HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 23, 1999

• 1108

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.).): Colleagues, let's begin.

As you know, we have witnesses. The deputy has to go to an important United Way function at 12.30, and I'm going to propose that we proceed directly through our agenda. Before we do that, however, I would remind you of our program.

On November 25, this Thursday, we will consider the post-secondary education report and the government response, which, as you know, has already been tabled.

On November 30, we consider the report on older workers. The response is expected tomorrow.

On December 2, we consider the report of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities.

All of these are at 11 a.m., our regular time.

I now have add to that list that on December 9, at our regular time, the minister will be here. Part of her focus will be policy with respect to disabilities.

As well, I want to seek permission for our meetings to be televised on two upcoming dates. It's already on our agenda, however, so we'll discuss that afterwards.

I propose now to proceed to our main item of business pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a status report on the report of the Sub-committee on Children and Youth at Risk, tabled in June 1999.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): At our last meeting, we agreed that the first item on the agenda would be the vote on my motion concerning the SIN number. We agreed that this would be a priority item this morning. At least, that's what I understood at our last meeting.

• 1110

[English]

The Chair: Paul, my recollection is that we agreed that we would deal with it at this meeting. We will, but I would suggest to you that as we have the deputy here, and we have only an hour and a half of her time, it would be much more appropriate for us to deal with that. We will, today, deal with your motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Fine.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I would like to welcome our witnesses today, Marta Morgan of the department, and Claire Morris, the deputy.

We appreciate your coming here on this occasion. I've explained why you have to leave. I think it is a very good cause, the United Way.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: I want to come back to what I was saying earlier, because there was a problem with the interpretation. When we adjourned at our last meeting, we didn't have a quorum, because one member, who happens to be sitting across from me right now, was absent. We decided that this item would be moved to today's agenda. It should be our first item of business. We agreed to debate the motion before hearing from witnesses on the next item. If we don't do it, then the meeting could drag on for God knows how long.

The subject at hand is very important and interesting and will take up a great deal of our time. If we don't vote immediately on the motion, it would be like we were giving up on the idea of ever having a debate. We clearly agreed to hold a vote at the start of the meeting. I fail to understand your decision. If you read the transcripts of our last meeting, you will see that I'm right.

[English]

The Chair: Deborah Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Thank you.

It would seem to me as well that with regard to the people who are here to answer questions, some of their answers may be reflective... When we're talking about reports on children and youth, I know a lot of children and youth who have social insurance numbers. If the whole thing is a scam, it would seem to be to be pretty sensible to have the vote now so that it may well be reflected in some of the answers they give.

I can see you counting wildly there; that's exactly our suggestion, that you have the vote now rather than when stragglers come in. Let's deal with it.

The Chair: As I say, colleagues, my recollection is that we agreed that we would have this vote, but my concern at the moment is that we have the deputy. We didn't know we were going to have the deputy here today, but we have an hour and a half of her time. I'm very grateful for that.

We have plenty of time at this meeting to hear our witnesses, consider the main agenda items of today, and then debate and vote on the motion before us.

Miss Deborah Grey: My point, sir, was that the deputy may have better information if the result of this vote is known, wouldn't you think?

The Chair: The deputy is here today dealing with the report, Deborah, by the Sub-committee on Children and Youth at Risk.

Miss Deborah Grey: I'm exactly aware of that, and it seems to me that a lot of children and youth, whether they're at risk or not, hold social insurance numbers, valid or bogus.

The Chair: Paul Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): It's actually John, but it's all right. I'm not sensitive.

The Chair: John Godfrey; excuse me. I do know the other one.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Chair, when we actually have something called the orders of the day sent out to members, which says that the first order of business is going to be the witnesses, and then the third order of business will be the discussion of the vote, I'm just wondering what the status of that is. I mean, is that something members were told ahead of time?

The Chair: Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would answer his question by saying yes, because we all received it, but if we really are truly interested in the answers, we have the deputy minister here. Let's get on with it. Mr. Crête already agreed that we would be dealing with the motion today. We will. He agreed to that.

I guess they suddenly got out their adding machines as well in terms of their count, but the bottom line is that we have the deputy minister here, so let's get on with it. When we get the answers, maybe the motion will be irrelevant.

• 1115

The Chair: If I may, colleagues, we've gone to some trouble to get the deputy minister here, and I really do think the agenda is before us. My recollection of the issue is that we were going to debate and vote on the motion at this meeting, but I don't recall that we said it would be the first item. It's not the first item on our agenda, which was circulated to all members.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: I request a vote on the motion moved at the last meeting. Immediately!

[English]

The Chair: I would rule that we proceed to the first item of business, which is the hearing of the witnesses. If we could do that, I would be most grateful to all members.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There's a double standard at work here. We held a debate the other day and because a member left, we lost our quorum. We agreed that this very important question should be debated and we agreed to do that when the committee reconvened. We even agreed to debate the motions.

Today, you're changing the rules of the game. If things go your way, you can expect an all-out war! There's a limit to what a person can take. We are Members of Parliament. If we do not vote on my motion, if you decide to disregard it, you can be certain that it will be quite some time before the deputy minister has an opportunity to speak. I'll have many questions to raise about a variety of subjects.

[English]

The Chair: I am not, Paul, ignoring the motion in any way, shape or form. We're going to deal with the motion. We're discussing here when today it will be dealt with.

I would rule, and I would be grateful if you would take advantage of this opportunity that we've been waiting for, that we hear our witnesses first.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Chair, I was here at the last meeting as well. As I recall, we were debating this and we lost quorum when a member of the government side left. But I also recall that we said we would be dealing with this issue at the very beginning of this meeting. That's what I recall from that meeting.

I think the problem here, and it's very visible to all of us, is that there are numbers missing on the Liberal side. It's very simple. It doesn't take an adding machine for that.

If we go back to the last meeting, I think we actually stated that we would deal with this at the very beginning of this meeting.

The Chair: Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Chairperson, I move that we have the vote now.

The Chair: Now?

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): That was on a point of order, because it was a motion to put the vote. Therefore, I raise a point of order, and that is for clarification from the clerk.

Could the clerk tell the committee what was indeed the understanding during that last meeting? If indeed the clerk could confirm that the understanding was that we proceed with this matter as the first item of business, then I will agree that it ought to be that way. Otherwise, we may be creating a bad precedent.

The Chair: My recollection of the meeting is that we said we would deal with the motion at this meeting, but I don't recall saying that it would be the first item.

Ms. Libby Davies: We have a motion on the floor now.

The Chair: No, we don't. The clerk is checking, but I'm not convinced that in committee such a motion is in order, and that the chair...

In fact, we have an agenda that has been published and that is out there.

An hon. member: Who made the agenda?

The Chair: Libby Davies, please.

• 1120

Ms. Libby Davies: I move that we vary the agenda to bring up item two immediately.

A voice: That's a substantive motion, because you want to stay with the agenda.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I have some additional information to impart to the committee. On November 19, we received a note from the clerk, Ms. Bélisle, advising us to take note of the items that would be considered at the next committee meeting slated for November 23. The first item was a press release. The second is the matter of the committee...

[English]

The Chair: Paul, I would take it that it was simply notice of things that were coming, and the agenda is the agenda. The agenda was circulated in addition to that. The agenda says that the first item of business will be witnesses.

Deborah Grey.

Ms. Deborah Grey: The one I was given, on which I was acting, was this November 23 meeting, and number one, the news release concerning the creation—

The Chair: It's a news release; it's not the agenda. It was, in good faith, to give members an idea of what we would be discussing at this meeting.

Ms. Deborah Grey: Perhaps we should ask the deputy. This vote will take 35 seconds, and then finally they'll get underway. Maybe we could defer to them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Could we agree then to vote on the motion at the beginning of our next meeting on Thursday morning? I'm prepared to hear the deputy minister's presentation, provided we agree that the motion will be the first item on Thursday's agenda. Could we agree to that?

[English]

The Chair: Okay, so you want it to be the first item at next Thursday's meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would prefer it to be today, but we can't vote because the Liberals were unable to get seven members to attend this morning's meeting. That's the crux of the problem. The government party is unable to field seven members to vote on this motion, which we debated at our last meeting. The situation is extremely frustrating to me.

In any case, you saw the reaction of the opposition members. They wanted the vote to be held immediately. The issue would have been resolved. It's 11:20 a.m. and the matter could have been resolved had a seventh Liberal member been present. That's the truth of the matter.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a simple question. How many BQ members are entitled to vote?

Mr. Paul Crête: Three.

Ms. Monique Guay: Three. We all have the right to vote.

Mr. John Godfrey: And how many Reform Party members?

Mr. Paul Crête: Three.

Mr. John Godfrey: Three as well.

Mr. Jean Dubé: The big problem today is with numbers.

[English]

The Chair: The members will still be here at the end of the meeting.

Ms. Deborah Grey: What guarantee do you have?

The Chair: I would rule that we continue, if we might, and we will consider this motion at the end of the meeting when in fact we're heard from the witnesses. Under the circumstances, again, this committee has been very interested in hearing from the deputy. We have the deputy. She's here until 12.30 p.m. I think we should seize this opportunity.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chair, I don't know if the clerk had a chance to check Beauchesne's. When there's a motion brought by a member of Parliament at a committee, I find it hard to believe you're actually going to act as though it didn't happen. I don't believe that at all.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Clerk of the Committee: ...moved in committee, you cannot move that the question be now put in committee.

The Chair: Okay. I would suggest that the motion to vary the agenda is the same motion in another guise. I would suggest that we proceed with the witnesses. Colleagues, I'd be most grateful if we could do that—and we will come to this motion.

Deborah Grey.

Ms. Deborah Grey: What would happen if this vote and this motion were passed? As I understand, this was a unanimous agreement on which the people in this committee worked very hard together, and I'm not so sure there would be government members here who are just thrilled to death with the report as it stands. What would be the harm if the committee said we're not really pleased with the government report on this, that maybe it should go back to the drawing board?

Carolyn, I find it hard to believe anyone would have a real problem with that.

• 1125

The Chair: I'm sure we can discuss that at the end of the meeting and see if that's true.

Libby Davis, and then Paul Crête.

Ms. Libby Davies: Chairperson, I'm not sure on what basis you make a ruling that a motion to vary the agenda is out of order. It seems to me that varying the agenda is within the purview of the committee. So if you're ruling that's not possible to do by a committee member, then I would challenge the chair on that ruling.

The Chair: Again, I would rule that we have an agenda before us. The principal item is witnesses, and that is what we are here for. I would suggest we proceed to it.

Paul, you're next.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I protest and I would like a vote on your ruling.

A member: A recorded vote.

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, a recorded vote.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: As a point of clarification, I think it's best to work on the basis of cordiality in this committee, and I heard the member requesting earlier that this be placed as the first item of business at the next meeting of the committee.

To me, that was a friendly suggestion, and in fact that would be acceptable to me. In the interest of time, why can we not agree on a request on the part of the opposition to have it as the first item of business at the next meeting of the committee? If that request is still pending, then we can proceed with the hearing of the witnesses today.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chairman, the vote will take about 30 seconds. We're not talking about time. The deputy minister has an important function. We want to hear what she has to say. It's a very important matter. This vote is going to take approximately 30 seconds. I suggest we get it over with.

The Chair: Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I hear that we're interested in finding answers to concerns that members on all sides may have, so I would suggest we hear from the deputy minister, and then at that point we'll see whether or not concerns are there.

In the interim, the minister has the message, and I know the minister will be responding effectively to that, certainly within the next couple of weeks. As we know, she'll be here on December 9, 1999.

So rather than play politics, I'd suggest we hear from the deputy minister and see what she has to say in terms of the response, and we'll go from there.

The Chair: John Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm a little confused about the state of Mr. Crête's offer.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête, I apologize but as usual, I'm a little confused as to your offer to defer the vote on your motion until the beginning of our Thursday morning meeting. The offer is still on the table, since Mr. Dubé has rejected the idea, if I'm not mistaken. Where do we stand then, Mr. Chairman, as far as this offer is concerned?

[English]

The Chair: Eric Lowther, then Rick Limoges, and then Paul Crête.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, the only thing I'd say is it's my understanding that at the last meeting of this committee, we kept the witnesses waiting for quite a while as we went ahead to move a motion and vote on the creation of the children at risk subcommittee. We've sort of set a precedent here already in the last meeting that we would keep witnesses waiting as we settled things that we had up for vote. So if we're not playing politics, why don't we just be consistent with what we did in the last meeting?

The Chair: Rick Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not sure if we're currently debating a motion that's on the floor, if we haven't recognized any motions, or what that situation is. But with regard to the procedural orders here, I'm not a regular member of this committee, so I wonder if you might be able to explain how that works. I assume the chair has a vote to either create or break a tie. Also, if a challenge to the chair is on the floor, what kind of majority does it require in order to pass?

The Chair: Paul Crête, then Libby Davies, and then Bryon Wilfert.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, to answer Mr. Godfrey's question, I didn't make any kind of offer. All I did was challenge the chair's ruling.

A member: And that's what we must vote on.

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, on my challenging the chair's ruling.

• 1130

[English]

The Chair: Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: We should just stop this merry-go-round. You made a decision that we would proceed with the witnesses. I challenged the chair's ruling on that basis. My understanding of parliamentary procedure is that when that happens, a vote should be taken on whether to uphold the chair's ruling or not. So we should be voting on that, and then the rest of it will take its course.

The Chair: Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we received the agenda at the beginning. The question was asked about the motion. Mr. Crête agreed that the motion would in fact be dealt with during the committee time, which was up until 1 o'clock. Now suddenly we're changing the rules. We're now saying no, we want it at the beginning.

We received this. We also received it earlier in the day, and I presume in your offices. If you had had any questions, you would have contacted the clerk, which obviously no one did. We came in here. We had the agenda before us. We accepted the agenda. The question was raised: are we going to deal with this motion? The answer: yes, we are, during the committee. That was fine. Now suddenly we're saying no, no, we don't want to deal with it during the course of events; we want to deal with it at the beginning.

I would suggest that having received it, the time to deal with it would have been at the beginning. If you didn't like the order of the agenda, I would have assumed—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An hon. member: —

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: But you did not, because obviously Mr. Crête agreed at the beginning that the motion would be dealt with—

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Well, I find that very difficult to understand, because I heard the chair ask that question. The question was asked.

I mean, do we want to hear the deputy minister or not? If we want to hear the deputy minister, let's get on with it.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if the motion to challenge the ruling of the chair was allowed to prosper by the chair, then it is an undebatable motion.

An hon. member: Right. So question.

The Chair: I would suggest we deal first of all with the motion with respect to the chair and then we'll consider the other motions.

Would whoever moved it care to repeat it?

An hon. member: I find you're moving awfully fast.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Excuse me, I have a point of order.

[Translation]

What is the majority required to challenge the chair's ruling? We didn't get an answer to that question. Could we please have one?

The Clerk: When the vote is evenly split, the Chair can veto the motion.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Even when one of the chair's rulings has been challenged?

The Clerk: That's the way it is.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Fine then.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Would whoever moved the motion care to repeat it, please?

Ms. Libby Davies: My motion is that we challenge the ruling of the chair to proceed with the witnesses prior to dealing with motion two.

It's to challenge your ruling on that.

The Chair: Okay, everyone has heard the motion. Those in favour of the motion, please so indicate. Those against?

The Clerk: It's a tie vote. You have to decide.

The Chair: I vote against.

An hon. member: You're the chair.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: I would suggest that we move to the witnesses. We will consider the motion, which is item three on our agenda, at this meeting. We'll debate it and we'll vote on it.

Deputy, welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. We're in your hands. Would you care to proceed, Claire Morris?

• 1135

Ms. Claire Morris (Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by saying I'm pleased to be here—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Claire Morris: —after this lengthy introduction, to address the report of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk and to update the committee on HRDC's work in the area of children's policy.

[Translation]

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the significant contribution of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk. The Sub-Committee's first report has strongly influenced policy thinking on key aspects of children's policy. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee has helped maintain public momentum in favour of enhanced supports for Canadian children and families.

[English]

My remarks today will cover two areas. First I'd like to discuss briefly the 1999 Speech from the Throne commitments as they pertain to children and families. Secondly, I'd like to provide you with an update on the federal government's work with provincial and territorial governments on the national children's agenda. I hope we'll have some time at the end to take questions.

[Translation]

As you well know, the government reaffirmed its commitment to improving the lives of Canadian children in the recent Speech from the Throne. The rationale behind these commitments clearly echoes the themes set out in the first report of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk.

The government has stated that the future strength of our society will depend on the investments made in families and children. It is these early investments that provide the greatest potential for achieving a population that is adaptable, resilient and ready to learn throughout life.

The Speech from the Throne committed the government to increasing resources going into early childhood development, providing targeted assistance for low-income families with children, and fostering family-friendly workplaces, again, echoing several of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth At Risk. More specifically, the government set out six key commitments for children and families:

- first, to work with the provinces and territories to put in place an action plan by December 2000 to increase investments for early childhood development;

- second, to make a third significant investment in the National Child Benefit by July 2001, while seeking a commitment from provincial partners to increase their investment in services for families with children;

- third, to take steps to put more dollars in the hands of families with children through the provision of further tax relief;

- fourth, to extend Employment Insurance maternity and parental benefits to one full year and to improve the access to, and flexibility of, these benefits so that parents can spend more time with their children during the critical phase of infancy;

- fifth, to demonstrate leadership by making its own workplace policies and those of federally regulated employers more family- oriented;

- and finally, the government committed to modernizing family law and strengthening supports provided to families to ensure that, in instances of divorce or separation, the needs and best interests of children come first.

A number of federal departments will play a role in the implementation of these commitments. I would like to provide a few comments on the two areas in which HRDC will play a leadership role. These are the National Child Benefit and reform of Employment Insurance Parental Benefits. I would also like to bring you up to date on our work on early child development, which is being undertaken in partnership with provincial and territorial governments.

• 1140

[English]

The government is committed to making a third significant investment in the national child benefit by July 2001. As you know, a strong partnership has been developed with the provinces and territories in the course of working on the first two phases of the national child benefit.

I'd like to table the first annual progress report on the NCB that was released with the provinces last May—and I believe we've circulated it to the committee. It's a very useful document in that it outlines and explains why governments introduced the NCB, the objectives of the initiative, and the mechanics of how it actually works. Moreover, this first report contains estimates of provincial, territorial and first nation investments in the first twelve months of the initiative, describing the range of programming that's being delivered at the provincial and local levels as part of this initiative. What governments are doing is building a more secure platform of children's benefits and services that are consistently provided to low-income families, regardless of whether parents are on social assistance or earning a modest income.

Part of the problem for families moving out of poverty is that parents often face difficult choices. In many cases, accepting a job means losing a range of income benefits and services for their children that are traditionally only available to children on social assistance. That's changing through the NCB. Helping families out of poverty means helping their parents to move into the workforce while still retaining benefits for their children.

The Government of Canada has increased its payments to low-income families with children through the existing Canada child tax benefit. The first increase in monthly payments occurred in July 1998, with subsequent increases in July 1999 and July 2000. Together, these increases to low-income families are valued at $1.7 billion per year. As you know, the government has announced a further significant increase for July 2001.

Provincial and territorial governments, as well as first nations, have adjusted social assistance payments so that families on social assistance receive at least the same net income benefits as they did before. With the extra funds that this has made available, governments have reinvested over $300 million in new benefits and services in the first year of the NCB, and that will rise to close to $500 million in 1999-2000. As a result, provincial and territorial governments are providing new child care subsidies and services, income supplements, extended health care and dental benefits, as well as preventive services, all targeted to low-income families with children.

Public reporting and accountability are central to the national child benefit initiative. Governments are working together to measure the results of the NCB initiative in meeting the goals of reducing the depth of child poverty, increasing labour force attachment, and furthering program harmonization between governments. Future annual reports and joint evaluation activities will allow us to chart progress and will enable us to improve the set of supports that the NCB is building for low-income families.

On employment insurance parental benefits, in the first report the subcommittee urged the government to re-evaluate our system of maternity and parental leave. In hearings held last spring, witnesses urged the subcommittee to support a more generous system that would help ease the transition into parenthood.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the government is taking steps to enhance the opportunities available to parents to positively influence their child's life in the first critical years. The Prime Minister has reinforced the Speech from the Throne commitment to extend parental benefits under EI from the current six months up to a full year, by stating that this provision is to be in place no later than January 1, 2001.

Additionally, we'll be looking at options available to improve the accessibility of maternity and parental benefits by increasing the number of parents eligible for these benefits. The clear focus of this initiative is to recognize the importance of supporting parents in their role as primary caregivers for their children. We're consulting with interested groups and with our provincial and territorial partners as we develop the design parameters.

[Translation]

I would like to turn now to the work we are doing in partnership with the provinces and territories on a broader vision for Canada's children. At the time of the Sub-Committee's deliberations last spring, federal, provincial and territorial governments had released two documents: "A National Children's Agenda - Developing a Shared Vision", along with "Measuring Child Well-Being and Monitoring Progress".

• 1145

The National Children's Agenda draws together not only jurisdictions, but also the health, social services, justice and education sectors with the goal of improving the well-being of Canada's children. In developing a shared vision for a National Children's Agenda, key research findings on children and families, as well as policy directions developed by governments and non- governmental organizations were reviewed by the Federal-Provincial- Territorial Council on Social Policy Renewal. In addition, the five national aboriginal organizations contributed their perspective on the particular challenges confronting aboriginal children.

The Council found extensive common ground, and was optimistic that a shared vision could serve as a touchstone for all sectors of Canadian society, not only for governments, in their efforts to improve child well-being. It articulated a vision that is inclusive of all children, including children with special needs. The NCA vision acknowledges that although the needs and capacities of children may vary, all children are deserving of support to reach their full potential.

A part of their shared vision, governments identified the need to work together in the following six areas:

- supporting parents and strengthening families;

- enhancing early childhood development;

- improving economic security for families;

- providing early and continuous learning experiences;

- fostering strong adolescent development; and

- creating supportive, safe and violence-free communities,

Last May, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council asked officials to conduct a low-key dialogue based on their shared vision. The process concluded on September 30 and I would like to tell you about the dialogue activities and provide a preliminary sense of the feedback governments received from Canadians.

The dialogue process included several streams of activity.

Five roundtable discussions were held in Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and St. John's with key stakeholders representing the interests of non-governmental organizations involved with children, including education, recreation, special needs, research and general advocacy organizations.

Five focus groups were also held with members of the general public.

The five national aboriginal organizations held discussions with their constituencies and among their respective partners. As you know, these organizations are the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Métis National Council and the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Numerous activities were undertaken by individual jurisdictions.

Public outreach mechanisms were put in place, including a website, a 1-800 line and a workbook.

Lastly, an experts workshop on measurement issues was held.

[English]

Council ministers will review all of the input received and will decide on how they wish to report back to Canadians on the process. I can tell you, though, that officials involved in the process were encouraged that there is a very strong commitment among Canadians to work together to improve the lives of children. There was agreement that a shared vision provides a useful place to begin, but we also received a clear message that it's time to move on to action.

As a final comment on the children's agenda, I know some observers have questioned the time and effort invested by governments' envisioning. From my perspective, it's actually quite an accomplishment for governments to have agreed on a common vision that can guide their individual and collective efforts on the part of Canadian families and children. It's a vision that I think will serve as a particularly important touchstone for what I hope will be a long-term shared agenda on children's policy.

• 1150

On early childhood development, in the first report the subcommittee noted the important role that the first six years of a child's life play in determining longer-term outcomes. They noted the importance of investing in preventive and supportive programs for children and their parents during this critical period, and they made the important point that all children benefit from access to high-quality child development programs.

Again, I mentioned a minute ago that the Speech from the Throne challenged all governments to have in place a national action plan to strengthen supports for early childhood development by December 2000. This is an action plan that would set out principles and objectives, outcome measures, and a mechanism for reporting to Canadians. It would also include a five-year timetable for increased federal and provincial spending.

Over the past months, I've observed a growing consensus among governments on the importance of investing in early childhood development. In September, federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health released a report on ways in which the health sector can improve outcomes for young children. Last spring, the deputy ministers of health and social services got together and asked our officials to begin work on clarifying shared priorities in the area of early childhood development.

So although we still have a lot of work to do together, we do have consensus on a few key building blocks. We've identified the four key components of a comprehensive early childhood development system, including supports for parenting, support during the prenatal and perinatal period, early child care and learning, and broad community supports. Within this framework we've not yet moved on to identify specific opportunities for collaboration, but we do agree that our approach needs to be holistic. In other words, it needs to address the full range of needs that children and their families bring. Related to this, we need to be prepared to work across jurisdictions and across the divisions between government programs and sectors.

Finally, we need to continue to monitor child well-being and to evaluate the impact of our interventions to ensure that they're effective. Again, I'd note that each one of these themes corresponds with the recommendations included in the first report of the subcommittee. Within the federal government, we share responsibility with Health Canada for advancing the agenda on early childhood development.

[Translation]

It is clear that we have our work cut out for us. We have several commitments flowing from the Speech from the Throne to follow through on and we will be working diligently to advise the Government on how to make those commitments a reality.

Our work is going to require that we build on the good relationships we have established with the provinces through the National Child Benefit and National Children's Agenda.

The scope of the task at hand is somewhat daunting, but the mandate is clear. This Sub-Committee has been a pivotal player in advancing our collective understanding of how public policies can better support children and families. We look forward to working with the Sub-Committee in this session of Parliament. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Morris.

[English]

I didn't say for the record that witness Marta Morgan is the director of children's policy for the Department of Human Resources Development. I did welcome you, Marta, but I didn't say who you were.

I have an extensive list. I'll hear from John Godfrey, then Paul Crête, Bryon Wilfert, Raymonde Folco, Ray Pagtakhan, Libby Davies, and Jean Dubé.

Mr. John Godfrey: Welcome. On behalf of the as yet to be fully established subcommittee, we're delighted at the prospect of working with you as well to make sure the national action plan comes into being.

What I'm trying to understand is what our deadlines are and what our tasks are. I see two deadlines in front of us. One is the budget deadline for the upcoming millennium budget. If that is to be a children's budget, I only see one concrete item in it so far. I see about one-third of the funding for extended parental leave, which starts kicking in on the January 1, 2001, seeing as it is contained in the February budget.

• 1155

If we are to have a deal with the provinces on a national action plan by December 2000, should we do what we did in the February budget of 1997 with the national child benefit, before we had the deal with the provinces but announced that we would put, in that case, $850 million on the table to encourage them to believe that we're real and serious? If we're to have a real children's budget for the millennium, would it make sense to do something of a similar variety in this upcoming budget to show the seriousness of our intentions and to encourage them to come to a deal with us? That is the first question.

My second question is this: As one tries to understand what a deal would look like in December 2000—and I understand that a deal would then give rise to a system or give rise to programs; it's not the system and it's not the program, but it gives rise to the system and the program—how much of the work would you understand to have already been done because of the visioning exercise that the national children's agenda went through and because of the measurement of children's well-being?

In the Speech from the Throne, we talked about objectives and principles, and about outcomes and accountability. How much do we think has already been locked up? How much of the principles and objectives are already incarnated in the existing documents, and on the measurement side as well?

Those are my two biggies.

Ms. Claire Morris: In terms of the upcoming budget, I think all of those are very legitimate questions. Of course, you know our colleagues in finance ultimately wield the pen, but it's clear that with the announced date of January 2001 for the extension of the maternity and parental leave benefits, that will clearly have to be accounted for.

As you point out clearly, the tradition with respect to the third tranche of the NCB is to ensure that we do give the provinces lots of lead time in terms of preparing for that. In our minds, although they're very tightly linked, we see quite a clear distinction between the third phase of the national child benefit—which is of course adding to that income security platform for children and to associated services that contribute to that—and the early childhood initiatives that have been under discussion with the provinces through the joint health and social services fora that I discussed in my remarks. They are a very logical outgrowth of the kind of work that's been done on the vision.

It is conceivable. We know we definitely will have some indication on the maternal-parental leave, because it kicks in in the fiscal year in question. We are working toward and will have an action plan with the provinces, and I anticipate some announcements on whether we will have initiatives in the following three months. I think we're still very early in the process in terms of being able to identify that.

All of the commitments are very public and are already well under discussion with the provinces. Within the next year or two years, we expect to see a lot of movement on these three separate areas.

The Chair: We're going to have to keep this thing moving along, if you don't mind, because we have a long list and a relatively short time.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): On reviewing your National Children's Agenda, the first thing I noted was that many of your interventions target areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Mention is made of supporting parents, strengthening the family structure, enhancing early childhood development, and so forth. I won't list all of the services provided by the provinces, but I would like to know what the government's true intentions are. Are you saying that the government is going to set up programs or rather that it is going to distribute money? As we all know, the federal government is lagging behind in Canadian social transfers to the provinces, transfer which allow them to improve health care and educational services, as well as income security programs for families and persons in need.

• 1200

Are you in fact saying that the government will be creating new programs, or are you saying that the government is planning to allocate more financial resources to the provinces, in light of your assessment of the situation?

Ms. Claire Morris: As you know, the provinces have been quite receptive to the National Child Benefit, in the sense that it respects... I realize that not all provinces feel this way, but the National Child Benefit respects the priorities of the provinces.

The federal government wasn't the one to decide where the money would be reinvested at the provincial level. Service delivery can vary considerably from one province to the next, depending on a particular province's priorities.

With respect to early childhood development, the first thing we need to do is achieve a consensus. We are confident that we can reach a consensus on the range of essential services to be provided in this area. The deputy ministers of health and social services have already been working together on this and have agreed on the components of the services network to be implemented.

The provinces' role as members of this network will be wide- ranging. The proposed model will need to take into account provincial priorities and be mindful of provincial jurisdiction over social services. Furthermore, it must give all governments the opportunity to work together, inspired by a common vision, on implementing a national network of essential services.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, but you haven't answered my question. Is the government planning to allocate more money to the provinces, based on these priorities? You claim to have the support of all of the provinces, in so far as these priorities are concerned. However, you might want to check and see if Quebec is one side as well.

Will assistance be in the form of transfer payments, or is the government planning to establish, as it did in the case of the millennium scholarships, a program which could be dubbed the national parental assistance program, for example, to strengthen the family structure? Is that the plan? For instance, in the case of a province that already has established programs in place, but that needs money to hire more social workers and to provide more cutting-edge services, what is the government planning to do?

Will you support the provinces' efforts or will you institute your own programs through which services deemed to be a priority by the government will be delivered?

Ms. Claire Morris: Basically, the funding formula has yet to be determined. Where we do have a consensus, and what has been confirmed is the government's intention of working with the provinces to establish a services network and subsequently deciding on a funding formula. The issue is far from settled yet. Our discussions with the provinces are just beginning.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'd like to talk about the parental leave provision. You claim to want to help children and families with a view to supporting parents in their role. The National Child Benefit is one way of supporting parents, but we have the feeling that...

I'm speaking for Quebec, because I represent a Quebec constituency and I'm most familiar with this province. Everyone knows that the aim of the National Child Benefit initiative was to provide support to families. Another way of helping families would be to introduce a real family policy, one that provides for day care services, early childhood care and so forth. When a province like Quebec moves to develop a policy like this using a portion of the federal National Child Benefit...

You have no problem with that because agreements were signed with the provinces and territories. Yet, the perception lingers in people's minds that federal funds are being taken and invested elsewhere. They feel cheated. I don't know what you could do. Perhaps the government could allocate more money to day care services in the provinces, in keeping with its constitutional obligations. Thus, the money going into the National Child Benefit would go directly to the provinces' residents.

• 1205

Right now, we have to take a share of what we get from the province - you know how things are in Quebec - and direct it to a particular area. But in reality, people are wondering why their cheques aren't bigger, since the National Child Benefit has been increased.

I have some problems with family assistance of this nature. When there are no adequate day care services available and a mother is forced to spend $25 a day once her parental leave is exhausted - we'll come back to the subject of parental leave—then maybe the National Child Benefit isn't the best answer for families. When parents have no money, they can't afford to stay home for one year to watch their child grow and develop. They need to get out and work. Therefore, day care services...

I don't think the NCB addresses adequately the needs of families in general.

Ms. Claire Morris: Briefly, we're still working to identify the priorities of each provinces. In Quebec, day care services are one such priority. A substantial investment has been made in this area. One has to understand that provinces have different priorities. Hence, there's a need for a flexible funding formula.

[English]

The Chair: Have we finished?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have no further questions.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

Brian Wilfert, and then Raymonde Folco.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Deputy Minister, you talked about the visioning exercise, and I noticed there were round tables where the grassroots were involved—people from the recreation field, education, etc. My great fear is always that we have top-down programming. I do not support a new national program. I don't believe we can afford a new national program, and I hope we're not trying to go in that direction.

What I think we can afford is to put the proper tools into the hands of the grassroots who know how to deliver services. We know the impact of the recession and the cutting of programs, both at the federal and the provincial levels. I'm very concerned about how we're going to actualize this vision that you talk about, and how we're going to measure it. You referred in your statements today to annual reports and measurements, etc.

I guess this is obviously not going to be...although I'd like to get some sense as to what instruments you're looking at to be able to measure. And how do we make sure those who need it... It's not just low-income people; there are middle-class people in this country who clearly also need those tools, in my view. We're having more and more people working. I came from a time when both my parents worked, which might have been rather odd in the 1950s. I survived, you know.

A voice: We'll talk about that.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I see a lot of attention on low income, but because of the threshold of what is supposedly wealthy in this country—which is in my view rather ridiculous—there are also... I'd like to know what kinds of measurements there are. How can you ensure—I'll wind up here—that those grassroots organizations that can deliver are not just at the beginning of this process... You consult them for the visioning; how are they going to continue to be involved in this process in the long haul?

The Chair: Ms. Morris.

Mr. Claire Morris: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll respond to some of the more general comments and then ask Marta to speak specifically to some of the measurement issues, because she can be far more concrete about them then I can.

To go back to your general points, no, we're not talking about a national program, but we are talking about trying to arrive at a consensus across the country with respect to what is required in early childhood development—what range of services we require to really ensure the healthy development of children. In regard to your point about needing to address all children, I think that came out very clearly in the subcommittee's report, and it's been reinforced by the Mustard-McCain report. There are conditions that have to exist for all children to thrive and be well.

• 1210

I appreciate your comments about making sure we're not just consulting the non-governmental sector at the front end and then not recognizing the kind of role they can play at the community level, because it is an absolutely essential role. I think that's the beauty of the approach that allows the provinces to fund programs according to their priorities, using the agencies they choose to use, because as you know, there are different models across the country.

So that's speaking to those points. I'll let Marta speak to the measurement and outcomes, because it's a very important part of the picture.

Ms. Marta Morgan (Director, Children's Policy, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): On the issue of measurement, we will be working with the provinces and territories as we develop the action plan to put in place provisions for how we would measure both what was actually happening in terms of services and what kinds of outcomes we might expect.

One of the projects we have going on right now at HRDC, which we think is really promising, is an initiative called Understanding the Early Years. There's a pilot project in North York in which they've been developing a community-based measure of child well-being in the preschool years. It's quite an exciting measure, because it could allow us to extend that measure into other communities. It can be not only a measure of how kids are doing, but also a rallying point for communities that they can use to see how their kids are doing, so they can tell, as they improve services and coordination in their neighbourhoods, what impact it's having. So that's one thing we're looking at seriously.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Could we get that information, or could that be forwarded to us?

Ms. Marta Morgan: Yes we could give you the follow-up information on that.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you very much.

The Chair: I say to the government members let's keep it very... I think we have two opposition members who are lower down on the list. Let's move it along while the deputy is here. Raymonde Folco, then right back to Libby Davies and Jean Dubé.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So far, the questions put to you have been about a broader clientele. With your permission, I'd like to ask a question concerning a very specific group, namely aboriginals.

I'd like to have a better grasp of the issue, as I am new to this committee. In your presentation, you spoke of a low-key dialogue conducted by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council on September 30 and you mentioned also that you had held discussions with national aboriginal organizations.

My question concerns the connection, or fit, between the dialogue conducted with these five organizations and the National Children's Agenda. In terms of the information you received and more specifically, in terms of the initiatives that will follow, how does one relate to the other?

Ms. Claire Morris: Specifically, when we talk about the link between developing a vision further to consultations and developing a National Children's Agenda, in my view, we're talking about an umbrella mechanism, that is a comprehensive initiative encompassing all activities targeting the early childhood component. This vision extends to youth at risk and to other components as well.

Judging from the consultations we've held, the principles and objectives seem to fit together very well. Those identified in the course of developing this vision apply to the area of early childhood development, one area in which the government has already begun to act.

On the aboriginal question, I will ask Ms. Morgan to speak to that issue. Aboriginal organizations have staged their own consultations with their communities. At the next meeting of ministers, we're hoping aboriginal organizations will submit a report outlining their priorities for us. Perhaps Ms. Morgan can tell us more about these reports.

Ms. Marta Morgan: National aboriginal organizations were involved in the development of this shared vision along with federal and provincial governments. They participate fully in the process. Consultations are continuing, but as for developing a shared vision, early results are proving to be fairly positive.

• 1215

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I also had a question about the initiatives that will flow from this shared vision.

Ms. Marta Morgan: We expect aboriginal organizations to continue working to develop initiatives that could flow from the National Children's Agenda. For example, a portion of the National Child Benefit goes to the First Nations. Governments recognize that in the process of developing a children's agenda, aboriginal issues are very important and must be included in any discussions.

Therefore, aboriginals will participate fully in the development of the National Children's Agenda.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. With the permission of Rey Pagtakhan, I'm going to go to Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, Chairperson.

Thank you for being here today to give us some more information. As you can see, we're very hungry for information about where this is all leading.

In terms of the national children's agenda, when you look at the six areas that are identified, one thing that I think is sort of a glaring omission when you think about it is the provision of housing. When you look at economic security and the issue of strengthening parents and families and so on, I don't know what kind of debate there has been, but one of the good things about the children's agenda is that it is multi-jurisdictional. It crosses over departments, and there's a sense that departments and different levels of government have to work together. There's the housing issue and the fact that there aren't federal dollars for new social housing any more and that now only two provinces provide social housing. I don't know whether you have any comment as to whether or not at some point that might be part of the agenda. That's one point.

There are many questions I could ask you, but I just want to touch on the EI issue a little bit, because to me this is one that is clearly in the federal government's jurisdiction. I think it was a good announcement that parental and maternity benefits would be extended, but I think there is a very key issue here, and that is not only extending the benefits but also dealing with the issue of accessibility. In your brief you say that you'll be looking at increasing the number of parents eligible for these benefits. As you know, the changes in the EI system have been absolutely devastating, particularly for women. I think that now less than 36% of women who pay into EI actually qualify for the benefits.

The question I have is, when you talk about increasing the number of parents who are eligible, does that eligibility pertain only to the maternity benefits, or will we also see a benefit in terms of the number of people who would actually qualify for EI and then in turn qualify for maternity benefits?

Do you get my point? I think it is a really critical point. Unless we address the issue of eligibility, we are going to end up with maybe a good program but nobody can qualify for it.

Ms. Claire Morris: With regard to the housing issue, as you know, we're deeply involved as well in the issue of homelessness, so there are many crossovers. One of the key objectives, as you well know, in terms of the NCB is providing that greater platform of income security for children and their families. Ultimately, so much of the issue of adequate housing comes back to adequate incomes and the ability to access affordable housing. It hasn't been figured in as a separate element, but it's very much part of the whole issue of income security for children and families.

• 1220

On the issue of access to EI benefits, particularly maternity and parental benefits, the commitment has been made with regard to improving access. That really is an issue of how the number of hours required to become eligible has affected women by virtue of their pattern of work. While changing to the hours-based system was particularly effective for women working fewer than 15 hours a week because those hours were never counted before, people working between 15 and 35 got caught by the changes. So that's one of the issues we're working on in terms of trying to achieve that objective of ensuring we have greater accessibility for these new benefits.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll now go to Jean Dubé and then Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you, Ms. Morris, for coming here today. I'm pleased to note on the last page of your submission that you are looking forward to working with the sub-committee in this session of Parliament.

I have to tell you that what you witnessed here this morning was partly due to the lack of cooperation on the department's part with respect to the SIN number. Therefore, I'm happy to see that you are interested in working with the committee.

My questions concern the consultation process. You note the following on page 5 of your submission:

[English]

We are consulting with interested groups and with our provincial and territorial partners as we develop the design parameters.

Would it be possible to know who you have consulted with up to now in the different regions of Canada? I see that—I think it's in French or English; I underlined it here—round tables were held in Vancouver, Toronto—

Ms. Claire Morris: Ottawa, St. John's, Halifax maybe.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I can't remember where it was. I saw that a while ago. I'd like to know if the consultations are still going on and why only five cities in Canada were consulted on such an important issue. As you know, the effect of the last reform to employment insurance on certain regions of Canada certainly affected the family. I think the reason for that was a lack of consultation. So I want to make sure we are consulting with all the regions of Canada, and I want to know if you intend on consulting other regions as well.

[Translation]

Ms. Claire Morris: Thank you. I'd like to come back to the matter of the department's cooperation on the SIN number. I didn't attend the meeting in question, but if I understand correctly, our ADM tried to explain that some of the committee's recommendations would be implemented through the new legislation, but also that the department would come back before the committee before the end of December to discuss the SIN number further. I can assure you that we are prepared to cooperate on this matter. We intend to return to continue our discussions.

As for consultations, these weren't confined to the five roundtables. Five focus groups also held meetings. Ms. Morgan can provide you with further details as to the location of these gatherings and the participants. To my knowledge, a broad spectrum of individuals working in the field of early childhood development participated in the process, including education workers and representatives of non-profit organizations. Throughout our communities, many people work in these areas and I know every effort was made to bring these stakeholders together.

Furthermore, numerous outreach mechanisms were put in place, including a website. I believe the consultation process concluded at the end of September, having been extended beyond the original summer completion date. Since the discussions proved to be very interesting, the deadline was extended a little.

Perhaps Ms. Morgan would care to add to this?

Ms. Marta Morgan: No, that's fine.

• 1225

Mr. Jean Dubé: If the consultations are now over, could the committee possibly get a copy of the transcripts to know exactly what was said at these meetings?

Ms. Claire Morris: Certainly you'll be receiving a copy of the report. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, a report is now being drafted and will be presented to the committee and to the Council on Social Policy Renewal. We expect the report will be made public because it is the result of open consultations with the Canadian public.

Mr. Jean Dubé: And what of the answer to my question?

Ms. Claire Morris: You'll receive a copy as soon as it becomes available.

Mr. Jean Dubé: That's not what I was asking. Were the meetings recorded and were transcripts produced?

Ms. Claire Morris: I really can't say.

[English]

Were the minutes taken in the meeting?

[Translation]

Ms. Marta Morgan: Transcripts and summaries were provided for all meetings deemed important for the purposes of drafting a report for the minister.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Then transcripts weren't automatically drawn up?

Ms. Marta Morgan: In fact, we're not talking about actual transcripts, but rather about summaries of each topic discussed at each provincial roundtable.

Ms. Claire Morris: All of these findings will be presented in the form of a report to the minister.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Will the report list the names of all the individuals who participated in the consultation process?

Ms. Marta Morgan: I can't say for certain whether the report's table of contents will contain a list of such names. However, the complete list of the participants in each roundtable has been circulated widely and should be public knowledge. Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem to...

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chairman, could we possibly get a copy of that list?

Ms. Claire Morris: Certainly.

Ms. Marta Morgan: That shouldn't pose a problem.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I have another brief question, if I have any time left, about the proposed legislation on parental leave. Our sub-committee would like to thoroughly examine the bill providing for 52 weeks of parental leave. I believe the draft legislation will be tabled in December of the year 2000. Do you foresee the committee playing an active role in the implementation of the recommendations associated with the new bill?

Ms. Claire Morris: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'm not really up on my parliamentary procedure, but I would imagine that the committee will have the opportunity to examine the proposed legislation and to make its views known.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ray Pagtakhan, then Larry McCormick.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you for your presentation.

Would you agree that due to the vast geography of the country, when we have consultations, at the minimum they should involve all the provinces and territories of Canada?

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely. Through our federal-provincial-territorial forums, a great deal of consultation goes on at that level. You're asking about the community level, I assume.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, indeed. Would you then make a recommendation to your minister that henceforth round tables, which are a good example of consultation, be equally held in all the three territories and ten provinces of the country?

Ms. Claire Morris: Let me ask Marta. She just wants to make a comment.

Ms. Marta Morgan: Just to clarify, the five round tables that were held on the national children's agenda did involve all provinces and territories, and there were representatives from all provinces and territories. For example, the round table that was held in Edmonton included representatives from Alberta and Saskatchewan. In that way, we made sure there was involvement from all of the provinces and territories in that process.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It's very heartening to hear that.

With respect to maternity and parental leave, you underscored that this was in the interest of the development of the infant, and not necessarily for the biological convenience to the mother. Is that right?

Ms. Claire Morris: As a mother, I'd suggest it would probably do both. But the primary purpose is to recognize the importance of those early months with a new baby, and ensure that parents have the opportunity to spend that time with their child.

• 1230

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Would you then agree that it is logical that when these benefits are extended, they should apply equally to adoptive parents?

Ms. Claire Morris: That's one of the issues we're currently looking at within the program, for the very reasons you cite.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Therefore, beyond looking at it, would you make a recommendation to the minister, at this point, that to make it logical and fair, adoptive parents should be treated equally to biological parents?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you for that.

Can I assume you agree that the need for a public policy that integrates the horizontal nature of children's issues is a good policy approach for Canada?

Ms. Claire Morris: I'm sorry, the horizontal nature of...

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Children's issues in your department. But an integrated policy framework is a good thing to have, as recommended by the subcommittee on children at risk.

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely. That's the kind of shape the national children's agenda takes. That's why I refer to it as the umbrella under which a number of issues and different periods of a child's life can be addressed.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: When will that framework be available for examination by the committee?

Ms. Claire Morris: The results of the NCA consultation and the report to the minister should be available later this fall. The work the provinces will be doing together over the next few months will look specifically at the early childhood component of it. The results that'll come from the NCA vision discussions will be a big part of that larger framework.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My last one or two questions relate to child poverty. You are well familiar that in 1989 the House of Commons passed a resolution that we should eliminate child poverty by 2000. The year 2000 is upon us. Is it realistic to expect, from your perspective, that child poverty ever can be eliminated in Canada?

Mr. Jean Dubé: Yes, with a change in government.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No politics—a real serious look.

Ms. Claire Morris: I don't want to say never to anything. The important thing is that every piece that's been put in place—and I look particularly at the third tranche of the NCB—is taking us in that direction.

It's interesting. If you think back to the kinds of investments we made in seniors years and years ago and how long it took for it to really take root, despite the successive investments, that's the same kind of direction we're heading in.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm certainly very glad you remain very optimistic that somehow we can reach that goal, or come close to it anyway.

One problem with the issue is the measurement of poverty. I noted in the report you gave to us this morning that of the three measures, you're now working on the so-called market basket. Is that the solution for a uniform measurement of poverty?

Ms. Claire Morris: No. Our sense has been that there will always be different measures, and it's probably wise to have different measures that look at it in different ways. The market basket measure is really to say that if you live in a given kind of community and this is the cost of a basket of goods and services, what is being poor in that community? It's really just trying to give us the full arsenal of tools, so we can really continue to keep a focus on where it is and what it means.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There is no official measurement of child poverty in Canada. Is that an acceptable status quo?

• 1235

Ms. Claire Morris: Well, there are two fairly well-known measures that have been used traditionally over time. We have the low-income measure and the low-income cut-off. I think the important thing is that there's consistency in the measures that are used so that over time you're using the same measurement and you know what kind of movement you're making.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I wasn't here for all of your presentation and I apologize. I haven't figured out how to be at all these places at once. I came from an agriculture committee meeting, and before that we had a government rural caucus for an hour and a half. When it comes to rural issues, I always wish that we could be everywhere and listening to learned people like you.

My concern is whether the youth at risk in rural Canada are being recognized. The risks may be different, but they're there. I remember one day we talked about homelessness. Of course the minister was so kind as to say that almost all of these people are in the city, but they didn't all come from the city.

The levels of child poverty in rural Canada may not be the same in terms of dollar value as they are in the cities, but I'm just wondering what you have at this moment to assure me that the rural scene is being looked at. For many years, I'm not sure it has been taken into consideration by any government, and not always well enough by the present government also.

Ms. Claire Morris: As I'm sure you know, our offices are probably as widespread across the country as any department. We have a number of projects that relate to youth at risk, and I know they do take place in rural communities as well as urban communities.

Unfortunately, a lot of the time the troubled kids in rural communities make their way into the urban communities. If you spend any time talking to them, you discover that this is where a lot of these kids in Regina or Toronto come from.

I think the important thing is that we have enough supports out there at the community level, that we have a strong and vibrant community and hopefully a place where the kids can stay connected.

The Chair: Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, I just have some brief comments to the good people sitting around this table led by these people.

I think the success we will achieve will come from the cooperation of the various ministries within this government. When you talk about children and youth at risk, you think of the resources that are there throughout the other ministries. That has been discussed and will be discussed. It affects everything from Health Canada to Justice to Transportation to Revenue. I just want to thank you for all the information you've shared here with us today.

The Chair: John Godfrey, very briefly.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm interested in knowing how much thought you've given so far to the detailing of the Social Union Framework Agreement. In the Prime Minister's speech and in the Speech from the Throne, it was understood that a national action plan would have to be consistent with the rules of the Social Union Framework Agreement. We have not actually tested this agreement to date. This would be the first subject matter to be processed, if I may put it in a rather vulgar, factory-like language.

Even to understand what a deal would consist of... For example, how many provinces would have to sign on to a national action plan by December of the year 2000 in order for this to take place? Does it have to have a certain kind of majority? What are the mechanics of this, in your understanding? What does it mean to be consistent?

I have another question, just to really mess up your day. Under the language of the Social Union Framework Agreement, in the spirit of it, there is the notion of the race to the top. How would that work with a province that happened to be at the top but happened not to have signed the Social Union Framework Agreement?

I'm just abstractly thinking of two questions.

• 1240

Ms. Claire Morris: It's just a theoretical question.

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes, absolutely.

Ms. Claire Morris: On the first question, the Social Union Framework Agreement is new to all of us. What we like to say is that we already have the first successful SUFA model, and it is the NCB.

The national child benefit represents the essence of what SUFA is all about, that is, an agreement by the provinces, including the Province of Quebec, which carefully states that while they're not in agreement and while they don't formally participate, they are in agreement with the objectives. And that's been the standard sort of disclaimer.

Mr. John Godfrey: And they behave as if they were, in terms of reporting.

Ms. Claire Morris: Quebec is very active at the table as a colleague in terms of social policy development. So in our minds, the NCB is a very useful model for us. We like to think at the social services table of deputies and ministers that we are the front-runners for the Social Union Framework Agreement.

If anything, we build on that experience. It works to get a joint commitment on shared objectives, a joint commitment in terms of how we invest, and a recognition and a respect for the flexibility that provinces have to have to address their own priorities. In provinces, again, speaking theoretically, where people are well ahead, then there's the opportunity to do some other things in that same area of children, for example.

The Chair: Carolyn Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): On the same line, in terms of the social union and the shared objectives, obviously we're also interested in transparency, accountability, best practices. We want to make sure that the outcome measures and the performance indicators of those measures are not only agreed upon but also honoured in terms of being able to report back. That's just following on saying we didn't even report to the WHO on TB, because we couldn't get the numbers out of the provinces.

How do we ensure that we are funding programs that work, that we are sharing best practices, that we are accountable to Canadians for how we're doing on these things in the social union, if we actually aren't in this continuous evaluation cycle of reporting outcomes in that shared way that any good institution, meaning our country, would operate by? If we have objectives on child poverty and yet we do badly on the average, unfortunately when we go and sit in international meetings with the Canadian flag in front of us, we're stuck with the track record of Mike Harris and Ralph Klein.

As the federal government, we want to know how we actually will be able to move on this to really get the results.

Ms. Claire Morris: That's why we're really pleased with what we have to date. It's just the starting point, and we've admitted that, in terms of the progress report on the NCB, in terms of the commitments that provinces have made to invest, in terms of beginning to measure those inputs. What we now have to move to is the measurement of the outcomes and the results. That's the next phase. It'll be next year when we see the first loop come around in terms of the actual investments that have been made and when we start to build that platform of outcome indicators. We're very much heading down that road.

• 1245

I think the provinces are comfortable with the fact that it's reporting to the Canadian public that they serve and we serve. As long as we keep reinforcing that aspect of accountability, we will make progress—and it's considerable. When you think back to the old cost-sharing arrangements and the information we've never had about where money was being invested and what kind of a difference it was making, this is a major new step. It will take us a while to get it perfect, but it's the road we're on.

The Chair: To our witnesses, Claire Morris and Marta Morgan, we thank you very much.

We appreciate that time is pressing for you, deputy, and I want to thank you for staying this extra time.

We greatly appreciate your being here. This was a very useful session. I want to thank you both.

Colleagues, perhaps we could move to the remainder of our agenda. Under other business, the first item is the news release on the creation of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk. This is something we'd agreed on previously. My understanding is that we now have all the members of the subcommittee and we will proceed with that news release. I would say, though, that we still lack the official Reform member on the disability subcommittee, and until that time we cannot in fact make the news release.

The Clerk: And the PC member.

The Chair: What about Deborah Grey? It's Reform and PC members. Okay?

Perhaps we could move to the motion that's before us. We have a motion that was moved at the previous meeting by Paul Crête that the government be condemned for its weak response to the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development that were made with a view to resolving the crisis in the system of administering social insurance numbers, a matter that was put before the Committee by the Auditor General, and that we ask to hear the Auditor General in order to ascertain his assessment of the government's response.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. As I recall, at the previous meeting we wanted to deal with this at the beginning of this meeting. The person who tabled that motion is not here presently. He's in other meetings. He told me that he had to go a while ago.

With respect to the person who tabled this motion, I would recommend that we push it onto Thursday. It's just polite. He is a member of Parliament, and he certainly would like to be here at least to vote on his motion. And that's the reason he wanted to vote on it at the very beginning.

The Chair: I have no objection to that. We will in fact deal with it at the next meeting and we'll call the motion then.

Can I proceed to item three?

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: I would request that it be the first item of the agenda, though.

The Chair: I have no objection to it being the first item of the agenda.

Ms. Libby Davies: Is that the unanimous consent?

The Chair: Let's agree to that.

Colleagues, can I move on to item three? This again is for your information. You'll see that a delegation of the committee on the labour market of the Swedish Parliament will be visiting Parliament Hill on March 1 next year. This is a Wednesday. At the moment we don't know their other plans. I would simply like some consensus that I proceed and arrange some sort of a meeting with those people.

Item four has to do with the suggestion that I proceed, if it's possible, to arrange for the televising of our committee meetings on November 30 and December 2. I understand I need a motion for this: that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be permitted to televise meetings on November 30 and December 2, depending on the availability of room and equipment.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Jean Dubé: Can we have a televised meeting when the minister is here too?

The Chair: We will see.

Our next meeting is 11 a.m. on Thursday, when we're considering the higher education report.

This meeting is adjourned.