social handicaps, and training should be available, as necessary, in order that staff have the knowledge to deal with the particu lar needs of these children.

We would like, at this time, to endorse, in general, the proposed "Standards in Day Care" that have been developed by the Coalition on Day Care, of which we are a member. I shall elaborate on and qualify several points made in their paper. MASW supports the principle of non profit Day Care for children_ lt is traditional in this province, that care outside of the home, for children in need, has been provided on a nonprofit basis; for example, foster care, adoption, many group treatment facilities and, in the past, orphanages.

Philosophically we feel that these services should be offered with the best inter ests of the children as the primary concern. I might just say that we are not against Day Care workers, be they family Day Care or in Day Care Centres, being paid an adequate salary and a living wage. Non profit, community-based Day Care, with parental involve ment, as outlined in the Coalition's standards paper, offers the opportunity for creation of a network of community activities and support services for families and their young children. The components of this have already been outlined and you've had access to their papers.

I won't detail them now. At a time when nuclear families are increasingly isolated and working parents, particularly single parents are often under stress and without traditional family support systems, this model offers potential for positive support for these families and for the com munity as a whole. There's a need for more Lunch-and-After-School programs.

There appears to be a growing number of children under the age of twelve who are left without supervision while parents work. lt is important that there be adequate funds to support such programs and that the Day Care Office have the mandate to assist in organizing these programs in communitites unable to do so on their own. Parents, of course, must accept some responsibility for organizing the resour ces needed by their children. However, it is often the parents in need of these facilities who are the least able to mobilize the community because of their lack of time. energy and organizational experience.

Here again, the community model may provide an oppor-

Thursday, 24 June, 19 82 !unity to parents to become more involved with the care provided for their children and to increase the awareness of some parents of the need for adequate supervision for their children. In terms of children with special needs, we would recommend the continuation of the Special Needs Family Day Care Program administered by Family Services of Winnipeg and funded by the province. This program allows for the recruitment of Day Care providers who are willing to care for children who have extra needs in a family atmosphere where numbers are limited.

This does not lead to segrega tion from the community for these children. This pro gram, with a higher ratio of staff to Day Care homes, is able to offer more intensive professional support to providers. The higher per diem rate paid to providers of Day Care for physically and mentally handicapped children should be continued. Otherwise, we would endorse the recommendation of the Coalition that special needs children be integrated into regular Day Care Centres, and that there be recognition of the need for additional training of workers to deal with their particular requirements.

The provision of a posi tive Day Care experience for these children can greatly enhance their development toward independ ence and provide much needed relief and support to their families. We agree that present salaries are inadequate in relation to the training for and responsibilities and importance of the job. Decent salaries are required to attract and keep skilled employees. We do feel that family Day Care providers should continue to be paid on a per diem basis so that all of them are paid equally for the job that they do.

We would be opposed to their being paid salaries that vary according to their educa tion and training. However, we feel that per diem rate should be brought to a level where it is economically viable for them to provide that service and may attract more well-qualified persons to provide that service. In conclusion, the Manitoba Association of Social Workers again expresses support for the introduction of legislation to set standards for the provision of Day Care.

We look forward to the implementation of the proposals of the Coalition for the continuation and expansion of the present community based model of child care as a step toward enhancing and strengthen ing the family lives of many of our citizens. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Barr. Are there any questions? Yes, Mr. Nordman. MR. R. NOR DMAN: I think I only have one. it's not really a question; it's just a statement.

I think this is the fifth or maybe the sixth presenta tion that we've heard and this is the first one which says anything about the parents having any responsi bility and it briefly says, "parents of course must accept some responsibility for organizing the resour ces needed by their children." As far as I'm concerned, it's the parents' responsibility for the whole damn thing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, on a point of order, the Member for River East. 132 MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Chairman, it's not the function of the Committee to debate the issues with the people. MR. R. NORDMAN: I'm not debating, I made a statement. MR.

CHAI RMAN: Actually the point of order is quite correct, Mr. Nordman, not to reprimand at all, but the role of the Committee is to hear and to ask questions on the specific points brought forward as they relate to the Bill by those appearing before us. I would ask, in asking our questions as well, if we could be somewhat more limited and a bit more concise. We've been mov ing along pretty good, much better than this morning at least. Once we get in, Mr.

Nordman, if you wish to make statements and points of view, in particular, I would suggest that the place we do that is when we get into the clause-by-clause debate ourselves. MR. R. NORDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: Yes. I've got to agree with you, but I think that there's two sides to every coin and I can understand Mr.

Nordman being reprimanded, but I think the duties of this Committee is to ask questions of clarification, rather than to point out their own views or to bring out the views of a particular side and I think that has been happening and I would hope that we would follow the rules for both sides. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, it will be. lt will be very clearly. Okay is there any other? Mr. Sherman, with a question. MR. L. SHERMAN: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Barr, I don't have the Coalition on Day Care paper in front of me, but I do have it. I just haven't got it in front of me.

I'd like to ask you, because I don't recall exactly whether this point was addressed or not. You make considerable reference to the question of stan dards and the fact that the Manitoba Association of Social Workers endorses the standards on Day Care presentation by the Coalition. Do you believe that standards can be developed for Day Care and imple mented in a universal way in a province like Manitoba? Are you advocating rigid, universal standards that would apply in rural Manitoba, remote regions of Manitoba, Northern Manitoba, in the same way that they would apply in urban centres?

I ask that for clari fication because I don't recall whether the Coalition addressed that specifically. MRS . A. BARR: I don't believe the question of differ ent standards for different parts of the province was addressed. I think we support that need for a minimum level of standards no matter where it is but the ques tion of how those would be applied I believe would come out in specific regulations which could vary, depending on the situation and circumstances. MR. B. SHERMAN: Do you see any difficulty with the process that were embarked upon at the present time,

Thursday, 24 June, 19 82 of looking at a bill that leaves all that to regulation, and with re spect to my colleague, Ms Phillips, the Hon ourable Member for Wolseley, I disagree with her and I would expect that she would expect me to disagree with her. when she says that one of the reasons that we 've left these to regulations is so we will have the fle xibility. Not to be argumentative, my position is precisely the opposite. Leaving it to regulations means you will have no flexibility; the governme nt will decide what the regulations will be.

Do you have any diffi culty with the process you're going through he re , making representations to a Committee on a bill that simply is Enabling Le gislation, or do you feel that ther e's enough substance to the bill that the exercise is worthwhile? MRS. A. BARR: I would just say that our Board has expressed no concerns about the process. MR. B. SHERMAN: Are you going to be making repr esentations to the governme nt on the regulations themselves? MRS. A. BARR: I would presume so. MR. B. SHERMAN: Could you give the Committee any indication of what your fe elings are with respect to the cost require ments?

Do you thin k it's practical to talk in terms of the training standards and qualifica tions that are at least proposed by the bill, without addressing the fiscal side of the question at the same time? MRS. A.

BARR: Obviously they're relate d but I would just have to say that we, I guess thankfully, can leave that to the governm ent . lt is a problem in te rms of being realistic and at the same time having standards and we're very aware of the costs that would be involved in having qualified staff. having them paid adequat ely and just even providing the numbe r of licensed and subsidized space s that are required. lt is a treme ndous task and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to deal with that problem. MR. B.

SHERMAN: In your experience as a social worker and your experience with Day Care, what is the de sirable requireme nt in terms of training for a qualifie d Day Care worke r. Is it a two-year course at a Community College? MRS. A. BARR: I, myself, don't work in the Day Care field but we have supported the concept of the two year Community College course or its equivalent and I thin k that could be any number of things in terms of training and experience. We'd want to recognize peo ple's experience as well. MR. B.

SHERMAN: And would you see that require ment being impose d on everybody who is in the Day Care field at the present time ? MRS. A. BARR: No. I think we pointe d out that, first of all, at the pre sent time there should be opportunities for pe ople to prove their qualifications but that the two-year basic qualification should be part of the Directors of Centres and one staff person per group of 133 children, but not every employ ee or every Family Day Care provider. MR. B.

SHERMAN: So there would be categorie s or grade s of Day Care worke rs, employees of Day Care Centres would not require, in your view, the intensive two-year Community College training course. MRS. A. BARR: Yes. MR. B. SHERMAN: Than k you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Than k you. Any other que stions? Mr. Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: Just very short questions. I've be en liste ning to the prese ntations and I have heard nobody make any reference to how community Day Care worke rs re late with children.

I thin k I heard them saying that they require university or Red River Col lege two-year courses and things of that nature but nothing about relating with children. In your opinion, would that be the prime requisite to be working in a Day Care Centre , the ability to relate with children rather than a course at Red River College? MRS. A. BARR: Well, that's obviously one of the re q uisites that one would hope those who have the train ing would have and those without it would have as we ll. I thin k we did mention the ability to relate to children in ways that enhance their self-estee m.

I thin k that's what that sentence was really all about although you may not have picke d up that meaning from it. I think, when we talk about knowledge of child dev elopment and needs at various developm ental stages, it is more than just kind of a cold and clinical knowledge. lt is a sense of what does that child nee d in terms of emotional de velopment and that does come down to the way in which the people relate to them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kovnats. Another question? MR. A.

KOVNA TS: I'm trying to give the credibility to the Brief that it dese rve s inasmuch as there was one statement, "We feel that the care of children should not nec essarily become restricted to professionals." Is this where you're re lating to the ability to relate with children? Thank you. MRS. A. BARR: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Phillips. MS M. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask Mrs.

Barr if she sees any comparison betwee n central standards in this leg islation, the requireme nt provincially for certain stan dards to be met throughout the province, taking into account regional pref erences or preferences of par ents in a particular Centre . Do you see any compari son between that and the requirement provincially unde r The Public Schools Act for certain programs and qualifications for staff which are lined out, by the way, in detail in the regulations and the variety of children that we have throughout the province in the public school system?

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 MRS. A. BARR: I suppose there is but I, personally, and the Board, haven't addressed that particular questi on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any more questions? Mr. Evans. HON. L. EVANS: In the Brief you talked about the necessity for knowing details and setting of standards and so on and these will have to be forthcoming. But would Mrs.

Barr agree that, in large measure, the regu lations setting out standards will ultimately depend and will have to depend on the amount of money we can get from the Treasury of Manitoba to ensure that we have standards, whether it's ratios of staff to child ren, the degree of facilities, the qualifications of the personnel we use. Would you agree that what we set out in regulations, what we set out in standards, will ultimately be limited by the amount of money we have available to ensure that we can get those standards at a given level. in place? MRS. A. BARR: Ultimately, I accept that, yes. HON. L.

EVANS: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your Brief and your comments, Mrs. Barr. Next I'd like to call Doris West. While she's coming to the mike, I would ask the Clerk to give out the presentation, or at least some background to the presentation, I should say, Ms West, before you start. Your presentation is rather lengthy and I would hope that you're going to be making a consensus of it or a

summary, in your pres entations if that's possible. If you're giving us a synop sis, would that throw you off key too much? MS D. WEST: lt probably would, I haven't done this very often. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MS D. WEST: I went through it before I came and it took me about 25 minutes so I don't think it should take too long. Good evening, Mr. Chairperson, and members of · the Committ ee . We would like to compliment the Hon. Len Evans and Myrna Phillips for their hard work in developing The Community Child Day Care Act.

We also appreciate the Committee members involvement here and we realize that it will take a long time and many hours of your dedicated work. We are really excited about the significant time for Day Care in Manitoba. I think for the first time we really feel like we're getting somewhere. I have been introduced as Doris and I am Doris and I would just like to add that I'm the Director of Brooklands Day Care Centre and I'm here on behalf of the Manitoba Child Care Association.

The Manitoba Child Care Association is an organi zation for people concerned with all areas of child care. lt was established in 1974 in response to the Provincial Government Day Care Program. The goals of the Association are: 1) to promote the continuing development of any service for the care of children 12 years and younger. 134 2) to advocate quality standards and guidelines designed to maintain quality child care . 3) to educate the parents and the general public regarding the value of child care services.

The membership, consisting of 355 individuals, is mainly comprised of Child Care workers with a variety of educational backgrounds and experience. lt is representative of quite a geographical cross

section of Manitoba. The Advisory Committee of the MCC A through many meetings, discussions, and much listening, have developed the main core of the following pro posed Child Care standards. They have been designed by people with working experience in the Child Care field . The committee has been successful in receiving input and approval from the general membership of the MCC A. The ideas have been carefully reviewed and represent our realistic and knowledgeable opin ions, thoughts, and views.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to present our concerns and what, in our judgment, are min imally acceptable standards. We would like to start by going through concerns we have with the bill. We feel very pleased with the general thrust of the bill, how ever, we have some certain reservations.

Section 1, under

Definitions, we strongly recom mend that facilities offering babysitting while parents are participating in recreational opportunities in the facility such as racquet courts or the spa, be included under

definitions, perhaps, under Occasional Day Care Centre to ensure they meet minimal guidelines.

Section 15, Interim License; 16, Provisional License; 17, Orders Respecting Requirements. We strongly urge that the Director and staff, Board of Directors and parents must be notified by the Day Care office when an interim or provisional license and orders respecting requirements is issued to a Centre. We feel that parents and all involved have a right to know this information.

Section 27 (1 )' Day Care Staff Qualifications Review Committee. Because of the responsibilities of this Committee we strongly urge that the members be chosen with great care. We would like to see the Review Committee expanded to 10 or 11 members . including : two rural representatives; one Family Care representative; two MCC A representatives; one school age Child Care representative; one community rep.; two parent representatives; one college or university faculty member; and one professional rep.

Section 29(3), Ministerial Certificate. We under stand the reasoning for this certificate but it is our belief that the qualifications of staff directly affect the quality of program offered. We strongly urge a method be made available for the person receiving the minis terial certificate to obtain Child Care training. Secton 32, Further Assistance. Our concern with this particular

section is that certain individuals migh! attempt to take unfair advantage of the government's generosity, therefore, we would like to see the condi tions of assistance defined clearly to prevent abuse. I'd like to now turn to the list of standards which the MCC A recommends be adopted which expand on regulations to fall under

Section 33. The Child Care Standards. In submitting the follow ing standards there is an assumption that the funding criteria from the government would change to

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 accommodate the faci litation of these standards. The first

section we go through is staff qualifications and we feel that this

section deserves careful considera tion as we feel it is of utmost importance in ensuring qua lity care. An individua l working prior to the effec tive date of regu lation may retain the position with qualifications different from those stated providing that they have demonstrated competence in that job and will pursue the appropriate courses to ensure adequate qualifications . Also. an indivi dual who feels they have the ex pertise and/or ex perience could chal lenge the certificate or the dip loma. The criteria for this could be estab lished by the Department of Education.

The Director must have a degree or diploma from a recognized education al institution in Early Chi ldhood Education and at least two years ex perience. Busi ness Administration background would be an asset. We would like to advise that the Business Administra tion be made avai lable and as Aleda referred to this morning it has been happening through Project Man age. A lot of Child Care workers at this time have been finding that the rates, although they are as cheap as they can be, are sti ll too expensive.

Child Care Worker Ill must have a degree or diploma from a recognized education al institution in Early Chi ldhood Education. A Child Care Worker 11 must have a certificate in Early Chi ldhood Education or equiva lent. The dip loma is a two-year program offered at Red River : the certificate is an evening pro gram equivalent to the first year of the dip loma.

The Child Care Worker I, an individual who demonstrates desirable qua lities to work with chi ldren and wi ll immediately pursue appropriate courses to ensure adequate qualifications. lt should be noted, at this time in Manitoba, there is no specific training avail able in infant care, birth to 2 years, or school age child care, 6 to 12 years. Training must be made available to ensure proper qualifications of staff.

The Directors must be a Child Care Worker Ill and will count for only v, person in the staff-child ratio but in Centres licensed for over 24 chi ldren the Director may not be counted in the child staff ratio. Each child group must have a minimum of one Child Care Worker Ill on the fl oor at all times. There is a maximum of one Child Care Worker I per group. The Child- Staff Ratios and Group Size. This is another area we feel deserves careful consideration because these factors also directly affect the quality of care offered .

The staff in the chi ld-staff ratios include only those in the actual care of chi ldren. Work ing ratios must be upheld at all times. To ensure for safety, there must be a minimum of 2 people in the child facility at all times when one or more chi ldren are present. Infants and toddlers are to be comp letely separated from other groups of chi ldren in the facil ity by a separate room. We'd also like to add that other groups must be separated by at least a physica l barrier or divider to prevent general mixing of the groups in one room.

Fol lowing, you' ll note there's a chart showing age, maximum group size and staff-child ratios. We feel this chart is straightforward and covers all the age groups that can be al lowed. Presently, regu lations are unclear in this area. 13 5 The Physica l Faci lities.

Every Child Centre sha ll provide designated space for activity rooms, pl ay, toi leting, washing, eating, dressing, resting, the prepara tion of food if meals are prepared on the premises, an office, staff rest periods, isolation for hea lth reasons, storage for food, beds, bedding, toys, indoor and out door pl ay material and equipment, cl eaning equip ment and medi ca l supp lies, and where not shared with other faci lities, heating and el ectrical equipment. Physical faci lities to be used by chi ldren are to be child size.

There must be 4 square metres of usable indoor pl ayroom space for each licensed child space. This space does not include permanent fixtures such as lockers, kitchen cupboards, storage, etc. There must be reasonable access to 25 square metres of usable outdoor space for each child in ex ist ing Centr es . All newly created Centres must have direct access to 25 metres of outdoor space per child. This area must be fenced. There must be one indoor toilet and one sink for every 10 chi ldren. Carefu l consideration must be taken in regard to natural lighting and windows at the child's level.

New Centres must have all indoor space used by chi ldren at ground level. Nutrition. Each child in attendance for a full day must be provided with one nutritious lunch and two nutritious snacks. All menus are to be approved by a nutritionist to ensure that the Centre's providing three quarters of a child's daily nutriti onal requirem ents . Each Centre wi ll ensure proper food management procedures are maintained. We recommend that pro visions be made for workshops in food handling to take pl ace. Consideration must be given in regard to breakfast needs to chi ldren who arrive early.

Centres open as early as 7 o'clock in the morning and it may be diffic ult for chi ldren to have something to eat before they reach the Centre. Under Program. We want to see Centres remain unique and individ ual for parents to choose what best accommodates their needs. While we encourage Cen tres to maintain their individuality, every Centre should have written statements, for parents and staff, out lining the program phi losophy and method of management in each of the fol lowing areas : Daily Schedule, inc luding daily outdoor pl ay, weather per mitting.

We'd like to see guidelines concerning weather for outdoor pl ay to be defined in the regula tions. Health care for children and staff, program poli cies and records, parenta l involvement: we feel this is a necessity and a must for Centres to be involved in. it's strongly urged. We want to see it strongly urged for Centres to involve their parents . Age appropriate and suitable equipment and supplies : a variety of age appropriate activities for chi ldren based on objective goa ls, providing social, physica l, inte llect ual, artistic and emotio nal deve lopment.

Also we would like to have outlined positive behaviour and guidance tech niques. We feel that co-ordinators can act as a resource person in this area to ensure we ll rounded programs are being offered. In the past, punishment has been seen in Day Care Centres. There's no room for punishment in guiding

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 --------------------- ------ positive behaviour, or guiding behaviour positively. This

section is important to provide protection for children and to encourage positive techniques to be used. To ensure child protecti on. the following forms of discipline shall not be used : corporal punishment, including but not limited to the followi ng : striking a child directly or with any physical object; shaking ; shoving; spanking or other forms of aggressive con tact; requiring br forcing the child to repeat physical movements; physical restraint as a form of punish ment; also harsh, humiliating, belittling or degrading responses of any form including verbal, emotional and physical.

The next area we've covered is Special Needs . We feel also this needs special consideration for ex pan sion is greatly needed. Special needs is defined as physically handicapped, mentally handicapped. emo tionally disturbed and environmentally deprived. Cen tres with the resources and capabilities should have an option to provide for children with special needs. lt should be noted that in Manitoba, up to this date, there has been no combination of expertise and practical knowledge in the area of mainstreaming special needs children into group care. We feel research is needed in this area . Safety.

All staff must have a valid first aid or life saving certific ate. All staff must have knowledge of fire safety regulations and be trained and ex perienced in the use of fire safety equipment. We feel training in the use of fire safety equipment must be made availa ble. Although we all have fire extinguishers in our Centres, if we really had to use them I don't know if there's one person that would know how to put out a fire. There are two additions that we've made in this area that are not noted on the page.

We feel a closer look needs to be taken considering child transportation in day care settings, necessary to have defined guide lines to ensure child safety. Also pool activities, whether recreational or instructional, we feel require clearly defined child instructor ratios and guidelines to ensure safety. The Board of Directors. The present Provincial Day Care Program regulations governing the Board of Directors should be adhered to. Parents must consti tute at least 30 percent of the Board of Directors for · each Centre by the first annual meeting.

We feel it is very important that Centres are to be provided with the resources to educate the Board of Directors in their responsibilities and duties. Enforcement. We are in agreement with the sec tions in Bill 21 dealing with enforceme nt . We feel the Board of Directors are responsible for all aspects of Centre operation . The role of the Provincial Child Day Care Office will be to act as a resource and administra tive support service to the Board of Directors, the staff and parents of the Centre. Co-ordinators must have relevant educational background and experience in the child care field.

Each area will have an appropriate number of co-ordinators to allow for regular visits and quarterly reports. Reports are to be made available to staff, parents and Board of Directors. The Provincial Child Day Care Office will have forced legislative regulations through the day care co-ordinators. We feel they are in the best position to evaluate our programs. Where a Centre's Board dis- 136 agrees with the co-ordinator's evaluation, there must a means of appeal through a community based Arbi tration Board before further action can be taken.

In the event a Centre is in breach of any standards, the Provincial Child Day Care Office will impose an appropriate penalty, including imposing a suitable probationary period in writing to the staff, parents and the Board of Directors, putting the Centre under administrative receivership similar to the trusteeships set out in The Public Schools Act and closing the Centre. We feel these proposals outline our major concerns with Bill 21 and present a realistic picture of what is necessary to provide quality care to young childre n. We urge you to consider our proposals very carefully.

Before ending our presentation, we have a few more concerns we would like to address. Staff qualifications have been demonstrated to have direct influence on the quality of program offered to children. We have attached a copy of a study for your information, that is, attached to your presentation there. We feel strongly that it is time to push for Child Care Worker qualifications and provide opportunities for academic upgrading. Also, we feel it is time to push for Child Care Worker recognition.

No matter how long we spoke and how many stories we told, we feel we could not really inform you as to how important and demanding this field of work is. Guiding children's behaviour and pro viding many learning experiences for ch ildren requires dedication and conscientious plann ing. We would like to see the government recognize this fact and provide increases in budgeting that will accomo date healthy wage increases to a field of workers who have for years sacrificed their income levels for their child care programs. This may also attract more male workers to the field which we feel is important.

We would like to see a study, perhaps a job evalua tion program, wh ich would attempt to establish an equitable wage scale for Child Care Workers in com parison to other professionals. This could be used as a guideline to assist Board of Directors in making their decisions for staff wages. Finally, we would like to point out that we feel it is really important to maintain public input throughout the remainder of the process which will determine the final shape the regulations are to take.

We would recommend that once the proposed regulations are drafted, they be circulated to the public and open to response through public meetings, presentations and written Briefs. The regulations will be the heart of The Community Child Day Care Standards Act. Thank you for this opportunity to present our ideas. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mi ss West. Do we have questions? Ms Phillips. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Miss West, in two areas, both including business adminis tration backgrounds for directors or training in the financial operation of the Centre and also, for courses for the members of the boards, you've suggested that courses be provided. My question, considering we've talked a lot already today about the inadequate funding and the need for

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 funding directed to the care of the children and to me that would be the first priority, is there any way an association like yours could offe r those kind of courses? You don't say in here who should be offering them. I'm assuming you're te lling us we should be offering them. MS D WEST: Well, I feel right now that Centre s do not have the funding to provide that to Board of Directors. Something like Project Manage does put on work shops specifically for a Board of Dire ctors, but that involves some money and we're asking volunteers to pay to be tte r themselves .

I don't really fee l that's fair. Also, for the administration for Directors, it's the same circumstances, although I know Project Man age is offering the programs as ine xpensively as pos sible, because they are being subsidized, it is still a lot of money to ask directors to pay to go to these workshops. So somehow that is going to be worked out. Per haps Day Care co-ordinators would be in a position to offe r more assistance in this are a to Board of Dir ec tors. I fee l that they are knowledgeable or could obtain the knowledge to pass on to the Board of Dir ectors.

I'm sure that staff people gen erally, would feel that if they were ge tting paid an equitable wage, they proba bly wouldn't mind paying to further their education . So, it's either we see more money coming to Child Care Workers, we 'll probably be willing to take that, but if that doesn't come, we fee l that we ne ed assis tance in that specific area. MS M. PHILLIPS: I was wondering whethe r a co operative approach on that would be int eresting to your Centre in terms of your organization.

I know your newslette r goes to most Day Care workers or Day Care Centre s, at least, doing the organizational work with the governm ent perhaps providing the staff per son to run the workshop. MS D. WEST: One of our goals is to help educate and I'm sure that the Child Care Association would be quite willing to get involved in that aspect. Unfortu nately, they too, are a little tight when it come s to funding. I'm sure that on behalf of the Association, we would be quite willing to get involved and see some thing like that happening. MS M.

PHILLIPS: One more question quickly. ln Sec tion 4, under 'Enforcement' of your Brief, you're ask ing for an appeal mechanism in terms of the evalua tion of the co-ordinators. My understanding of

Section 20 of the Act, there is an appeal procedure that would take into account the fact that if the evaluation from the co-ordinator said that segme nt of the licensing re quirement, be it programming or physical space or whatev er, was not being adhered to and there was a danger of the licence being revoked or not being issued in the first place that there is that app eal proce dure under

Section 20. Whe n you read that, is that not adequate for the MS D. WEST: Yes, we felt quite please d with the out line that was there. I fee l that does cover. MS M. PHILLIP S: I just wanted to clarify whether you 137 were asking for something more than that. MS D. WEST: No, I fe el that we did discuss this and we felt that we were fairly pleased with the way it was worded here . MS M. PHILLIP S: One more question, Mr. Chairper son.

Th e issue about parental involvement through out your Brief, especially on boards, to me only takes into account the situation of co-operative or non profit boards. lt doesn't take into account the profit making Centre s or the ve ry small, sort of, I'd call them Aunt Sally's corner Day Care Centre where this one individual or two individuals are running a Centre on their own and there's no parent board. Are you sug gesting that in those circumstances, there should be parent boards? Is this for all Day Care Centre s in the province or just the ones that we've covered now under the ones that we subsidize?

MS D. WEST: I feel that parents should have some input into what's happening in their programs. We feel strongly that the place for them to take their role in putting something into the program is through the Board of Dir ectors. I'm hoping that with the regula tions that the situations you're describing would fit under

definitions and ther efore, they would have to go as far as having a Board of Directors in having that Board of Directors comprised partially of parents. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Evans, do you have a question? HON. L. EVANS: Just one question. I'd like to thank you very much for the Brief. lt was very informative and sets out a lot of very good ideas.

I'm wondering whe ther the delegate, Ms West, would agree that some of the de tailed standards that are outlined in the Brief, such as reference to Day Care worke r I, 11, Ill, the different levels, etc., and the requir ements, that it would be re asonable to expect the government to work gradually towards bringing forth re quire d standards. Is it not reasonable to expect that any gov ernment considering the limitation of funds that we always se em to be faced with these days would have to take some time to work into gradually and steadily, nevertheless, towards some ideal set of standards? MS D.

WEST: I'm hoping that the governme nt would set it so that we could work up toward it. Unde r 'Staff Qualifications,' I feel we have put a grandfather clause in there, or a grandmother clause, as Aleda would refer to it. I do fee l that it's not going to happen over night and it is going to take some time and we are going to have to allow the time for people to obtain their training. lt may not happen in one year ; it may take five years to happe n, but I would hope that the re gulations would be set so that we are working towards what we have proposed. MR. L.

EVANS: Just one other question then - maybe put you in a bit of an awkward position, but there is, as Aleda Turnbull indicated this morning in her presen tation, a great demand for Child Day Care spaces. I think she refe rred to an estimate of only about a third of the demand being provided for, that two-thirds still

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 had to be provided for. Now, the additional funding that is being requested over and above the $11 or $12 millio n that we have already in this year's Estimate will be needed both for physical expansion of program, namely, more Day Care spaces, more Day Care Centres and facilities as well as further funding to upgrade standards. So I just wondered if we could get some guida nce . lt may be an unfair question, but where would you put the emp ha sis?

We really have to do both and I'm in a bit of a quandary as to where should we put the em phasis, physical expa nsion. that is, meeting that additional two-thirds that Mrs. Turnbull talked about or going more money into higher standards than what we've got? MS D. WEST: Well, I don't know if I ca n speak on behalf of the Associatio n for this ; I can tell you how I feel about it. I would ho pe that both could be covered; that would be really nice . But I know that we do have fina ncial restrictions and that probably both ca nnot be covered.

I feel that now that we have some programs deve lo ped, I would like to en sure that the quality of care that's being offered to the children today is adequate. I know last year I went out and visited a few Ce ntres and I came back really upset. I felt that I went in to each Ce ntre and came out with a differ en t feeling - excuse me, I cry very easily - and I would ho pe to think that the care that we 're offering should be the quality care and that we expand later on. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions for Ms West? MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairma n, I'd just like to ask Ms West , with res pect to the cert ainly, the immi nently laudable objectives that the Mani toba Child Care Association sets out to the Day Care field , has the Associatio n had the op portunity, or does it have the ability to provide any costing estimates on the kinds of programs you're proposing? Do you have any idea for the help of legislators as to what we're talking about here in terms of an annual cost of operating a program · of this kind? MS D.

WEST: I can see that would take a lot of research and I would anticipate that the Associatio n would help out in any way that they can. I feel that there are some Ce ntres in Wi nnip eg right now, not very many, but there are some that are offering pretty close to what these standards are suggesting. So I feel that we could probably come up with a fair estimate as to what the actual cost is and what money we would feel comfortable with to provide those ty pes of stand ards. I think that is somethi ng we could research and come up with something. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, I just might say by way of comment, Mr.

Chairman, I think that' d be very helpful. I can't speak for the gover nment, obviously , but from the Opp osition's point of view, it would certainly be very hel pful. But just to reconfirm in response to the Mi nister, if 138 we look at the projected increase in the Day Care budget for 1982-83 over 198 1-82, as I calculate it unless the Mi nister's uncovered some additio nal sup plementary spen ding - it's $2.4 millio n on a base of 9.3 which is 26 percent.

Now. he's announced that he's moving into ini tiatives to provide 750 new spaces which. with cost price increase and the inflatio n rate, etc., etc., will certainly eat up that $2.4 million. What you're saying to him is your priority would be to forget the 750 new spaces and put the $2.4 millio n in to the first stage of im plementation of some standards, is that right? MS D. WEST: I guess that's what I did say, wasn't it? MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, I'm not disagreei ng with that, but I just want you to tell the Op position what to do so that we ca n keep the gover nment honest and in line. MS D. WEST: Okay.

I don't know if I really have an answer for that. I feel that -I spoke on my behalf in that regard and there are a lot of childre n that are receiv in g, I feel, inadequate care in Day Care Centres right now, but there are probably a lot of children in private situations that are really receiving perh aps worse care. So the two are really important to look into. I really feel it's difficult to set a priority as to what is more important, but I would defi nitely like to see the quality of care being offered now in the Cent res we have now, upgraded. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thanks very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Smith. HON.

M. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chair person, I would just like to ask Ms West if she considered offering the services of her organizatio n to work with government on costing? In your presentation, you made me ntion of a lot of the costs to society of not having good child care. I think you mentioned disturbed child ren, men tal health problems later on, a lot of family difficulties. Customarily , when we cost thi ngs out, we look at the direct costs and don't look at some of the long- term costs of what happ en s if we don't do such programs.

I wondered if your Association had thought of per ha ps offering to co-operate with gover nment in some kind of a study of that wider ty pe of cost benefit study? MS D. WEST: I'm glad you pointed that out because it is really imp ortant. I know of one Director that had stated to me - she was the Director of a Centre and she asked her Child Care Workers how many children that had bee n through their program were having difficulty in ki ndergarte n or Grade 1 and they could not remember any children that were having difficulty in those primary grades.

So I feel that Day Care in a good situation is offering a lot for children and in the end is going to cost less all around for the tax payers' money. But, I feel that, on behalf of the Associatio n, if there's anything we ca n do to help the se regulati ons get through and to en sure that they are what we want to see, we will be more than willing to participate in any study or any research that we can help out in .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that's all. Oh, Mr. Kovnats, I'm sorry. MR. A. KOVNATS: it's Ms West? MS D. WEST: Doris. MR. A. KOVNATS: I, too, am quite emotional and I cry quite easily. As a matter of fact, I've been crying since last November, but that's another story. In your presentation you make some remark con cerning corporal punishment wherein you list all the things where you mustn't touch a child. Is this your view or the view of your organization? I can't quite agree with how detailed you go into how you mustn't touch a child.

As a parent I think that I'm entitled to punish my child to some ex tent, not to beat the child, but some physical punishment. Why would you res train the people wh o are looking after my children in this manner? MS D. WEST: We have tried to make it as clear as possible and I'm sure if you speak to the co-ordinators in the government program, they can tell you stories of what they have seen.

I know that spanking and hitting has carried on in Day Care Centres and I really feel that as a qualified person, I have my diploma from Red River and I have years of ex perience working in the field, and I feel there are better alternatives. Pun ishment is not in the best interest of the child and to protect children so that there is someone that can say, listen, this is what's happening in the centre, you're not allowed to do that. There are better, positive tech niques of handling children and some positive tech niques involve restraint.

If the child is going to be hurting another child, harming the environment then that child has to be stopped or even if the child is hurting himself. So a positive guidance technique can involve where a Child Care Worker will be touching the child in the form of maybe a restraint but that's for the protection of the child himself or other children in the environment rather than punishment. We would like to feel that child care workers are qualified to know that positive techniques can be used. A term we'd rather use is discipline.

There are positive discipline techniques that can be used, pun ishment I really feel there is no need for punishment in a Day Care Centre. If a Child Care Worker has to resort to spanking then they probably shouldn't be in Day Care there are many more positive techniques that will work. MR. A. KOVNATS: One point for clarification is that your view or the Manitoba Child Care Association? MS D. WEST: I feel that is the Manitoba Child Care Association view. MR. A. KOVNATS: I'm not completely against it I just stated mine and you stated yours, I'm ready to accept that. MS D.

WEST: What parents do in the home is up to their discretion. Right now it is actually illegal for Child Care Workers to use the form of spanking in Centr es . 24 June, 1982 139 MR. A. KOVNATS: In our home we only hit our child in self-defense. MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is all the questioning I would like to thank you very much, Ms West, for your fine presentation. No need to be nervous, was there? We're probably more nervous than you are . Next is Pauline Russell. Mr. Eyler. MR. P. EVLER: Before we start if I could just make a comment on the proceedings. I find myself in a some what awkward positi on.

I realize we're talking about a Day Care Standards Act and it's quite natural to come in and suggest standards and guidelines and regula tions but I find that a lot of what we are being pres ented with in our verbal Briefs basically concerns the substance of regulations which would follow along later. Whether or not there are four square metres of space inside per child or five or six -I don't know what it's going to be - I don't think that's the purpose of the legislation to set that sort of thing out. The legislation is basically to set up the vehicle for establishing regu lations.

I wouldn't want to discourage any written Briefs or receiving any of this information because it's certainly interesting and informative to me, but I wonder if we could restrict ourselves more to the spirit of the Act rather than the actual regulations which are proposed by the groups present. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your commentary, I think it is something that the various people making presentations should bear in mind. it's quite right; there will be other opportunities - will there not, Mr. Minister? - to give details on presentations when the regulations are being formed.

We really are at this stage reviewing the basis of the Act. I wouldn't want to narrow the Act this far, but the Act is in a way Enabling Legislation so that regulations which are more fle xible and can be adjusted more easily are established within the Act. At the same point I think it's very worthy and worth while for the members of the Committee to hear how people would wish to see the Act or at least, a tone that the various people making presentations wish to see the regulations follow in.

I think that's very worth while, that before the process of the regulation even starts that a tone towards the regulations is set. So with that I wouldn't want to close off the detail but I would ask the people making presentations if they could stay more to the general part, leave the Briefs, and I can guarantee you the briefs will be gone over thoroughly by the Minister's staff and most likely the Minister himself before the regulation process starts. So, next could we call Pauline Russell, please? Is she present, Pauline Russell from the Equal Oppor tunities Centre? Not present. Next on the list then, is Mr.

Ross Mclntosh. He has a brief with him, so if you could just hold off for a second please, Mr. Mclntosh, until she starts. MR. R. MciNTOSH: Yes, I'm just speaking about the first page which deals with the Act and comments on the regulations are on the pages following which, as you indicated, you will be dealing with at another ti me. My remarks will be fairly brief.

Thursday, 24 June, 19 82 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Sir, would you like to start. please? MR. R. MciNTOSH: Yes, I am Ross Mclnt osh repr es enting McCare , which is the license d family based/ home based child care Centre.

Bill 21 as it is pre sently writte n is denying, saying no to McCare , being the family Ce ntre it is ; secondly, does not spell out how we can meet the felt Child Day Care needs of our community and province; thirdly, men tions the com prehensive development of the child, but no defini tions on deve lopment are given in the body of the Act and no specific upgraded dollar amounts through fee s and grants are named for the crea tion of this quality province-wide program that I'm ce rtain we all want and that the children of Mani toba nee d.

In addition, we as McCare, have to ask to what extent any Child Day Care models from around the world are being researched for input int o the Mani toba creation. A que stion now would be, are our chil dren really going to be taken seriously? We have a unique opportunity to create a quality piece of legisla tion .

Let this legislat ion say yes to good Child Day Care in its present forms and no to recognizing just some good present forms; say yes to new and exciting experimental forms of Child Day Care that are yet to be conceived and no to stifling brand-new creations; say yes to putt ing qualit y money beside qualit y stan dards and no to little money be side quality standards; say yes to meeting the felt Child Day Care ne eds throughout the province and no to addressing just some Child Day Care ne eds in just some parts of the province; say yes to having a vision that deals simul taneously with 2002 and 1982 and no to parochial and short-sighte d proposals ; say yes to providing fair and equal treatment to Child Day Care Centre s and rural children, for example, Thompson, Pilot Mound and Winnipeg and everybody else and no to discrepancies in the application of lic ensing regulations; say yes to the child be ing on centre stage being the focus for the Act and regulations and no to the facilities surround ing the child being more important than the child.

McCare , a licensed Family Child Day Care Centre , was created by my wife and I to meet some of the Child Day Care needs of our community, Wolsel ey, and through conversations wit h parents, frie nds, educa- · tors and other concerned people, we discovere d that, first, few infant care space s exis ted; second, Cen tres were reluctant to take childre n who weren't toilet trained; third, parent s working shifts had great diffi culty placing their child in one Centre; fourth, parent s with a child one year old, anothe r of two years of age, anothe r of school age found it virtually impossible to place all three children in one Centre; fifth, parent s had great difficulty placing a handicapped child in a Centre such as ours; sixt h, a shortage of lunch and after school spaces existed in the community ; sev enth, a shortage of good programs existed for two- to five-year-old childre n whose parents are working full time and are unable to participate in a co-operative style of Centre and someone suggeste d to me that maybe most important, parents wanted a Centre wit h a family atmosphere and not an instit utional atmosphere.

We believe we've attempte d to meet these needs by enrolling infants, preschoole rs, nursery and kinder- 140 garten pupils and school age children and through engaging everyone in a curriculum designed to care for physical, intelle ctual. emotional and social nee ds of each child and at the same time using wee kly and daily themes for our curriculum and, I guess, at cer tain points of the year continuous themes come into play, for example, the cel ebration of a child's birth or whe n we have spe cial seasons of the year, Christmas, Easter and so on.

Through a vision and plan create d by my wife and I and one othe r eo-worker, and operating in our home wit h the assistance of our two girls Chris, age d 9 and Brenda, aged 5 we have cre ated a family atmosph ere. I've made available to Ms Phillips some lett ers from parents who have children in our care ; who have had children in our care; a letter from the principal of the Laura Secord School; a nursery school teacher who has had student s of ours and also taught both Chris and Brenda who could share some of those with you.

As it isn't just my perce ption that we're offering a Centre with a family atmosphere, it is indee d their percep tion as well. At present the bill and even the present regulat ions say we must be a Day Care Centre and cannot be called what we are and what we do, a Family Child Day Care Centre. The Act tells us that as a Day Care Cen tre, we must be a nonprofit corporation wit h a Board of Dire ctors if we choose to be governme nt subsid ized. You ask and I ask, what would that mean in concrete terms for our family and Centre ?

I guess in short, a family business of caring for child ren would no longer be a family business of caring for children in our home. As our entire home is neede d to operate the program, the Board of Direct ors acting on behalf of the non profit corporation would control the opera tion of our home , would own the contents of our home , would make us more institutionalize d and bureau cratic in our decision-making and opera tion. In short, the family atmosphere would be destroye d, the business of caring for children as we intend to do it and do do it, would be wipe d out.

You might ask, as we did, what is the magic about the number 12 as it's spoken of in the de finitions part of the Act? Why is it impossible to have a family home based Centre called just what it is and define d in that same manner as soon as 13 children or 13 license d Child Day Care space s come to our Centre or one such as ours? And I must confess that we were surprised at this decision. We asked what is the rationale for the number 12 being so impor tant.

The second presenter this morning sug geste d the same rationale as I heard. lt has bee n sug ges ted to me it's be cause a mother is not likely to give birth to more than 12 children unde r the age of 12 years. I suggest that ce rtainly this procreation - or should I say breeding - argument is not well-conc eived.

This Act is not talking about how many children a family may or may not have , it 's not talking about parent s caring only for their own children and it's not talking about being the child's home. it is talking about, as I understand it, Child Day Care in a home set ting or other premises with parental care being done on occasion in home sett ings. As you see in the text there on the first page, I say, in order to be consistent in placing family based/home based Centre s in a separ ate ca tegory from care Centre s in other pr emises, to

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 recognize the fact that Mc Care is a family based/ home based Centre with more than 12 - but let me suggest for us to think about or you to think about not more than 25 children. To be comprehensive as regards the

definitions of different care Centres in the province now and in the future. we would recommend the addition of the clas sification called Family Child Day Care Centre, that defined as Family Child Day Care Centre means pre mises in which Child Day Care alone or in combina tion with parental care is provided or offered at any time to more than 12 and not more than 25 children and which is in the home of one or more of the persons providing or offering the care. it would be understood that the same licensing conditions would apply to the Family Child Day Care Centre as for a Day Care Centre licensed for 13 to 25 children.

Again on Page 1, in addition. an amendment needs to be made to Grants on Page 12 , 30(1)(

b) in order to be consistent with the current practice and principle behind the wording of Grants 30(1) on Page of 12 , of authorizing grants to persons, not the Board, but to persons operating family based/home based Centres. We recommend the following change to Grants 30( 1 )(

b) to persons who operate licensed group Day Care homes, licensed Family Day Care homes and the addition would be, or licensed Family Child Day Care Centres. I'm leaving with you the document outlining the two amendments and other recommendations fol low on the pages after that. I thank you for your time and attention. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Mcln tosh. Is there any questions? MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you. Hello, Ross.

On the first page of your Brief you have suggested that the same licensing conditions would apply to what you are recommending as another category as we already would have for a Day Care Centre. With that then, just on the licensing in terms of numbers and space and that kind of thing, I'm wondering what your concern would be, why would you have a different name if you were to meet the same licensing requirements as a Centre which is already in the Act. MR. R. MciNTOSH: We are a family home based Cen tre, which I think is in a separate category from those which would be outside of the home.

I think that's set out in the Act itself. lt suggests that there's a category for 8 and less; there's a category for 12 and less; there's a category for 8 and less; there's a category for 12 and less : there's a category of private for four and less. I don't know what the number is on the occa sional but I think both current regulations, current practise under the Act are something different that's in the family context, or the home setting, something different than happening outside of there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Phillips. MS M.

PHILLIPS: lt seems to me that if your operation is called a Day Care Centre versus a Family Day Care Centre and you're suggesting that the same condi tions apply, then why would we need to separate out a 14 1 different category, if you're saying that your situation would be covered by the same licensing provisions as a Day Care Centre? MR. R. MciNTOSH: I'm suggesting that the descrip tion under Day Care Centre doesn't describe us as we are. We are a family operation and we have a family atmosphere and that's not my perception of what's happening at other Centres that are out of the home.

Ours is a situation where we have a husband and wife team and another staff person. We involve our two girls in that setting. I want to avoid, again, the current practise, and what's suggested here that the people operating Centres in the home may qualify to receive grants. I'm not saying that we will, at anytime. apply for grants but I'd like us. as people, to have that oppor tunity within the framework of this Act to do so. if we choose to do so.

Right now, if you are going to ask, we are private; we don't make any profit and we're offer ing the subsidies to parents, but that's the way we've decided to operate because we've discovered that's what the people around us in our community want. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Phillips. MS M. PHIL LIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairperson.

Taking the issue of definition and licensing alone, without the second issue you raise which is of grants or subsidiza tion, just the situation of licensing and names, terms to cover your situation, it seems to me, in your brief, are you saying that you would meet the same licens ing conditions as the Centre or are you saying . MR. R. MciNTOSH: If it's 13 to 25, yes, of course, in terms of the child-staff ratio and space and so on. MS M. PHILLIP S: Mr.

Chairperson, then if there is flexibility in the Act for the determination, in a Centre, of what philosophy of programming one wants to offer and you have your family philosophy, and say, one across the street in a church basement wants to offer a Day Care program with some segment of reli gious philosophy in it, other than the philosophy of the way you want to run your programming, are you agreeing that, when you have that many children, then you should meet the same licensing requirements as the church? MR. R. MciNTOSH: Yes, in terms of the number, of those parameters. MS M.

PHILLIPS: So if that's already in the Act, I'm curious as to why you would feel you would need a special name? MR. R. MciNTOSH: Because we aren't named what we are. I don't believe that we are named what we are. lt does address the spirit of the Act. On another page I say, "The title of the Act is Community Child Day Care Standards Act.

The title of the Director is Director of Child Day Care Services." But suddenly the word "child" evaporates somew here and we're going to say, "I'm going to send Susie or Johnny to the day care." Its a Child Day Care and it's not a Senior Citizen's Day Care : it's not a Youth Day Care but it's a Child Day Care and I want things to be consistent in terms of the

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 language of the Act. We're going to call the Direc tor such; we're going to call the Title of the Act such ; le t's say that it isn't a Day Care co-ordinator, it's a Child Day Care Co-ordinator. it's not a Day Care Centre, it's really a Child Day Care Centre, if we want to be con sistent in language throughout the whole Act. I cer tainly would be pleased if there's flexibility on philo sophy but I would like to be named what we are. That's my concern because it suggests, if it is a family thing, then grants may be offered to persons operating these family-type things.

But if you're some sort of other animal, like a Day Care Centre, as presently defined, you have to have the Board, which re presents the non-profit corporation and, as I've suggested, you're not running a family operation in your home if you have another layer of that and then they can control the operation of the home and so on, as I was saying here. As long as we understand that the same standards would app ly, but I'm not a Day Care Centre, but I am one certainly wit h family orient ation and want to be called such. MR.

CHAIRM AN: Excuse me, if I could break in here for a minute, the Hansard re porter is having trouble identifying people so could you wait to be recognized before speaking? Ms Phillips. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairp erson. First of all, if there is no difference in substance, in terms of what you would be required under this Act to do in licensing -( Interjection)- No, not grants, just licens ing, in terms of physical standards programming, qualificat ions for yourself and the staff people. If your not asking for any difference in that, then doesn't it come down to a rose by any other name situation?

I'll go on. In terms of a Board, there's nothing in this Act that requires a private organization to have a Board. I know that's been recommended by some of the briefs, but at this point there's nothing that says you must set up a parent Board. In terms of the facilities for licensing, the regula tions, even just taking the ones we have in place now under the City of Winnipeg would require that, for a cer tain number of children, you have certain facilities, whether they be in your home, modified to take into account physical space, et c.

You were saying that you would be able to meet those kind of standards but just would like to be called something else. Considering, I think you would agree with me, Sir, that your situation is rather unique, to put a special name in for maybe yourself or one or two other Centres in the province that would be similar to yours, if we are saying you must meet the standards that a Day Care Centre, as you call an ins titution, seems to me to not quit e be necessary, regardless of grants, just the licensi ng . Does that make sense to you? MR. R. MciNTOSH: I unders tand your position but I would prefer that. MS M.

PHIL LIPS: We make a special category for you with a name. MR. R. MciNTOSH: No, not just for me. I was asking 142 that the law be looking into the future and, yes, I recognize there may be ourselves and there's, I believe, 20 Child Day Care spaces in a home operated on Honeyman, The Tree House. I'm not privy to their philosophy of operation but they are in a home set ting. I don't know how many others. I haven't researched the province to know how many others there would be. MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Ms Phillips. Are there any other questions for Mr. Mcln tosh?

Seeing none, I'd like to thank you for your presentation, Mr. Mclnt osh. The next person wishing to presen t a brief is Mr. W.G. Burns. Is Mr. Burns present? Is Mrs. Carol Draper present? MRS. C. DRAPER: I have some copies of the Brief that I didn't get to her ahead of time . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will circulate them. MRS. C. DRAPER: Before I start, I would like to say that I'm re presenting the Manit oba School Age Child Care Support Commi ttee which was formerly known as the Before Noon After School Child Support Com mitt ee.

I'd also like to make a comment that our Brief deals strictly with School Age Child Care. Though we have concerns for all areas of Child Care, our brief deals strictly with our own age group. We represent the Direc tors, staff and parents and concerned ci tizens of School Age Child Care Centres. There are app roximately 40 Centres in the Winnipeg area and a growing number in communities outside of Winnipeg. As we are directly involved in these pro grams, Bill 21 , The Community Child Day Care Stan dards Act, is of prime im portance to us.

We are very pleased that our elec ted re presen tatives have recog nized the need for legislation of standards in Child Care. We realize the im pact this legislation could have throughout the province on im proving the qualit y of Child Care. Therefore, at this time, we would like to direct your atten tion to the specific needs of School Age Child Care in rela tion to Bill

Section 1, Definit ions : We request the term "Day Care" be changed to "Child Day Care." Rationale:- From past ex perience we have found that the general public associates the term "Day Care" with the care of two- to five-year-olds. Our Centres are for children six to twelve years and are referred to as "Child Care Centres," therefore, an incorporation of the terms "Child Care" and "Day Care" to read "Child Day Care" would more accurately describe all facilities.

Sect ion 27 (1 ), Day Care Staff Qualifications Review Committ ee : We request an equitable number of peo ple wit h ex pertise in School Age Child Care be ap pointed to sit on this review committee. Rationa le: The staff qualifica tions for the care of school age children differ greatly from those of preschool staff. Sec tion 29(2), Dis pute as to Qualifi cations: We request a further means of appeal. Rationale: Pres ently there are no recognized accredited courses in the School Age Child Care. Staff now entering this field are from varied educational backgrounds.

To ensure a fair hearing, a further ap peal procedure should be incor porated.

Section 33, Regula tions: We feel it is im perative

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 that we be given the opportunity to have input into the regulations which will be set forth under this Act. Rationale: The regulations directly affect the opera tion of our Centres. We request that our specific needs be considered before these regulations are formal ized. The following are some suggested regulations for School Age Child Care. At this point, I would like to say, we were told this may be the only place we could talk about the regulations. Most of our regulations go very much in line with the MCC A and the Coalition.

There are only two areas that are slightly different and I would like to go through those two areas. One is Staff Qualifications. There must be a mi xed system for the staffing in child care with a minimal allowable number of trained persons in a Centre. Transition periods will have to be negotiated for some Day Care Centres. The Director must have formal training in Child Care with at least two years' ex perience in Child Care. There must be a standard qualifying program for Child Care and it could be an ex tension of the Red River Community College course.

Other relevant pro grams offered outside of Manitoba or relevant univer sity education should be made interchangeable for the purpose of establishing qualifications. In the event that a qualifying program was offered, then one person per group of children must have formal training in Child Care services or other related education. If a Child Care program is offered at the Red River Community College, it must also be offered at Assini boine and Keewatin Community Colleges. The number of spaces in these programs must be increased.

Child Care programs offered at the community col leges must be expanded to include the following courses: administrative training and training for School Age Child Care. There must be a grandparent clause allowing those who presently work in Child Care Centres to remain with the option of obtaining certification of formal training in Child Care in the following manner : the right to take Challenge Credit Exams to show qualifi cations; access to courses in their community or in a nearby community ; paid in-service programs; the right to leave to take courses and extension courses.

The province must licence trained child care workers. The only other area where there would be some difference is the child/staff ratio. Child-staff ratio for School Age Care programs should be one staff member to every 10 children. The staff in the child-staff ratios only includes those in regular care of the children and does not include the Director, cooking staff or maintenance staff, but any time they spend regularly caring for the eh i Id ren must be prorated and included in the child-staff ratios. The maximum number of children in a Child Care Centre at one time is 60.

There should be an exc eptional facility clause for Centres which have space and facili ties to handle more children and there must be two workers in a Children's Centre at all time. Most of the other regulations are very much in line with the MC CA. In conclusion, we can only state again that these regulations and standards directly affect staff, parents and children of School Age Child Care Centres and we ask for your support of our submission. 143 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Draper. Are there are any questions? Mr. Evans. HON. L.

EVANS: Thank you very much for the Brief and there are again, a lot of good ideas and some interesting points. We're not supposed to make statements so I'll do this by way of a question. Are you now aware that you will be given an oppor tunity as well as anyone else in any other organiza tion, anywhere in Manitoba hopefully, some time in the next - well, after this Session, in the ne xt few months after the Session - to give us comments on the more detailed standards which will form the basis for the regulations? You are aware that you'll have that opportunity? MRS. C.

DRAPER: We became aware of that this morning. HON. L. EVANS: Okay, very good. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Mr. Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: I'm not going to get into

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-sro7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf sro7.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b85f646e45284e85aabf6327ce104ec1cb6e71ce

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