CONTENTS
Thursday 18 June 1992
Child care
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)
*Poole, Dianne (Eglinton L)
Sola, John (Mississauga East/-Est L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND) for Mr Fletcher
*Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Murdoch
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Ms Harrington
*O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L) for Mr McClelland
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mr Mammoliti
*Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Brown
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND) for Mr Ferguson
*In attendance / présents
Clerk: / Greffière: Deller, Deborah
Staff / Personnel: Luski, Lorraine, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1055 in room 228.
CHILD CARE
Consideration of the designated matter pursuant to standing order 123, relating to child care.
The Acting Chair (Mr David Ramsay): I'd like to bring the committee meeting to order. Just before we start, I'd like to say to you that the time allocation remaining to all parties goes like this: the Tories 35 seconds, the Liberal Party eight minutes, and the NDP, the government party, seven minutes. I'd like to turn the floor over to the government party for its seven minutes.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I thought we were still on the Conservatives when we last adjourned the rotation.
The Acting Chair: I have spoken to Mr Jackson and he said he would take his 35 seconds at the end, but I will defer to the clerk to ask if the rotation matters.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The record shows that I yielded the floor. I only had one rotation and I took the bulk of my time. But you, sir, kept insisting on a rotation of the time, so I have 35 seconds left.
Mr Bisson: Excuse me, my question is to the Chair, not to the other side. When we last adjourned the committee, who had the floor?
The Acting Speaker: I'll have to ask the clerk.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Deborah Deller): When we left we'd just completed a vote.
Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Chair, I move that we recess for five minutes and resume in five minutes until we can iron this out, because the committee time is --
The Acting Chair: Just give me a second.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: I'd like to have order, please. To answer Mr Bisson's question, I'm asking the clerk who the last speaker was.
Clerk of the Committee: In fact, according to the minutes, the last entry of the last meeting was a vote and then an adjournment.
The Acting Chair: So we're starting a new rotation is what you're telling me. All right. The custom then would be that we would go to the government party for its seven minutes remaining.
Mr Bisson: I do believe there were a couple of our members who had a few points they wanted to make. No? All right. Here we go.
I just want to point out a couple of points in regard to where we're at right now. There are a number of points that were made within the public hearings we had on this 123, as well as some of the discussion we got after when writing our report and also in subcommittee. I just want to clarify a couple of points.
One of the points there seems to be some confusion on is the whole question of what happens to existing spaces that are currently within a municipality within the private sector day care or within the non-profit. I just want to make it clear, because we've had the discussion that if, for example, you are in community X, there are 100 subsidized spaces within that community of which 75 are within the private sector and 25 are within the non-profit, there are people who came forward and said that as people leave the private-sector day care those subsidized spaces would be lost. I just want to clarify: That's not what the intent is in regard to what's happening here.
The policy is that if any new spaces are to be created, they will be created in the non-profit sector, and those spaces within the private sector do remain. If the private sector decides to convert, those spots will be converted over to the non-profit sector. Or if they decide to shut down, those spots would then be absorbed into the non-profit sector.
I raise that point because the point has to be made in regard to the original motion that was made in the 123. There is some concern in regard to what happens to the question of choice of the parents. We're saying in the recommendations that the parents still do have the choice. Within the 75 private-sector spots, what would end up happening if 10 children were to leave this year and go on to the public school system and no longer needed child care services -- that means there are 10 spots open -- is the parent still has the right to choose in most cases where that child should go. If the spots are filled, what ends up happening in that case is they have to go wherever the spots happen to be open. In that case, it would be the non-profit. So the question of the right to choose by the parents is still within the decision of the parent based on where the spots are available.
The second point I would like to raise is in regard to the question of conversion. There was a lot of debate within the public hearings where people came forward, especially people from private-sector day care, who were concerned in regard to how the conversion program was going to work.
I would like to report to the committee and put it on the record that we have been working very diligently with the committee that is set up in order to take a look at the question of conversion. On the question of conversion, the committee is to take a look at trying to find a plan that will make it as fair as possible for all parties. We as a government obviously don't want to pay more than it's worth. We want to pay a fair market value and the people in the private sector would like to get as much money as they want. So the scenario is that you're always in negotiations, and of course the private sector wants more and we as the buyers are making sure we spend the taxpayers' dollars very judiciously in the sense that we don't pay more than they're worth.
On the conversion working group, there was a meeting as late as June 15 of this week where there were a number of questions with regard to the conversion plans that are starting to move along, and a number of questions have actually been addressed. There are some fairly serious concerns on both sides. I want to indicate to the committee and to the public that there is a lot of work happening there and things are starting to move along quite nicely. Where that's going to end up at the end, I can't say at this point, because you have to allow the committee to go through its course and deal with all the various issues that are affected within conversion. But I just want to signal that some of the concerns that were expressed here at the committee meetings are now starting to be addressed by this working group, and I think it's a credit to the working group coming together and trying to tackle these issues, quite frankly, in a good, open discussion. The process is starting to work; it's showing that parties are able to come together and to come to some conclusion on how to make this as fair as possible.
The Acting Chair (Mrs Yvonne O'Neill): Mr Bisson, you said you wanted that for the record. May we on this committee assume that two things have been clarified? When the minister was before us, there were certainly a lot of things that needed to be clarified. Are you suggesting that there is now going to be a change in what's paid for -- that is, it's not going to be just toys and equipment, but that you're looking towards a fairer market value? You said that?
Mr Bisson: Well, hang on. No, no. What I'm saying is that --
The Acting Chair: You just made that statement. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr Bisson: No, no, I did not. First of all, how much time do I have left? I want to make sure I have enough time here.
Clerk of the Committee: You've used four minutes.
Mr Bisson: Four minutes, okay. Let me just finish what I have to say. What I'm trying to tell you is that there are a number of questions that were raised at the committee hearings. The government, along with this conversion working group that's here together, is working in order to try to find some solutions to some of the very difficult questions facing all of the people, and what we're saying at this point is that the discussions are progressing very well. We've been able to --
The Acting Chair: You've said that --
Mr Bisson: We've been able to settle some of this -- it's my time. We've been able to settle --
The Acting Chair: I know, but I asked you a very specific question and all I'm trying to do is clarify the record of this committee.
Mr Bisson: Excuse me. The Chair -- this is my time and there are three points that I'd like to go through. It's eating into my time to be able to make the points.
The Acting Chair: Okay.
Mr Bisson: I've made my point on the conversion. Now, with all of that, I've lost my spot in my mind where I was going with the third point. At this point I will concede the floor and come back afterwards. I'll give the floor to the Liberals at this point.
The Acting Chair: Excuse me, then, Mr Bisson. You do not feel that you can answer the question that I've asked for clarification for the record of this committee?
Interjections.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): That's an abuse by the Chair.
Mr Jackson: Shut up, Steve.
The Acting Chair: Really, I'm trying to clarify the record of this committee.
Interjections.
Mr Bisson: The Chair, we will concede --
Mr Jackson: You're accusing the Chair of abuse. That is a serious charge.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Your language is abusive. You shouldn't be talking that way.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry; I don't think this is necessary. I've asked a very direct question because these are very key matters. I think Mr Bisson was trying to help us and I want to clarify for our record.
Mr Bisson: I'm trying to help. I will concede the floor at this point because I know Ms Poole has some amendments that she wants to put forward. I will come back and explain in a little bit more detail on my time a little bit later. Next.
The Acting Chair: All right, thank you. Ms Poole, Mr Bisson is going to --
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: I find that we don't need any of these sidelines. Ms Poole has the floor. Thank you.
Ms Poole: I would just ask if the Clerk could let me know when I have two minutes left in my time.
Madam Chair, before the start of the proceedings today I talked to representatives from both the NDP and the Conservative caucuses as to whether they would be willing to agree to an amendment to the major part of the report prepared by legislative research. That is on page 3 where it discusses the DOGs, the direct operating grants. This section doesn't make it clear that the province is indeed paying 100-cent dollars for the DOGs, but in fact it is because of the federal government's Canada assistance plan rules and the fact that the federal government does not pay its 50% that the private child care operators do not receive the full direct operating grant.
I believe I have unanimous consent to amend the report to state on page 3: "Non-profit operators receive the full DOG. Private operators established as of December 1987 only receive the provincial portion of the DOG (50%) because under the Canada assistance plan the federal government does not contribute to private child care." That would be substituted in the second paragraph beginning "Direct operating grants" on the fourth line.
The Acting Chair: Do we have unanimous consent? Is Ms Poole's assumption correct?
Mr Jackson: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: All right, agreed.
Ms Poole: Second, I would like to read some recommendations into the record and then have them voted on at the end of the expiration of time and to have that vote taken separately. Again, I understand all caucuses have agreed to this.
"1. Given the fact that impact studies were not conducted prior to the policy announcement of December 2, 1991, the government should reconsider its conversion policy. The impact on women, children and small business must be given more thought.
"2. Those dollars that are being spent on conversion should be spent on fee subsidies and wage enhancements for all child care workers.
"3. Parents should have the option of choosing child care that best meets their children's needs. If parents are currently receiving subsidy, they should be able to retain the right to choose and not forfeit their right to be subsidized.
"4. If the government chooses to proceed with its conversion policy:" -- and I would like these voted upon separately --
"(i) The government should include in its conversion plan guarantees of security of tenure and mobility of benefits for the private sector child care worker who remains with the new non-profit centre.
"(ii) The government should assist private sector workers whose centres do not qualify for conversion and are forced to close.
"(iii) Fair market value should be offered to the owners of private child care centres which convert to non-profit; values should be determined as of December 1991.
"(iv) The government should consider relief for municipalities which will lose many significant contributors to their tax base due to the conversion policy.
"(v) New fee subsidies should be introduced immediately to deal with the accessibility crisis in the province.
"(vi) Efforts to ensure a system that is managed with strict enforcement of current legislation must continue, with consideration given to the enforcement practices review initiated by the Liberal government."
Mr Bisson: On a point of clarification, Madam Chair: Could you just re-read number 3?
Ms Poole: Number 3: "Parents should have the option of choosing child care that best meets their children's needs. If parents are currently receiving subsidy, they should be able to retain the right to choose and not forfeit their right to be subsidized."
I would leave the balance of my time for the end of the proceedings.
The Acting Chair: All right. Mr Bisson, did you want to continue?
Mr Bisson: No. It's Mr --
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry. It's very hard to jump into this chair when I know you people have been having subcommittee meetings and all the rest of it. Mr Jackson, you would like to continue?
Mr Jackson: Sure, if it's helpful. With respect to this report, I simply want to say it is now this far along in the process, and I've recently received a copy of the child care reference committee's draft guidelines for conversion, dated June 10. The government has seen fit not to share this document with this committee, and it's apparent when reading it, Madam Chair, that this government has clearly turned its back on over 8,000 women workers in commercial day care centres. They're treating them like scab labour, and that is abundantly clear when one reads the document.
I think it will be a deeply felt wound for child care workers in this province, and I deeply regret that this committee was not treated fairly by the minister or the ministry in giving the information in order for us to complete our task. As the title of our report supposedly indicates, we're supposed to be looking at the impact of this government's policies on women workers, and according to the conversion policy it does not exist.
The Acting Chair: Your time has expired.
Mr Bisson: Can I ask how much time we have? One of our members did have a few comments to make.
The Acting Chair: I think it would be very helpful if our clerk gave us the exact time.
Clerk of the Committee: Two and a half minutes remaining.
1110
Mr Bisson: Two and a half minutes. Can we split that in half and you tell us when a minute and a half is used up by Mrs Harrington?
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Do you want to go first?
Mr Bisson: No, go for it, Margaret.
Ms Harrington: I wish to comment on the purpose and intent of the government's direction here. The whole purpose is to move this to a basic public service. There needs to be a lot of political will to do this.
If you go back in history, what we have is a situation that has been evolving for some years here in Ontario. In 1980 the Progressive Conservative government put the provincial funds for startup for capital costs and that was only to non-profit centres. In 1987 the select committee on health said that a change in philosophy was needed. This philosophy is one which could be adapted for child care in all appropriate -- sorry. The expansion of child care should be in the non-profit sector -- that's what it said -- and the direct grants were given both to the non-profit and to convert to non-profit status. There were incentives at that time, back in 1987.
We are in a time of transition, and what is needed right now is the political will to do this. We know it is so important to women. We have to have consultations right now. We have to have a flexible process so that those who are in the private sector are treated correctly and we do not leave empty the needs of women in certain parts of this province, such as Niagara, where we depend on private sector as well.
Mr Bisson: I take it I have about a minute left. To finish up, the government side of the committee has gone through the process of sitting down, at least with the Liberal caucus, and agreeing to some of the amendments, quite frankly, that it put forward. I would like to put that on the record.
One of the criticisms raised by the Conservative caucus is that we weren't prepared to share information. I would like to point out to Mr Jackson that the question is that we didn't share the information because the stuff on the subsidies is still at the draft stages. Until the committee is able to do its work in regard to the conversion committee, it would have been premature to bring that here. We had to allow the committee to go through its process.
On the question of our treating the private sector people as scab labour, I think it was very uncalled for. What we're doing is saying --
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: I have the floor. We're saying that those who are there now will continue to get their subsidies. The question is, any new space that's created would be in the non-profit, and as long as they want to stay there, they will be there. If there is disparity within the wage subsidy given to the workers in the private sector, it started under a Conservative government in Ottawa because it had never participated in the equity adjustments that were made to wages. It was only Ontario that did so.
I take it we're out of time. Thank you very much for being very generous with the time. It was a very interesting committee.
The Acting Chair: Ms Poole, you have four minutes left of your time.
Ms Poole: I would like to make one amendment to the recommendations I offered earlier. Subsection 4(iii), where I talked about fair market value: Instead of that, I would substitute: "A compensation package which is fair and is seen to be fair by the operators and the public and which is manageable within the provincial budget should be negotiated by the government." I will give that wording to the clerk.
Mr Bisson: For the record, there is another amendment that the government agreed to with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Jackson: When are you going to share this capitulation with the Conservative Party?
Ms Poole: I meant to run it by you. Madam Chair, I just wanted to make a few comments in winding up.
The Acting Chair: I presume what you read into the record is what, as Mr Jackson was referring to, has already happened in terms of some kind of an agreement.
Ms Poole: No. There has been no agreement to it. We will have to vote on that, because I --
The Acting Chair: But there were changes to wording.
Ms Poole: Yes. We're talking about a substitution.
Mr Jackson: On a point of information: Could I just understand what we're doing here? Are we amending the Liberal Party --
The Acting Chair: Suggestions to the general report.
Mr Jackson: So what will happen is, these amendments will be lifted from the Liberal document and find their way into the government document.
Ms Poole: The major committee report.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The recommendations that we will agree to will then become part of the committee's report.
Mr Jackson: Okay, I'm with you. I needed to understand that.
Ms Poole: I just want to make a few points. One is the problem that we don't feel in the Liberal caucus that the impact on women from the conversion policy has been addressed. The second point is that there has been a lack of adequate information.
During the hearings the Minister of Community and Social Services was unable to provide us with any impact research regarding this policy or in fact any written background information regarding the government's decision to implement it. One of the things we couldn't understand in the Liberal caucus was that there was already attrition in the private sector because of the existing policies. So why was this policy necessary?
There were a number of deficiencies in the process, such as the fact that only 50% of the private centres would be allowed to convert. Second, information was not available to the private sector as to what the conversion criteria indeed were. Apparently there is now a moratorium on it and yet the private sector is floundering out there, not knowing what they will be entitled to in the way of subsidies. Information changes daily, weekly and monthly on that.
We feel that the policy fails to address issues such as affordability, accessibility and quality, and this is very important. There are a number of other factors involved, but I really feel there should have been more time, energy and consideration paid to the impact of the policy before it was announced. Situations where the government announces a policy and yet has no information to back it up create a lot of chaos and anxiety in the sector. I urge the government in future to take that into consideration when it is introducing policies.
The Acting Chair: I understand that the next procedure is for us to vote on the recommendations we have had during the presentation of both the government's response and those that Miss Poole has suggested as amendments, but we will go to the amendments first. Is that correct?
Clerk of the Committee: Right.
The Acting Chair: We're going to do these one at a time. How long are you going to be, Miss Poole?
Ms Poole: I will be right with you, Madam Chair.
The Acting Chair: We are ready to begin our voting on what I consider a very important issue.
Mr Bisson: On a point of clarification, Mrs Chair, I just want to doublecheck something.
The Acting Chair: Mr Bisson, I don't know about the rest of the ladies in the Legislature, but I have always been designated as Madam Chair.
Mr Bisson: What did I say? I'm sorry.
The Acting Chair: Mrs, and I don't think that's appropriate.
Mr Bisson: My apologies, Madam Chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Mr Bisson: Madam Chair, on the question of the actual report that we had legislative research write -- the first part without the recommendation -- my understanding is we've already voted on that. We have? Okay. I see indication from the clerk.
The Acting Chair: I was not here at that point. So this is the document we have before us, which is the response.
Mr Bisson: The second question, obviously, is the amendments forwarded by Mrs Poole this morning, or Madam Poole, whatever way -- sorry, I apologize again.
The Acting Chair: No, it's Mrs Poole and Madam Chair.
Mr Bisson: Okay, Madam Chair and Mrs Poole.
Interjections.
Ms Poole: Technically it's Ms Poole, but call me anything.
Mr Bisson: Just for clarification, the amendment moved by Mrs Poole has been accepted. It's now going to be part of the report.
1120
Ms Poole: I think we have unanimous consent to that.
Mr Bisson: I'm not sure if the clerk picked it up. That's why I'm wondering.
Clerk of the Committee: Sorry. You'll have to clarify for the clerk. Which amendment received unanimous consent?
Mr Bisson: That's what I thought.
Mr Jackson: Subsection 4(iii).
Ms Poole: No, none of that. Madam Chair, perhaps I could clarify. In the main body of the report, on page 3 --
The Acting Chair (Mr David Ramsay): Madam Chair?
Ms Poole: Mr Chair, sorry. At least I didn't call you Mrs Chair.
On page 3 of the main body of the report prepared by legislative research, we had agreement from all three caucuses to amend it to include a statement saying that the province was indeed fulfilling 100% of its dollars to the private child care sector for the DOGs. However, it was because of the arrangement of the federal government with the Canada assistance plan and the fact that the federal government could not therefore pay moneys into the private sector that the private sector ended up with only 50% of the DOGs.
Mr Bisson: That's why I raised it. I knew it wasn't clear. If you can make sure --
Ms Poole: I will give a copy of that to Hansard and to the clerk so that we make sure this is incorporated.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, on the same point, just to make sure, you understand it's been unanimously agreed that we make that change.
The Acting Chair: We're at the point of time now where we can have the clerk put the questions that are remaining for a vote, so I would ask the clerk then to do that.
Clerk of the Committee: The first question was a recommendation by Mrs Poole. Recommendation 1: "Given the fact that impact studies were not conducted prior to the policy announcement of December 2, 1991, the government should reconsider its conversion policy. The impact on women, children and small business must be given more thought."
Mr Jackson: A recorded vote.
The committee divided on recommendation 1, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 3
Jackson, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole.
Nays -- 6
Bisson, Harrington, Hope, Marchese, Owens, Waters.
The Acting Chair: We will now consider the next recommendation.
Clerk of the Committee: Recommendation 2 --
Mr Bisson: Dispense.
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I don't think that's appropriate. When we are taking recorded votes, I don't think it's appropriate for the record.
The Acting Chair: There's no unanimous consent. I'll ask the clerk to read the recommendation.
Clerk of the Committee: Recommendation 2: "Those dollars that are being spent on conversion should be spent on fee subsidies and wage enhancements for all child care workers."
The committee divided on recommendation 2, which was negatived on the same vote.
Clerk of the Committee: Recommendation 3: "Parents should have the option of choosing child care that best meets their children's needs. If parents are currently receiving subsidy, they should be able to retain the right to choose and not forfeit their right to be subsidized."
Mr Jackson: I'd like to amend the words "are currently receiving" for "qualify for."
The Acting Chair: The clerk has informed me that, as these questions were put previously, this is really a cleaning-up voting. All we can do is place the questions currently on the table forward for vote. There's no room for amending any of these amendments.
Mr Jackson: Then why are we voting on it if it's already been dealt with?
Clerk of the Committee: The motions have already been moved. Once the time expires, the only thing the Chair can do is put all the questions remaining necessary to complete consideration. The questions he can put are only the ones that had been moved prior to the expiry of the time.
Mr Jackson: My concern here is that I did not have any time that I was allocated in order to make my amendments, and therefore, without getting clarification from the clerk or either of the chairs this morning, I was led to believe I would be able to make my amendments at the time the vote was taken. You must appreciate that I had no time remaining, and therefore I was barred from participating in the amending of any motion that finally finds its place for a vote at this time.
The Chair may not be aware, but the clerk is keenly aware of the fact that this was my major concern expressed up front: because of the way the time allocation was imposed on the amending process, I was unable to participate in the final outcome of the report. Now I'm being told that this catch-22 falls upon me.
The Acting Chair: Mr Jackson, it's my understanding that all three political parties had equal time to present their cases.
Mr Jackson: My time had expired when Mrs Poole was still bringing forward recommendations. That's my point. The Chair did not protect my rights and neither did the clerk inform me that this is the manner in which this decision would fall upon me.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chairman, the standing orders are quite clear.
The Acting Chair: Mr Jackson, I have great sympathy for your arguments. Unfortunately the standing orders and the rules of committee procedure do not allow you to make amendments now that the questions have been put.
Mr Jackson: The standing orders were abused when I was not given sufficient time in order to put my amendments.
The Acting Chair: Every party had equal time, and we must proceed with putting the questions.
Mr Bisson: I think there have been enough examples of abuse of the standing orders over the last week, so I don't need to listen to that.
The Acting Chair: Let's not get into that. Let's go back to the questions, please.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: Order, please. Question 3 has been read. All those in favour?
The committee divided on recommendation 3, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 9
Bisson, Harrington, Hope, Jackson, Marchese, Poole, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Waters.
Nays -- 0
The Acting Chair: The clerk will put question 4.
Clerk of the Committee: Mrs Poole recommends that, "4. If the government chooses to proceed with its conversion policy:" -- it's my understanding there's agreement that these would be voted on individually?
Interjection: Yes.
Clerk of the Committee: "(i) The government should include in its conversion plan guarantees of security of tenure and mobility of benefits for the private sector child care workers who remain with the new non-profit centres."
The Acting Chair: We have unanimous consent, then, for additional wording. All in favour of the first part of question 4, 4(i)?
The committee divided on recommendation 4(i), which was agreed to on the same vote.
Clerk of the Committee: 4(ii): "The government should assist private sector workers whose centres do not qualify for conversion and are forced to close."
1130
Mr Jackson: I'm sorry. Before I vote, could I have that explained to me? What was on record was that a deal was made between the Liberals and the NDP, but it wasn't explained what is meant by "the government should assist private sector workers." What does "assist" mean?
Either the government can tell us what it convinced the Liberals to do or what the Liberals convinced the NDP to do here. I'd like to, at least for the public record, understand this before I vote on it, because it was not discussed in committee.
The Acting Chair: Is there unanimous agreement for a --
Mr Bisson: No.
The Acting Chair: Then I'm sorry, Mr Jackson, we're in the middle of the vote. I have to call the question. The question has been put.
The committee divided on recommendation 4(ii), which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 9
Bisson, Harrington, Hope, Jackson, Marchese, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Poole, Waters.
Nays -- 0
Clerk of the Committee: Recommendation 4(iii): "A compensation package which is fair and is seen to be fair by the operators and the public and which is manageable within the provincial budget should be negotiated by the government."
The committee divided on recommendation 4(iii), which was agreed to on the same vote.
Clerk of the Committee: Recommendation 4(iv): "The government should consider relief for municipalities which will lose many significant contributors to their tax base due to the conversion policy."
The committee divided on recommendation 4(iv), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 3
Jackson, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole.
Nays -- 6
Bisson, Harrington, Hope, Marchese, Owens, Waters.
Clerk of the Committee: Recommendation 4(v): "New fee subsidies should be introduced immediately to deal with the accessibility crisis in the province."
The committee divided on recommendation 4(v), which was negatived on the same vote.
Clerk of the Committee: Recommendation 4(vi): "Efforts to ensure a system that is managed with strict enforcement of current legislation must continue, with consideration given to the enforcement practices review initiated by the Liberal government."
The committee divided on recommendation 4(vi), which was negatived on the same vote.
Mr Bisson: Am I to understand "same vote" as meaning it's defeated?
The Acting Chair: It's lost. The last two are lost.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, just to make sure what the score on this was: Recommendations 1 and 2 were defeated, recommendation 3 was accepted, 4(i) was accepted, 4(ii) was accepted, 4(iii) was accepted, and (iv), (v) and (vi) were defeated.
The Acting Chair: That's correct. That corresponds with the clerk's record.
We now come to consideration of the recommendations portion of the report before us, as amended.
Mr Bisson: Just a point of clarification: We're voting now on the recommendations we put forward as a government?
The Acting Chair: As majority members in the committee.
Mr Marchese: As amended.
Mr Jackson: A recorded vote.
Mrs O'Neill: We don't have any time for any information?
The Acting Chair: No, I'm afraid not. The time has expired.
The committee divided on the recommendations portion of the report, as amended, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 8
Bisson, Harrington, Hope, Marchese, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Poole, Waters.
Nays -- 1
Jackson.
The Acting Chair: Our final matter of business here would be to vote on the title of the report.
Ms Poole: We only voted on the recommendations, didn't we?
The Acting Chair: The package of recommendations.
Clerk of the Committee: As amended.
Ms Poole: As a point of clarification, Mr Chair, two points of clarification --
Mrs O'Neill: I asked for that and I couldn't get it.
Ms Poole: First of all, what the government has substituted, I would assume, begins where it says "Current Government Policy" and not "Government Response."
The Acting Chair: That's correct. That does not show in the report.
Ms Poole: The second point of clarification: The steering committee had agreed that the majority report would remove the words "for profit" and substitute the words "private sector" child care throughout the report, so I assume that would also stand for this section.
The Acting Chair: I believe that was part of the amendments.
Ms Poole: Good. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: I will put the question as to the title of the report: "Report on the Impact on Women of the Government's Conversion Policy relating to Child Care." All in favour?
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I do not believe that's the original draft that I've seen that was submitted by the clerk.
Mrs O'Neill: Would you read it again, please?
The Acting Chair: "Report on the Impact on Women of the Government's Conversion Policy relating to Child Care."
Mr Jackson: That is not the copy that was tabled with me. I'd like to have it explained who changed that.
The Acting Chair: The Chair and the clerk need agreement as to what the title is to be. A group of committee members had met earlier to come up with this particular title. The title can be whatever the committee wants it to be.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chair, read the original title as submitted by the clerk.
The Acting Chair: "Report on the Impact on Women of Public Funding of Private Child Care."
Mr Jackson: I would like to move that, Mr Chairman.
The Acting Chair: All right. I'll put the question. It has been moved by Mr Jackson that the title be "Report on the Impact on Women of Public Funding of Private Child Care." All in favour?
Mr Jackson: Recorded vote.
The committee divided on Mr Jackson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 1
Jackson.
Nays -- 8
Bisson, Harrington, Hope, Marchese, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Poole, Waters
The Acting Chair: I will put the other title for your consideration: "Report on the Impact on Women of the Government's Conversion Policy relating to Child Care." Those in favour?
Mr Owens: Recorded vote.
The committee divided on the question, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 8
Bisson, Harrington, Hope, Marchese, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Poole, Waters.
Nays -- 1
Jackson.
Mrs O'Neill: Since you gave a point of clarification to my colleague, I'd like to ask a question. This was from the government paper and it's confusing to me, and I think I have to right to know if the confusion still exists in the final report. It says, "The consultation began in April and will end in June 1992." The first recommendation is: "To continue the process of public consultations." Does that mean that is an extension after June 1992, or does it mean this will include and be concluded in June 1992?
The Acting Chair: Maybe Mr Bisson can help us now.
Mr Bisson: I move adjournment of the committee.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: The time has expired.
Ms Poole: We didn't vote on the report.
Mr Jackson: The motion to adjourn is not debatable.
The Acting Chair: The motion is on the floor to adjourn the committee. Those in favour?
Mrs O'Neill: It's impossible to get a direct answer in this committee.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: Do you want to have this question? Okay, Mr Bisson, could you answer?
Mr Bisson: I'll answer the committee. Listen, I would --
Interjections.
Mr Bisson: Just vote against me.
Mr Jackson: This is a recorded vote. I believe the Chair has a responsibility, when calling a vote, to record in Hansard what the hell the result was.
The Acting Chair: Mr Jackson, I accept your proposal. We will have a vote on the motion that's on the floor right now, put forward by Mr Bisson, for the committee to be adjourned.
Ms Poole: Mr Chair, how could we have voted on this entire report?
The Acting Chair: Just wait. We have a motion on the floor. I feel there's some cooperation here. Let's just call the question.
Those in favour of adjourning the committee? All right. Opposed to that? All right. The committee's still in session. Thank you very much. Motion defeated.
We will carry on. Now, Mr Bisson, would you be able to shed some light on the question posed by Mrs O'Neill?
Mr Bisson: Yes, Mr Chair. First of all, I would like to apologize to Mrs O'Neill. Madam O'Neill? Mrs O'Neill?
Mrs O'Neill: Mrs O'Neill when I'm sitting here.
Mr Bisson: Mrs in this case, sorry -- to Mrs O'Neill on that. As you can well understand, it's been quite a frustrating time around here for the last week, and I read which way you were going with that a little bit differently, so I apologize. What we're saying is that the consultations on that are to be ended by June 1992; that's what we're saying.
Mrs O'Neill: So the extension, or to continue, means you're still hoping to reach the deadline of June?
Mr Bisson: Yes. Mr Hope can answer more clearly.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): There have been a number of public consultations, as you're well aware, with round tables and groups. That public consultation is coming to an end. After the public consultation, there will be a draft paper that will go into all area MCSS offices of what we heard through the public consultation process.
After that paper, we will still be receiving views on the whole global aspect so that every community from one end of the province to the other can understand what's been shared. It will be the government's intention to continue to consult and to listen for public input through the process we continue to go through, because there will be a number of recommendations that were expressed by communities. We need to continue to work on a major reform for the province.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, just a point of clarification. At this point, the whole of the committee report has been adopted and the business of the committee is now ended?
The Acting Chair: That's correct.
Mr Jackson: No. There's one more motion, to report it to the House, Mr Chair, if that's helpful.
Mr Bisson: I would put the motion, Mr Chair, that we report the committee to the House.
The Acting Chair: Just hold on for a second. I'll get clarification from the clerk.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, I'd put a motion, before we forget, that we report the report, as amended, to the House.
The Acting Chair: I'm just going to make a clarification so everybody understands where we are. There seems to be a bit of confusion. I will call this question, that the body of the draft report as agreed to previously and the recommendations that have been approved today become the report of this committee and that the report be tabled by the Chair of the committee to the House.
Mr Jackson: Clarification: That will include the minority reports as submitted.
Clerk of the Committee: Dissenting opinions can be filed with me to be attached to the report, yes.
Mr Marchese: "With me" meaning now or before it gets to the House.
The Acting Chair: All right. So that motion is on the floor then.
The committee divided on Mr Bisson's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 7
Bisson, Harrington, Hope, Jackson, Marchese, Owens, Waters.
Nays -- 2
O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole.
Mr Bisson: I move to adjourn the committee.
The Acting Chair: All in favour of adjournment? The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1145.