SCYR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH AT RISK OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR LES ENFANTS ET JEUNES À RISQUE DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

• 1529

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): Let's get down to business.

[English]

We're going to begin by welcoming three ministers. I expressed the hope last Tuesday that we would be able to invite the ministers to tell us about something successful that I hoped would happen last Friday, and did happen—namely, the announcement of the national children's agenda in Saskatoon.

• 1530

I very much want to thank all three ministers for appearing here at the very last minute, although they can do so only briefly. I know they have to leave here at 4 p.m.

As we agreed at our last meeting, we felt that the national children's agenda announcement—or at least its potential announcement, as it was a week ago—was so important that we needed to hear from those who had brokered it and those who were there.

Although the ministers have to leave for previous engagements at 4 p.m., they will leave behind officials who will help us out on some of the details, or if they can't, at least make it up as they go along.

I think what we'll do is begin on the understanding that our colleagues will be drifting in and joining us in their usual collegial style.

Without further ado, I invite Minister Pettigrew to begin by telling us a bit about the children's agenda and indeed the prospects for children in the future in terms of policy.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me as well as my colleague, the Minister of Health, Allan, and Ethel Blondin-Andrew who are both helping us in this extremely important matter. Thank you again for inviting us to talk about the government's initiatives for children.

I also want to congratulate you and all the members of this subcommittee for your energetic commitment to finding ways to improve the lives of children and youth in this country.

[English]

The Government of Canada made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne with regard to improving the lives of the children of Canada. One of our key commitments was to develop, in collaboration with the provinces, a comprehensive strategy to improve the well-being of Canada's children, which is the national children's agenda. This commitment was strongly endorsed by first ministers.

Last Friday in Saskatoon, I had the privilege to participate in an important milestone in the development of a national children's agenda with the public release of A National Children's Agenda—Developing a Shared Vision, together with my colleague, the Honourable Ethel Blondin-Andrew.

This document is the product of many months of work by the federal-provincial council on social policy renewal, which I co-chair. My colleague, Minister Rock, is the federal representative.

Developing a Shared Vision sets out the vision, values, and broad goals for all of Canada's children. It commits governments to monitor progress in achieving these goals and to find new ways of sharing what we know about what works for children and families. It invites Canadians to think about the goals, values, and priorities that should underlie a national effort to support children and families.

Our shared vision benefited tremendously from the active involvement of the five national aboriginal organizations.

Our goal is to put children front and centre on the public agenda. We want to build a coordinated strategy for children and families that mobilizes not only governments but all sectors of society that play a role in the lives of children—parents, service providers, voluntary organizations, and businesses.

We are anxious to hear the reaction of individuals and interested organizations to our vision for children. We have set up a 1-800 number and a web site, and we will be distributing a workbook to assist those who wish to comment. We have also asked our officials to organize a few focused discussions with some of the key organizations across Canada involved in work with children.

Let me turn to the national child benefit. As you know, the national child benefit was developed jointly with provincial and territorial governments. I believe it is one of the most important social policy innovations introduced in this country in the last 30 years.

It is restructuring the way in which we support low-income children in this country. It is ensuring that parents do not have to disadvantage their children when they leave welfare for paid employment. It is helping to dismantle the welfare wall that has discouraged so many parents from entering or re-entering the workforce.

• 1535

By 2000 the Government of Canada will have invested an additional $1.7 billion per year in new child benefits for low-income families.

[Translation]

And provincial and territorial governments are doing their part. They are reinvesting any savings that come about because of the increased Federal Child Benefit Payments into new benefits and services to help low-income families. These range from increasing subsidized daycare spaces, to counselling and training programs, to health and nutrition programs and many other supports that help parents cope with the costs and the pressures of raising children on low incomes. Many provinces have also made additional investments of their own.

I am also very pleased that Quebec's family policy has the same goals as the National Child Benefit. Even though the government of Quebec does not officially participate in the program, its program to support children complements our own. In fact with $150 million in additional funds freed up as a result of the National Child Benefit, the Government of Quebec has been able to accelerate its 5-dollar-a-day child care program. Mr. Facal showed up as a participant at the first meeting of the ministerial council since it has come into existence, three years ago, because the question of children was being specifically addressed. He felt the need to participate because of the importance of the stakes. Children were at the centre of the concerns and led governments to go beyond their immediate interests to set up the National Child Benefit and the same goes now for the National Child Benefit that we're undertaking with the governments from all parties and all provinces.

The National Child Benefit initiative has also been praised for its emphasis on accountability and public reporting.

[English]

The whole accountability improved.

[Translation]

Later this week, at a meeting of federal and provincial social services ministers in Quebec city, the city of the MP Ms. Gagnon, and my own native city, we will release our first annual progress report on the implementation of the National Child Benefit.

While this important work on both the national children's agenda and national child benefit is underway, my department is also continuing to build the knowledge and information that can help us track the progress of Canada's children.

For example, we are expanding our efforts to better understand the readiness to learn of Canadian children. We have begun by enhancing the national longitudinal survey of children and youth to focus on what makes children ready, or not ready, to learn by age six. And, I also intend to fund a few pilot projects to develop new tools that communities can use to measure the readiness to learn of their own children. And as you know, readiness to learn means more than cognitive skills. It means good physical and mental health, the ability to get along with others and the ability to adapt to change.

I know that much of the subcommittee's deliberations to date have focussed on early child development. The research tells us that we currently have a mismatch between the opportunity to positively influence a child's earliest development and the current focusses of most of our society's funding for health, learning and income support.

[English]

This is why we need a national children's agenda—to provide a beacon to focus our energies, illuminate our thinking, and chart a collective course of action. As we begin to think ahead to the next steps in the development of a national children's agenda, it would be helpful to know your views on the key building blocks we should be putting in place.

For example, we would like to hear your views on how we can best support and care for children in their early years; how we can build on the national child benefit to improve the lives and life prospects of children in low-income families; how the tax system can recognize the important role that all families play in raising the next generation; and, most importantly, how we can galvanize the efforts of all sectors of society and work effectively across governments to improve the well-being of Canadian children.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. We'll go immediately to the Hon. Allan Rock.

• 1540

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity I am being given today to explain Health Canada's role in the matter of children. I'm particularly happy to be here not only with my colleague Mr. Pettigrew, but also with Ethel Blondin-Andrew. We're working closely together on this matter and I'm quite pleased to have the opportunity to share the details of our work with the members of this subcommittee.

With me today I have senior officials from my department, Mr. Ward and Ms. Colvin. After we're gone, they'll stay here to answer the questions the members of the committee may have.

[English]

Generally speaking, the human resources development department has responsibilities for those elements of children's needs that involve the income side, while the programming side is addressed by Health Canada.

Pierre has made reference to the Canada child tax benefit, which serves the interests of children in respect of income. Perhaps I can touch on some of the work done in Health Canada on the programming side.

As you know, there are really three initiatives for the benefit of children directly in Health Canada. The first is Community Action Program for Children. The second is the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program. The third involves Head Start, an initiative for aboriginal children in both first nations communities and communities generally.

I'd like to, if I can, acquaint members of the committee with some of the facts and figures having to do with these separate initiatives in order to provide you with some flavour of their scope and significance.

Perhaps I can begin with the Community Action Program for Children. It has a total annual expenditure at present of about $60 million, including a substantial allocation to first nations and Inuit populations of about $25 million. There are about 450 projects across Canada, plus those on reserve.

On an average day, about 35,000 children in Canada participate in CAPC projects—about 33,000 parents and about 5,300 volunteers.

[Translation]

The Canada Action Plan for Children is a national community program to help children at risk and their families within the community. The program is based on the principle that communities can evaluate their own environment, recognize the major needs of the children at risk and take the community steps necessary to meet those needs. Its strength resides in our will to encourage innovative answers, local partnerships, parent participation, goals defined by the community and stable long-term funding.

[English]

The second of these three is the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program. In the recent budget, we announced that we would increase its funding by $75 million over three years. That will build on the current program, in which there are about 280 projects rooted in local communities in every province and territory, serving about 14,000 women each year.

In addition, there is a prenatal nutritional program presence on 400 of the approximate 600 first nations communities, serving another 6,000 aboriginal women, for a total of 20,000 women per year.

Our current budget, before the increase announced in February, is $21 million annually, including over $7 million supporting aboriginal women on reserves.

Now, it's called the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program but it's really a comprehensive, community-based initiative that supports pregnant women who face conditions of risk that threaten their own health and the development of their babies.

• 1545

Nutritious food, food planning, and vitamin supplements are all part of many of these projects. Programs to assist women in stopping smoking, counselling with respect to the effects of alcohol and drugs during pregnancy, and support groups to help women in distress are also part of the initiative.

I believe we're serving the right population, Mr. Chairman. Of the women served by the prenatal nutrition program, 38% are teenagers; 47%, or almost half, are alone, without a partner to help; 40% have less than ten years' education; 60% have not completed high school; and fully half live on household incomes of less than $1,000 per month.

In these programs, 75% of mothers initiate breast-feeding, which is better than the national average.

In three out of five communities served, these projects are the communities' only source of prenatal nutrition services. A key point is that about 1,200 volunteers who work in prenatal nutrition projects were themselves formerly recipients or participants as pregnant women in the programs.

We work closely with provinces and territories in the design and the delivery of both CAPC and the prenatal nutrition program. Every province and territory has a ministerially signed protocol to outline the goals of the program, the joint priorities, the management, and the evaluation. Indeed, Quebec was the first to sign a protocol agreement with Canada on these programs, and has a very successful joint management committee.

I can tell you that all of this is accomplished for about $1,000 per woman participant per year. We estimate that about 10% of the 370,000 births in Canada each year are to women who are at high risk by reason of economic status, family violence, or drug or alcohol involvement. That's about 37,000 births a year.

Right now we serve about 20,000 women, and with the additional funding, that number will go to about 35,000, or almost all of the at-risk women giving birth in Canada.

In addition, the new money will help to deepen and lengthen the contact with the highest-risk women from the current average of 5.5 months to between 8 and 12 months.

It will also improve our ability to tackle fetal alcohol syndrome and effect by enabling us to intensify our intervention with women who are at risk for these difficulties; to train workers to conduct greater surveillance and research to understand the scope and nature of the problem; and to identify persons who are afflicted with these effects or syndromes so as to know better how to help them derive the most out of life.

The third and final reference I wish to make is to Aboriginal Head Start. It's a $20 million investment in 99 off-reserve communities across Canada, serving 4,000 children at present.

In addition, we've recently announced $25 million per year as an additional investment for implementation on reserves, where we hope to serve an additional 4,000 children.

Head Start provides funding to aboriginal organizations to operate structured preschools, providing half-day developmental experiences for 3- to 5-year-old children. Projects generally have children present four days a week, and work intensively with parents on life skills.

To conclude, then, here are three community-based programs sharing similar design characteristics but occupying their own unique space in the continuum of services at the local level. A total of $155 million is spent federally on these programs each year in support of children at risk. The partnership underpinning these programs is exemplary—the Government in Canada in partnership with provinces and local communities, helping children and their families.

Obviously, they constitute only part of what must be done. No one knows that better than the members of this subcommittee. All of this work has to be done in addition to child care: supportive services to parents; more imaginative workplace policies for working parents; universal junior kindergarten; improved maternity and parental leave policies; and supportive tax and income policies. All of these have their place.

• 1550

This returns me to the national children's agenda of which Pierre spoke. Last week we launched a vision document. This is an exciting time. We have the opportunity, timing, and momentum. We have partnerships, good research, and, I believe, the political will.

The national question has now been asked, Mr. Chairman: What about Canadian children, and what about their families?

[Translation]

The task awaiting us and awaiting you in the short term is to answer the following questions. Can we, through consultation, discussion and a consensus, arrive at an agreement on a global vision in favour of Canadian children? Can we, thanks to negotiation and good will, develop our answers together using the input from all levels of government and the qualities of the private sector, non-governmental organizations and the community sector?

[English]

These are appropriate challenges as we approach the new millennium, and my colleagues and I look forward to tackling them with the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

In view of the fact that time is very limited, I want to turn immediately to questions or comments.

[Translation]

Yes, Madam.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Before getting into our question period, I'd like to say that I'm very disappointed with how things are going this afternoon. I have a lot of respect for ministers, but it's too bad the question period is being shortened because they have to leave. I think the committee should have been consulted and that would have allowed us to listen to the ministers with another mind-set. I was made aware of the situation at 40 minutes past noon; I didn't know Minister Rock was to be here today. That requires some preparation.

So I'm extremely disappointed. The date could have been changed to allow us to go into questions more in depth and express all our concerns about the new policies being put on the table.

I wanted to say that, Mr. Chairman, in a spirit of collaboration and in the interests of this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I'd simply like to indicate that we told you a month ago that representatives of both departments would come here as witnesses today. That had been announced. During the last meeting, I told you I'd try to get the two ministers here. I announced that a week ago. I didn't know exactly how many ministers would answer and I quite agree that we learned at the last minute we'd have the opportunity to meet the three ministers.

That said, please put your question. Do you have a question? Mr. Lowther, I'm sorry.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary-Centre, Ref.): Thank you very much.

[English]

My question is, what about measurement? If we're going to spend $155 million, although it sounds as though there are some good things here, how are you going to know if it's working?

Mr. Allan Rock: The protocols we have with the provinces provide that we will agree upon the method of evaluation. I quite agree with you; we can't spend any public money without evaluating whether we're getting somewhere with it. Evaluation is an integral part of each of these programs.

For CAPC, for example, there is a formal evaluation process. The same goes for the prenatal nutrition programs. Some of the facts and figures I was able to give you, such as the rate of breast-feeding among women in the latter program, come right out of the follow-up work we do.

CAPC was started in 1994. The projects are funded on three-year rolling bases. In other words, if someone applies and has a good project, we'll provide funding for three years, but any renewal of that funding depends upon our evaluating the project to make sure it's meeting its goals and objectives.

So each project is evaluated. Beyond that, there are national lessons drawn from what we've learned from individual projects around the country.

The officials will be happy to give you more details on the specific evaluations, but I want to assure you that I share your view that we must evaluate what we do. I assure you, we are evaluating each of these initiatives.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you for that answer.

• 1555

In terms of these initiatives you've put forward here, is there a trend here or a change from the past to move the program implementation or management creation, that type of thing, closer to community, with more flexibility built in so that it's more tailored to the needs of a community as opposed to the one-size-fits-all programs of the past?

Mr. Allan Rock: I think that's one of the real strengths of these programs. I think the day is long past that anybody will believe a cookie-cutter model developed here in Ottawa can be imposed on local communities.

I think the success behind CAPC, Canada Prenatal Nutrition, and Aboriginal Head Start is that we start only with good faith and a willingness to adapt the principles to local application. Then, in partnership with the provinces but with the initiative of the community, we go to the local church basement or school auditorium or wherever they can find the space—sometimes it's a recreation room in an apartment building—and we ask the local mothers and the local volunteers how we should work together to provide the best service for kids or the best support for young mothers. Then we adapt.

So you're quite right; this is an adaptive, flexible approach.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, since I've been Minister of Health, whenever I've travelled around Canada I've asked my staff to arrange for me to visit CAPC and prenatal nutrition programs wherever I've gone so that I can see them for myself.

It's not only important that I do so but it's also an awful lot of fun. It's really one of the terrific parts of this job. I get to walk into places where there are young mothers, usually, who are alone with either brand new babies or kids who are between two and six, kids who are playing in a safe, happy environment, learning to socialize with other kids, while mothers talk with other mothers, share difficulties, learn lessons, and receive counselling and support.

I walked into one place in Peterborough one day and was surprised to find 14 naked babies on the floor, with their mothers on their knees in front of them learning how to change diapers. Brand new babies! Quite a sight.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Allan Rock: The next day I was in Scarborough, visiting a place where young mothers were sitting and talking with each other about the problems they had grappling with the responsibility of having a new baby. The babies themselves, under the care of volunteers, were in a different room.

So it's very flexible—very flexible—and that's a real strength. I think it's a model for other government interventions. We shouldn't think we have all the answers but we should support communities developing their own.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

[Translation]

An Hon. Member: I don't have any questions, myself.

The Chairman: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: No, but I know that he has an answer for all the questions.

This afternoon, I get the impression I'm living on planet Compassion. We're not used to hearing this from the government, especially as we know since 1993 the Liberals have gutted the Canadian Social Transfer by decreasing it by $33 billion and that they're playing a yo-yo game with the funding of many social programs. For example, we know we want to negotiate with the provinces in the area of social housing, but they want to do it on the cheap. The same thing happened for employment insurance; they went and got themselves a $20 billion surplus. In the Canadian Social Transfer, they yo-yoed around with the old funding; there was a shortfall, the provinces lost.

In this committee, we've heard witnesses telling us all kinds of things. All this yo-yoing around with social program funding finally means that some provinces lost the momentum they had managed to gain in the area of family support. We can understand how Quebec's family policy has been slowed down. I know that the Minister will tell us all about the new National Child Benefit, but that's not new money. It's just an accountant's game within the context of the Canadian Social Transfer; it's money that you're picking up that, before that, used to be in the Canada Assistance Plan.

I agree with you that we have to have compassion for our children, because the more we are to show compassion in difficult circumstances, the better it is, but since 1993 the government has contributed to the disappearance of social cohesion. That is what we're being told in this committee and the Senate committee also came before us and said the same thing.

• 1600

We know that Quebec has done its own studies and has read the situation the same way as you have. The opposition repeats this often in the House of Commons, but you don't believe them.

First, I'd like to ask the Minister if he really has the will to show respect for provincial jurisdictions. We should actually be discussing provincial jurisdiction in this committee. Second, I'd like to ask him if the government of Quebec and the provinces who so wish will get full compensation for the monies affected to all programs you want to set up. Is provincial jurisdiction going to be respected, as happens in the prenatal program, where we do what Quebec does with its OLO program? Is that how you're going to respect Quebec or do you really intend to respect provincial jurisdiction and give them full compensation?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I thank Ms. Gagnon for putting these questions, but I can't of course, review everything that was said about public finances.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'd like to say that since 1993, 1.6 million more jobs have been created in Canada and that there is certainly far less poverty in Canada now.

There were changes in the orientation of public finances, and I think that Canadians, as a whole, are congratulating the government. We inherited a $42 billion deficit and we had to ask Canadians to make difficult sacrifices, but I can assure you that the best guarantee for the future of our social programs is for us to be far more solid fiscally than we were a while back. With 1.6 million more jobs in the Canadian economy, I think things are going very well.

If there are more serious problems on the Quebec side because job creation there isn't as high as the Canadian average, the Quebec government is going to have to examine its own conscience.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): It's been that way for 25 years.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, it slowed down recently.

Mr. Paul Crête: That's the effect of the system.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, it's not the effect of the system. You're just parroting Bernard Landry. We had—

Mr. Paul Crête: That's just as good as parroting Pierre Pettigrew!

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Sir, I've had enough of these stories about it being the effect of the system. Quebec's economy has always trailed behind in job creation. If we undertook our Quiet Revolution, set up a Ministry of Education and created a caisse de dépôt and a société générale de financement, it was to close the gap with Ontario, not to increase it. Don't deny 30 years of effort and simply say it's the system and that's how things are.

I'm not one to believe that things can't be changed. I believe in Quebec and Quebeckers and, on the contrary, I want us to give them the means to get down to business instead of encouraging them to be passive and wallow in the misery of poor little victims we should pity. That's why we're trying to establish programs which, while being respectful of provincial jurisdictions...

I'm getting to the second point, because I can see that the lady is anxious to put questions. I'll tell you something about jurisdictions. It's extremely important that we respect provincial jurisdictions. We're the government of Canada which, if you look back at Canadian history, did the most to conclude a social union agreement with the provinces and establish guidelines for the power to spend. Of all the federations in the world, we're the government who has the most guidelines for that power. We're going to continue on the road we've committed ourselves to because we believe it's an extremely salutary one. It is so much so, that 72% of all Quebeckers don't want to hear about a referendum at this point in time, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, the propensity of—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'm sorry, madam, but you don't have only francophones in Quebec. Stop being a racist.

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Five hundred thousand—

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: All Quebeckers count.

Ms. Pauline Picard: I'm sorry, but you have 500,000 more poor children.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes.

Ms. Pauline Picard: One million five hundred thousand. So Canada as the best country in the world—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'm sorry for having used the word "racist", Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I got carried away.

Ms. Pauline Picard: You can't go about things that way.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: But I would like to draw your attention once more on the fact that it's not only francophone Quebeckers who count when you talk about voting intentions of Quebeckers and what Quebeckers want. I would like the people from the Bloc Québécois and the Parti québécois—

Ms. Pauline Picard: We're not here to talk about the referendum but to talk about—

The Chairman: Order!

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It's not just the francophones who count.

Ms. Pauline Picard: The Minister of Health...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

...for the children living in poverty.

• 1605

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We'll get back to—

Mr. Allan Rock: Notwithstanding the fact that it's not rely necessary to add anything, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer Ms. Gagnon concerning provincial jurisdictions. We have set up the programs I've spoken about while respecting the provincial jurisdictions of the provinces and territories.

In fact, no project is set up without the consent of the province involved. Quebec is where you find the greatest number of projects and community action programs for children. We have very good relations with our provincial colleagues, including those in Quebec. So we are working together while showing respect for provincial jurisdiction and responding to local needs, while maintaining a pan-Canadian concern.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we're having a most lively discussion, but I know—

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to come back to some of the things the Minister said because he has this propensity to believe his own PR.

First, I'd like him to apologize to my colleague for having used the word "racist". We'll have to talk about this in a broader way, but we're not going to settle that question here.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Ms. Gagnon, I withdrew the term "racist". I deplored the fact that once again, we were talking about francophone Quebeckers and the others, and I said that this tendency to exclude all those who are not francophones in Quebec was deplorable. I've already said that I should not have used the word "racist", which is a bit excessive. However, the Bloc Québécois is forever repeating that so-and-so is Québécois, and so-and-so isn't. That is inadmissible.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That has nothing to do with anything.

In any case, I'm getting back to the 500,000 children living in poverty. You know very well that Quebec could have invested and created jobs in the area of research and development...

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Oh, it is Ottawa's fault.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: No. Yes, choices were often made to the detriment of Quebec. For example, we do not use our goods and services and the investments are made in Ontario not Quebec; it is understandable that that province is developing more quickly and that it's economy is stronger.

The Chairman: I think we can get back to that. Unfortunately, the two ministers are already late. Thank you.

[English]

Ethel is being left behind as a hostage.

Voices: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We had accepted to appear from 3:15 to 4 o'clock.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We were not informed that you would be here until 4 o'clock. As I said earlier, we could have waited and heard from you another day.

The Chairman: They can come back another day.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: They came to do a show on the benefit. The issue of children is much more important than that.

The Chairman: They can always come back, Madam.

[English]

Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I realize that you can't make the ministers stay, but it's really unfair that some members of the committee, and not others, get to question the ministers.

The Chairman: I agree.

Ms. Libby Davies: Is there any way we can reschedule them?

The Chairman: I think we should invite them back, of course—I do, of course—but in the meantime, can I ask our guests...

The original plan, as you may recall, was that we invited civil servants to appear to help us out, to understand the nature of the programs. We then, because of the announcement last week, agreed that we would have the ministers in if we could get them. They were able to come for a short time.

We now revert to perhaps a less exciting part of the meeting, I suspect. I would invite the officials to move in so that we can actually see them a little more centrally.

From Human Resources Development Canada, we have Margaret Biggs.

You can pick whichever minister you'd like to be. In fact, if you'd like to represent each other's minister, that would be fine. It might lead to some creativity.

Ms. Davies, I apologize for the shortness of time.

Ms. Libby Davies: Shortness of time? We had no time.

The Chairman: Well, that's what I mean.

Voices: Oh, oh.

• 1610

The Chairman: Absent that, I'm sure these capable folks will try to do their best.

Do you have a question?

Ms. Libby Davies: I'll try.

I actually wanted to pick up on Minister Rock's comment on some of the programs he's visited. I have programs in my own riding of Vancouver East that receive CAPC funding. Some of them are nutrition programs.

I would agree, they're very good programs. I think there are variations, and that's maybe one issue in terms of the reporting or the accountability.

I guess the point I wanted to make ties into the national children's agenda. According to the women I've talked to in the downtown east side area of Vancouver, when they're in the program it's great, but then they have to go back home to crappy hotels and rooming houses, where they're paying a huge amount of their income for rent. Some of the women are living on welfare way below the poverty line. Some of them may be on maternity benefits. Some of them may be trying to find part-time work.

I guess the point I'm making is that there's a much bigger agenda here. We cannot divorce the national children's agenda from employment issues, from housing issues, from poverty issues. To me, they're all integral.

If we're really concerned about the well-being of all children, then it has to be a comprehensive strategy. In looking at the national children's agenda, we've seen a lot about vision and measurements. The programs we have, I would suggest, are very limited. Some of them are good as far as they go, but they're very, very limited.

Even with the child tax benefit there's been a lot of criticism about the clawback, about where that money is being reinvested. That has not yet been addressed by the national children's agenda.

I guess I have a couple of questions, then. One, can we expect to see some review of existing programs—i.e., the child tax benefit—to ensure that there's accountability and transparency in terms of where provinces are reinvesting that money and that there is some consistency across the country?

Secondly, in terms of the overall agenda, whenever it may emerge, are we going to see again this piecemeal targeted approach—that is, a bit here and a bit there—or is the government going to take an approach that the overall well-being of all children and families in this country is something that benefits all of us?

For example, we could begin to see the emergence of national early childhood education intervention. We could begin to see a child tax benefit that is much more universal, regardless of the source of your income. We could begin to see income support in terms of maternity benefits and leaves that are much more conducive to supporting families whether they're in employment or not.

I hope you see what I'm getting at. I feel really frustrated that we see a lot of words, and propaganda, frankly, around a national children's agenda.

In terms of sustained policy development and programs, is there, at the end of the day, an allotment of money where the federal government is going to say, yes, this is what we're going to put down in terms of an investment in children and families in this country? Because I just don't have that sense yet.

The Chairman: Who would like to take a go at that?

Ms. Margaret Biggs (Associate Executive Head, Strategic Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): Perhaps we can take turns. I'll try to answer part of the member's questions.

First, I'll make just a small point on the national child benefit. As Minister Pettigrew indicated, there will be the release, at a social services federal-provincial meeting in Quebec City on Thursday and Friday, of the NCB first annual progress report.

Now, last June there was a full accounting and release of what provinces were intending to do with their reinvestments. This report will go further. I think it is fairly consistent reporting of what each jurisdiction is doing in terms of their reinvestment dollars. So I think we do have a fairly coherent and consistent approach to reporting.

More than that, however, this report will try to set the stage for what would be reporting in the future on the results and the outcomes from the national child benefit. We're only six months into it, so we don't have much to report on it in terms of expenditures, let alone outcomes, but certainly the driving principle of it around accountability was to focus on outcomes and results reporting.

We can perhaps get into that a little bit later on.

• 1615

In terms of the national children's agenda, I think the intention or goal very much has been—and Brian and Phyllis can speak to this as well—to develop a comprehensive and long-term strategy for Canada's children. The documents do lay out a number of the main building blocks and pillars for what would constitute a children's agenda, many of them along the lines you talked about. So I think the goal is very much to do that.

It is important, though, that all governments have bought into this and have agreed on some common objectives and some common priorities, and that they want to get some feedback from the public as well.

The intention is not to do just a little thing here and a little thing there but to try to put the big picture together in terms of a broader and longer-term strategy.

Maybe Brian and Phyllis would like to comment as well.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin (Director, Health Policy Division, Policy and Consultation Branch, Department of Health): I think that's correct. One of the objectives of the national children's agenda, as we see it rolling out in terms of consultations, is to identify some specific areas where there probably is a requirement for additional focus in the sense that the documents—the vision paper, and measuring and monitoring—set out for discussion and for a good deal of examination the contention that there are at least six themes and several goals associated with where we could head in terms of both children and child development.

We spent quite a bit of time in terms of one theme today, the income theme. That's not surprising, because of course the national child benefit is the major program in the area to this point in time. There are, though, a number of other themes the vision process will explore. Early child development is definitely one of them. Parenting and support for parents is another. Learning and the educational aspects of child development, and in particular the type of thinking that supports initiatives in and around what is now called “readiness to learn”, is another focus.

We're also very interested in building, in effect, an aspect of the discussion that focuses on community and the relationship between families, parents, social infrastructure, and community, and what can be accomplished in that area.

Finally, healthy adolescence is another area on which we want to focus. As all of the members are aware, many children don't make the transition to adolescence in an optimal fashion. The question is, how can that be addressed as a social issue?

Those are some of the themes the national children's agenda addresses. What the next steps will be with respect to priority setting is something we'll have to leave to priorities and planning exercises that will unfold after the consultation has taken place.

We intend to focus on the consultation phase in the early parts of this summer, particularly in June. But then there will be, as is inevitable in government, fall exercises that will focus on trying to deal with some of the priority-setting aspects. I'm sure some of these priorities will be the subject of a good deal of discussion.

Obviously, early child development is one area where there has been a great deal of discussion and a great deal of reporting. We've had some major reports out just recently, including one from Fraser Mustard, that will have to be taken into account.

We're looking forward to that dialogue, quite frankly, and for people engaged in the dialogue to put their best ideas on the table.

Ms. Libby Davies: Can I ask a brief follow-up question?

The Chairman: Sure.

Ms. Libby Davies: Are you in a position to say at this point whether or not these ideas... You say they're going to be comprehensive, but are they still going to be programs or strategies targeted at specific populations—i.e., children at risk, which is basically what we have now, or the working poor—or does the national children's agenda have a broader approach, looking at well-being and at programs to support that—i.e., early childhood intervention or education and so on—for all children?

It's not yet clear what direction you're going in. Are you able to tell us whether those discussions have been held?

Ms. Margaret Biggs: The way in which the agenda has been written has been to focus on all of Canada's children, valuing them for who they are now and for what they can be. It's for all children. It is meant to be very universal.

• 1620

That doesn't mean, though, at the end of the day, in terms of the choices governments have to make, that all children need the same kind of intervention. I think the evidence shows us clearly that, just as you do with immunization, you need to have a certain basis from which all families and children can be supported, but sometimes there is a need for targeted interventions as well. Then there's the question of how, if you have public dollars but not all at once, you can best put them to use.

So the agenda is clearly for all Canada's children, and supporting them. Whether it's the workplace or specific interventions around child care or early child development, then I think the goal ideally would be to move to something that is fairly universal, but you may have to start with those populations that are requiring help more urgently.

I'll let Brian or Phyllis continue.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: I think one thing that's worth highlighting is the fact that the agenda starts out in terms of the participation of the five national aboriginal groups with a particular focus and an inspection of the vision paper written by those groups. In particular, this section focuses on the fact that aboriginal children are in greatest need within the population of children. Some of the particular attention that's given to that area I think we're going to see played out in the agenda. I think that will be very important. Certainly the participation of the five aboriginal groups has been critical as we've moved forward.

The Chairman: I think Mr. Jackson is next.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the guests.

I think we all recognize that communities are important, and that healthy communities are important. It starts with children. The moneys we invest early in children obviously make the community, and in the long run, the country, better.

One of the questions that's always being asked by my colleagues and by me—and maybe by some reporters—is the fact that notwithstanding that we have convergence... Everybody knows now that health care is important, that children are important. We have a strategy now of trying to make sure that we have measurements. Every one of us wants to make sure the country does well, and in a fair manner. It doesn't matter what part of the country we're from.

The question is, once we've started to invest this money—it's going to be up to $1.7 billion by 2000—are there signs that the provinces are in fact making sure that it stays in that realm of health care, housing, child care, parenting, and so on, and are not using this money for tax breaks?

Ms. Margaret Biggs: We do have strong evidence that in terms of the reinvestment dollars that become available to the provinces, they are reinvesting them in programs and services that are consistent with the objectives of the national child benefit.

Those fall into three or four categories. One is in the area of supplementary income and earnings supplements for low-income families. Child care is a very strong reinvestment theme as well for many provinces. Third, a number of provinces have reinvested in early intervention programming—for example, in the areas of nutrition counselling or counselling for lone mothers on social assistance.

I don't think we have any doubt that they are reinvesting these dollars in the types of things that are consistent with the national child benefit. We have very full disclosure on this.

The Auditor General, in his report last month, did a separate chapter on the accountability provisions in the national child benefit. He did acknowledge that this was a new way of doing business, but his report was actually very favourable in terms of the types of accountability frameworks that have been worked out. He identified some of the challenges of doing this, but he actually was fairly positive in terms of the accounting and accountability provisions around the national child benefit. So we continue to work on it.

I think Minister Pettigrew is quite comfortable with the undertakings that provinces have made. A number of them also have made significant up-front investments and have put in many of their own dollars as well.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: I have one further question, Mr. Chair.

In the world—in, for example, the United States and Denmark—some people have started their measurements and are trying to use them as an instrument to make sure the thing is efficient. Have you studied any models? Could you share information on models that are actually ahead of us and are working quite well in terms of measurement and making sure that those adjustments are made on those children early enough so that they get the maximum out of them?

• 1625

Ms. Margaret Biggs: There are a couple of different issues here in terms of measurement. There are measurements in terms of evaluating particular programs, as we were talking about with CAPC, where there's a full evaluation and learning cycle around what CAPC projects work, etc. Then there are measurements in terms of broad indicators of how as a society we're doing and how our children are doing.

I'll speak a little bit to both.

In terms of the national child benefit, there is a provision—and again, it will be in this report on Friday—around ongoing research into and evaluation of what works. Similarly, in the national children's agenda, there's a section in the vision paper that clearly speaks to government's commitment to share around effective practices. So that's more on the programmatic and policy side.

In terms of the broad social indicators of how we're doing on the national children's agenda, there's a supplementary paper with regard to measuring and monitoring that's focusing around trying to pull together some common indicators to which all governments would subscribe, reporting on how our children are doing around the four goals laid out and in terms of the environments that we know to affect and determine children's well-being.

In terms of how we compare with other countries, I would say our National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth is cutting-edge. It's as good as you can get pretty well anywhere. That's one the main sources. I'd say the same thing about some of our health information surveillance databases. So we know a fair amount, and we need to pull them together in terms of a broad national report on children.

As Minister Pettigrew indicated, we're working on readiness to learn as a universal proxy indicator of how children are doing in the very earliest years. Again, there I think we are probably at the cutting edge in terms of where governments in the industrialized world are at. There has been a lot of interest in the World Bank and the OECD around some of these indicators as well.

For example, there's a study in the United States reporting on indicators there. But it's not something all governments have brought in.

What we're trying to do here would have federal and provincial governments measuring and reporting, which I think is unique and probably hasn't been done elsewhere.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

I'm going to go back to that side of the table, where Ms. St-Jacques is sitting.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): I would like to start by apologizing for being late. I undoubtedly missed a good presentation.

I am going to move on to my second question since Mr. Jackson has already asked the first question I was thinking about. My question will deal with indexing the child tax benefit. We adopted a motion in the House to study the issue. I then asked the Minister if amounts of money lost due to erosion were taken into account when the amount of the benefit was established. The figures that I have seem to indicate that that was not the case. I would like to hear your comments on that.

This information indicates that a family with two children and an income of $28,000 a year, that is not entitled to the supplement, has lost $347 since 1994 because of inflation. Each year, the family seems to lose money, although the department maintains that the opposite is true. I would like you to set the record straight for me on that.

[English]

Ms. Margaret Biggs: If you don't mind, I'll respond in English.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: That's okay.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: It's true that right now the Canada child tax benefit is only partially indexed, so there is some erosion in its value. I don't believe it's quite at the level you're talking about, but to restore the value of the benefit on a year-to-year basis would cost probably about $110 million to $130 million, which means that, similarly, the value is being taken out on a year-to-year basis. It is a concern.

On the other hand, I think the government has been able to replenish the Canada child tax benefit, particularly at the low to modest end, in terms of the $1.7 billion that's gone in through the national child benefit. The last budget also put $300 million into the Canada child tax benefit for modest- and middle-income families. So there has been quite an infusion of resources in terms of where the government has been putting additional dollars.

I think it does significantly outweigh the erosion due to the partial indexation, but I think partial indexation remains an issue. Hopefully, the government, over time, will be able to address this.

Again, we have been putting significant dollars into the child benefit.

• 1630

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: But that is a short-term solution. If benefits could be indexed to increases in the cost of living, we would be able to solve part of the problem. No long-term solution has been adopted. We never know if, from one budget to the next, the government will decide to invest more money in these benefits.

You say that the interpretation of these figures that I presented is not entirely accurate and that families with an annual income of more than $26,000 have not lost money.

[English]

Ms. Margaret Biggs: Overall, I think $2 billion has been put into the Canada child tax benefit in the last couple of years. Some of it will come on stream in the next 12 to 18 months.

So that is a significant dollar amount. I think it does outweigh any erosion that's taken place. I don't want to debate your numbers. I will be happy to get back to you, though, in terms of the numbers.

I take your point that it doesn't mean it's secured for the future. However, if we do continue to inject more funds, then we can presumably also address that concern.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could pass on the answer to us and then we will circulate it to everybody.

Ms. Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Before I ask my question, I want to correct a misunderstanding that I've heard before and that was repeated yet again today by Madam Gagnon—the fact that the rich province of Ontario is taking money away from somebody else with respect to children and social services.

Under the Canada Assistance Plan, there was a 50-50 share in terms of social programs. We're not talking about the equalization payments that are made to provinces but social programs. Children in Ontario have as much rights as children in other provinces. The previous government had capped those programs to the point where these provinces were receiving a hugely reduced amount of money in transfer payments for the social programs. All this does is re-establish the fairness that existed in the previous program, nothing more.

So I think to bring that up every time—and this happens in both the House and this committee—is totally unfair. It unfairly attacks the children in another province and the families in another province. This has nothing to with equalization payments or transfer payments to provinces because they are less well off than another provinces; it has strictly to do with transfer and social programs.

So I just wanted to clarify that. I've heard it so many times. Every time I hear it, I think of the children in my riding, and it really upsets me.

I want to get down to asking you some questions with respect to the evaluation of the child tax benefit. I've flipped through the children's agenda. What we're doing there will indicate, to some degree, how we are able to negotiate with the provinces a program where there is transparency on a national children's agenda in terms of what we ultimately agree on.

On the current child tax benefit, for instance, when we do the testing with the evaluation as to the moneys at the reinvestment part, do we also know, if the province was spending, say, a certain amount of dollars in an area, and then puts our money in as new investment, if theirs comes out? I know in Ontario, child care has been cut tremendously in the last number of years. I don't know if, since the child tax benefit agreement, it's reinvesting only those dollars it's saving as a result of our transfer money and at the same time pulling out its own money, or whatever money it had in it.

I'd like to know if all we're doing is replacing the dollars, not augmenting the dollars, in that sense. Because if that was the case, then it's a bit of a crazy game. Nothing really changes; it's just different dollars.

I'd like to know if we're able to measure that or not, and if we are, I'd like to know what's happening in Ontario.

I'd also like to know which provinces are adding their dollars, investing in addition, more than just what they're saving. I'd like to know that. It would be interesting to see what's happening across the country.

My last question has to do with the national children's agenda. I imagine we'll have a lot of debates across the country as to what that's going to look like, and the negotiations.

This is more a comment than it is a question.

In my riding, we have what's called a “family support centre”, where moms at home can drop in as well. In one case, the nannies drop in.

• 1635

What I would like to see is somehow a situation where there's obviously choice across the country but a possibility of pulling together all of these programs under one umbrella. For instance, a family support centre could include child care, prenatal nutrition, CAPC, parental guidance, parental assistance, and what have you. You could have a centre that's focused on early childhood development in its different aspects and not just in pieces.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: I'll take the first two or three questions, which were around the child benefit, and then segue into...

In terms of the national child benefit, I understand very much what you're asking. I think it is always difficult to know whether or not there's a shell game going on, and that is clearly not what we want to have happen. We want there to be an incremental injection of resources and new programs and new benefits for children and families.

We have the same problem with the Canada health and social transfer, or anything that transfers moneys to the provinces. In this case they freeze up moneys.

I think our only protection against this is public reporting, transparency, a vigilant population, and enough profile around the initiative that if they thought of possibly doing anything other than what we expect, they would be caught.

In the case of the national child benefit, because there has been quite a significant emphasis around public reporting and on transparency—as I said, the Auditor General has done a report—to a certain extent provinces are very aware that there is a very high level of public awareness and scrutiny around this. We have fairly strong assurances right now that these are creating incremental resources and programs and services.

But there's no guarantee, at the end of the day, with anything here that if we put funds in, someone's not moving something elsewhere. It's the same on any program.

In terms of the public reporting we're doing, as I said, there's a release of a progress report this Friday. We had the same issue when we consulted with a number of non-governmental organizations. We tried to create data that would look at the whole envelope of provincial spending so we could see if there were things moving around. To the extent that we can produce that type of data, we are going to try.

I'll move on to the second issue, around what's happening in Ontario. Ontario has committed, in terms of its reinvestments, its main dollars—its provincial dollars, the 80% of its dollars—to the Ontario child care supplement, which is essentially similar to an earning supplement for low-income families.

On the funds being freed up by municipalities, the 20¢ on the social assistance dollar in municipalities is going largely to their healthy babies program, to child care, and to a new initiative they call “LEAP”, the Learning, Earning and Parenting Program. It's for single mothers, to try to give them training and counselling to help them get off welfare.

So we've been fairly comfortable with the level of reporting Ontario has done around what they're doing with the national child benefit. I don't think we're suspicious that there's anything untoward going on there. They've reported fairly clearly and have been fairly forthcoming. There's a lot of transparency.

In terms of which provinces have been adding in their own funds, a number of provinces, since the first ministers identified child poverty in June 1996, have suggested that work be done on a integrated child benefit.

Since June 1996, B.C. has put in significant dollars in terms of the B.C. family bonus. We know the Government of Quebec has a very significant family allowance program as well. There is also the working income supplement that Alberta has introduced, and New Brunswick's child benefit.

So there were a number of investments since June 1996. With regard to total reinvestment in terms of any savings and in terms of additional dollars on top of the reinvestment dollars in the last year, Saskatchewan probably doubled or tripled the amount of their reinvestment envelope. Manitoba put in extra dollars for child care. Similarly, New Brunswick put in extra dollars for child care, and Newfoundland as well. The Northwest Territories has a Northwest Territories child benefit that they put in, matching the reinvestment envelope.

So not all provinces have, but—

Ms. Maria Minna: I think I heard every province mentioned but Ontario in terms of additional money.

• 1640

Ms. Margaret Biggs: Ontario has put in additional dollars for kids, I think. I don't want to be speaking for the Ontario government by any means, but they have put in additional dollars. They haven't necessarily been part of the national child benefit initiative, that's all.

I actually have a note that says they put in $5 million, but I can't account for exactly what that $5 million is. But it's not large relative to their overall envelope.

Perhaps I can segue into the next question, which is actually very similar to the Fraser Mustard recommendations. Maybe Brian or Phyllis can answer this.

Mr. Brian Ward (Acting Director General, Population Health Directorate, Health Promotion and Programs Branch, Department of Health): Your suggestion on the pulling together of these early child development services at the local level into some kind of family support centre would be one that would be shared by all of us who work in the field and those who are out in the local communities on this.

We've tried in our modest way to encourage this. For example, one of the criteria for CAPC funding is that you be a part of a consortium of interests. There may be one sponsoring organization, but we were clear from the outset that no one organization had the answer. A demonstration of a consortia approach was required. While that was a little bit troublesome for some communities in the first years, it has I think proved itself, and people are now very comfortable with it. Increasingly, this becomes the regular way of our doing business.

Secondly, as the minister mentioned, its success is built on long-term funding. We were very concerned that we did not enter communities, create expectations, leave communities, catch provincial governments unexpected, and let children and parents down.

So this is an A-based, long-term program. The money is reasonably substantial for small community groups. Usually there is $250,000 to $300,000 a year. The permanence of that funding, assuming performance is demonstrated, means the CAPC programs often are becoming the hub of this type of centre that you're looking at.

So with the promise of a national children's agenda and the evolutionary investment of new moneys, we believe there's a platform, and communities across the country certainly can participate in that bringing together and might even be a contributor to being a major lead or sponsor.

So your point is one that is there. We see it as a light out there, and we are working towards it.

The Chairman: Dr. Bennett. Yoo-hoo, Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I'm just getting coaching.

The Chairman: I can hardly believe you need it.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: As you know, I chair a little twin subcommittee on persons with disabilities, so I guess I come from this in the hope that the social union would actually build in help with some of the jurisdictional issues there. Obviously they've even increased jurisdictional issues around aboriginals with disabilities.

When I look at all of this, it seems very bureaucratic. I don't see a huge role for Parliament or parliamentarians. I think setting outcomes and setting goals is actually a political act. I remember that wonderful line in the social union that said we would “consult Canadians” on setting the social priorities.

I'm not sure from all of this what we can tell Canadians with disabilities or kids with disabilities or aboriginals. It says lovely things, that we aspire to have children who are healthy—physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy and strong—but some aren't. Some aren't already. What are we going to do for those kids who already have demonstrated some special needs?

When it says, “We want your feedback”, I guess what I want to know is, who's “we”? When somebody sends feedback to you, is there a process by which the tribune of the people, in terms of Parliament or provincial parliaments, helps set outcomes and priorities?

• 1645

You said there would be public reporting and transparency, but there has to be something more than the Auditor General's report that actually would help us move this along. The race for the top... or stage two for the social union I think has said that when there's a sectoral agreement, we will move forward on this. Does this constitute a sectoral agreement? Do our friends who want a national daycare program move within you or do they move with us separately, trying to stir up, throughout the social union process, an appetite for a daycare program or family drop-ins or whatever? Where do we go from here?

An hon. member: Where do we fit in?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Yes, where do we fit in?

The centres of excellence had some criticism in terms of where children with disabilities are in this. Have we really evaluated how the centres of excellence in women's health have been working? Do we know? Because I hear lots of whining and complaining about them.

Before we embark on the next set of centres of excellence, can we see an evaluation of how the centres of excellence in women's health are working? I'm worried that we're moving into yet another bureaucratic thing with tick-off boxes. The kinds of complaints I've heard are that it's a purely bureaucratic, constipated approach, not moving forward instead of actually being collaborative—i.e., two and two makes five.

The Chairman: That's a challenging question for civil servants.

What do you think we ought to do?

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: Well...

The Chairman: Don't tell us.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: Not to put too fine a point on it, we're obviously not the people who are going to answer this question.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: I'm a bureaucrat myself, and proud of it. However, one of the things we want to stress, I guess, in terms of launching the national children's agenda, is with regard to who is the “we” calling for suggestions, for ideas, and so on.

Essentially, we have 13 governments, now joined by Nunavut. These are the governments that are asking for input along with—and it's very important in this context—the involvement of five sectors in this project. I think it's very important that we stress how much we're trying, both as bureaucrats and across governments, to work in an intersectoral format. We have representation from the sectors of health, social services, justice, and education. A number of other collateral sectors are involved in the national children's agenda.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Traditionally, I guess, there are public hearings in order to set priorities in this country. Where would that fit in?

The Chairman: Or where would we fit in?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Yes, where would we fit in?

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: May I attempt to answer that?

The Chairman: Sure.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: Each jurisdiction is going to be launching its own consultation, and the federal government is no exception. There will be involvement of MPs, Senators, and, as it were, the parliamentary dynamic as we move forward. The timing on that has not been determined. It's still early days yet.

For the time being, the FPT process—and I want to stress this—relies on a number of round tables that have been designed and developed. We're in the process of setting those up. There are a number of other vehicles for people to make representations. Some of them, obviously, have been mentioned—the 1-800 number, the web site, the workbook that's to be developed. People who are not involved in those round tables will be able to feed in individually.

In addition to that, jurisdictions are in effect using those materials in their own consultation processes. We anticipate that a number of MPs may be interested in using those materials, taking these materials out to ridings, for example, and engaging, as it were, Canadians in their own right in terms of the national children's agenda and the discussion that's being fostered.

So there will be a role, as it were, for parliamentarians. That's an understood part of the process.

• 1650

The Chairman: Perhaps I could make the observation that I think this committee hopes that, first of all, it has a continued existence, and secondly, that this is an appropriate forum that might have some type of a relationship with this process, along with other counterparts. So we would like that message conveyed back to the people you represent.

I'd like to put a quick question to Brian Ward. We had last week a really fascinating session. We had Fraser Mustard here, talking about his Ontario report, and we had two excellent representatives from Quebec, talking about the Quebec system in terms of child care and how it's evolving. There was lots of interchange between the two, and lots of agreement.

With regard to CAPC and Canada Prenatal Nutrition and indeed Aboriginal Head Start, as we know them today, is it possible that they could in some miraculous fashion segue into, or be the basis for, what Maria Minna was referring to, these early childhood development and parenting centres? Is that beyond the realm of the possible in terms of what the children's agenda is potentially capable of for the social union process? Is there any reason, or would one have to come to some type of stop, and start some new beast?

Mr. Brian Ward: I would like to come back and say a few words about the centres of excellence, if I might, in response to the question that was raised.

The continuum of service needed in every community in Canada to ensure that the childhood experience for all children is the best possible for their growth and development is quite broad. Children at risk, as was mentioned by a number of your members, make up one part of the community. We often forget in our discussions that most parents, most children, are not the subject of all of these discussions. They are involved in their communities. Their parents are looking after them.

Nonetheless, this continuum of service has contributions to make also, whether it's in the workplace or in respite care or just good recreational and cultural services for them. So there's a broad continuum of services.

The children's agenda has some potential to ask questions: What are those elements? Who is doing those things now? Can we build, in either a formal way or a less formal way, the system that has those pieces to it?

Your specific question, Mr. Chairman, was whether CAPC, Head Start and CPNP could be the hub of this. I'm not sure. They are great programs, and we like them very much, but across Canada, the total next year will be $155 million, which is not an enormous amount. The educational cost in Canada for primary and secondary education is $37 billion. We have $155 million working on these. They are illustrations, though, of what can be done by local communities when there's good, secure funding in this small area.

So I think they can be a part of it, and they can make their contribution, but they may not be the whole of it. That's what we have to start looking at through the children's agenda.

On the centres of excellence, you raised two important questions, one of which the minister I think tried to address in his appearance before you—namely, is this exercise sensitive to the issues of disability, particularly children with disabilities, and the tremendous burden their parents carry?

I think he was able to demonstrate that we have gone the extra mile to ensure that those on the interim committee are very conscious of this community and of its issues. While we have yet to announce the subject matter of each platform, you should be assured that this is an area of significant concern because of the backgrounds of people.

Are we going to make the same mistakes as the women's centre? First of all, I'm not going to speak to any other centres, but we did do an analysis of 55 different types of centres across the country. We hope we've captured the best of them. We are trying a small, different model to do this nationally.

• 1655

So we're bringing the best from across the country on these national platforms. They're not really centres of excellence but national platforms on which we can bring in expertise from a variety of jurisdictions and perspectives and across the country to address a statement or a problem or an issue that we can clearly define.

We will have the subject matter of those shortly. The minister will be putting those forward. Once again, for the third time, we'll be looking at perhaps a more contained group for consultation—i.e., given those statements, what are the best ideas now?

So I think we've processed it as inclusively as we can. I think we have a specific enough idea for the centres to work with. By September, we'll find out whether it has worked.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: In women's health, one of the main pillars is collaborative, horizontal inclusiveness, and the centres were set up in a totally competitive way. I would hope we've learned something in terms of the types of networks that actually can be collaborative.

Can you give me any reassurance on that?

Mr. Brian Ward: You know, it's a delight, Mr. Chairman, to be asked the question, because it is a great concern. I'll tell you about the two parts of this that make it a concern.

First, for public accountability we have really no choice but to do a very competitive, transparent process, but the organizations we're dealing with don't have the time, energy, expertise, and money to engage in head-to-head competition without taking away from what they're already doing. So we have these two conflicting tensions in it.

I can't say we're going to manage this, because we are forced into competitive transparency, but what we're going to try to do is say that when we have the idea—when it's clear, and when people understand—we're going to invite that community to come together and ask them whether they can together come up with a design, or self-select, in other words, and find a common sponsor. If they can, we're prepared to invest in them.

But if we have five great ideas, we're probably going to have to ask those with the five great ideas to make their pitch.

The Chairman: Margaret Biggs, was there something you wanted to add?

Ms. Margaret Biggs: I just wanted to add a little bit to what we were talking about in terms of public dialogue. Phyllis explained it really well. I simply wanted to underline that the document, called Developing a Shared Vision, was to start a process of dialogue around this.

I think governments wanted to recognize that there has been an awful lot of activity and discussion already in the country, and they didn't want to presume that they had all of a sudden discovered these issues. On the other hand, I think they felt they needed to show some leadership, and get their acts together, but also to invite feedback and input from other people.

Hopefully it's not too bureaucratic. It is really meant to be an invitation to dialogue. I think there are many channels for that. Phyllis mentioned the federal-provincial dialogue, but federally we certainly can engineer and structure other ways for dialogue. If you're in a group, there are many avenues to participate in this.

There will be feedback that will roll up in terms of what kinds of revisions to the vision that the public and groups have suggested, but without that kind of feedback and a consensus forming around a particular set of priorities, we can't move to where you were suggesting that maybe the country needed to go.

So I think this helps move us towards where we want to go, where a consensus can coalesce around where all governments need to act. It is bigger than one or two programs, either federally or provincially. There are some good provincial programs, too, but we need to talk bigger than that. This, I think, will help us get there.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thank you.

The Chairman: Next is Mr. Elley, whom we welcome, and then Ms. Davies and Ms. Minna.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Thank you very much.

Just to give a little background on myself and my wife, in our walk through this life we've been foster parents for 25 years. We have eight children, which is more than the national average. We have four who are our natural children, three aboriginal children, and a severely physically disabled child. That's given us a fair amount of experience with children and parenting. We've had about 140 foster kids in 25 years.

I have found it very difficult, in my experience, to separate children from families. I don't see that you can do that. Children are in families. Some of them are functional families and some of them are dysfunctional.

• 1700

Obviously, the children who came to us and who became part of our family came from dysfunctional families. We hope they've come into a family environment that is functional, and have thrived because of it.

I have a couple of questions. One, how do you see this national children's agenda then addressing the problem of dysfunctional families? What will be the strengths of this program that will help Canadian children who are in those types of situations?

As well, on page 3, there was the very provocative statement—I found it provocative, anyway, because I'm kind of a traditional guy at heart—that, “As our society and economy evolve, many traditional ways for helping children may no longer be adequate.”

I wonder if anybody would like to take a stab at telling me what those traditional ways are that no longer work.

Mr. Brian Ward: Well, one of them is the significant change in the workforce and the addition of women in the workforce in tremendous numbers.

In my own family, the difference would be the availability of any grandparents or support from families, which my parents thought was part of the way it would be. Just on those two fronts there have been big changes in the way families can be supported—inside, by themselves, and by outside services.

On the other hand, I think there are some pluses. We now have organized community services that three or four generations ago, I think, people would look at and think were pretty fine. I look at all the recreation and cultural activities that so many good volunteers provide across the country.

So those are two big ones. I don't think it's meant as a provocative statement.

Mr. Reed Elley: Oh, I'm not saying it is. It just was to me, a little bit.

Mr. Brian Ward: It's a statement that's meant to point out that we constantly have to reassess the basic conditions we use to support families. They will change, but those values and the relationships of which you speak are those things that are constant but that need different ways of support.

At one time, the church was a major support. It's not really that type of support system any longer for many people. So there must be others, and we just have to take the fundamentals you're speaking of and look at their new expressions as the society changes.

Ms. Phyllis Colvin: I think that's very true. One of the major propositions the vision puts forward is that somehow or another we have to re-examine not only our future investments and any ideas we may have in that respect but also our current investments, and where we are putting our money with respect to children.

There's a general consensus around the country that is to some degree reflected in the documentation, that the remedial systems we have put up across the country in various ways, shapes, and forms, and in which all governments have sunk an enormous amount of funding, and which are highly valued, in many instances, in society... I mean, clearly, the medicare system, in my own sector, is highly valued. We've made a major reinvestment in the last budget.

Having said that, however, there is a lot of remedial activity that could be prevented if we got in, as it were, ahead of the cycle. The question is, what is the capacity in society to be able to rethink the investment process so that we're perhaps not thinking so much investment into remedial systems—for instance, hospitals, court systems and so forth—and in effect getting ahead of the curve?

In that respect, I think, there is some consideration to be given to what we do now, to what we may do in the future, to what we can do individually in jurisdictions, and to what we can do jointly. I think one of the things that has been useful for us as a federal government has been to go through the NCB experience in the context of realizing that there are some things we can do jointly with provinces where everyone benefits and where there are synergies, mutual synergies, across jurisdictions.

The question is, are there other examples of that type of activity that are worth exploring, and in the context of examining where we are putting our resources at the present time and the big remedial systems, are there other opportunities?

The Chairman: Margaret Biggs.

• 1705

Ms. Margaret Biggs: I think your point that you can't separate the child from the family is a very important one. Although it's a national children's agenda, it could equally be called a national children's and families' agenda.

Maybe the feedback will be that it should be retitled that. I mean, this document looks glossy, but it's meant to be reiterated.

In terms of values placed in here—and again, they're posited for discussion—clearly, right off the bat is the primacy of the family unit and the importance of a family unit in terms of the nurturing and the development of children.

So that's a very key bond. I know Phyllis and Brian would say, too, having listened to government ministers speak on this, that this is something all governments feel extremely strongly about. I think it is reflected, although maybe not sufficiently, in the document.

How you get at families who aren't doing so well and how you help them function better is a more complex issue. In some cases, it's because of the stresses of modern life. The workplace isn't a particularly friendly place for families. There are issues we can look at there. But there clearly are some families that are quite dysfunctional. Some of it's generational, and some of it's due to patterning that's taking place. That takes a more concerted intervention, not just a little chat here and there but a sustained effort in terms of their parenting.

We do know—and the research and the evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth is very clear—that parenting is one of the key determinants of child outcomes. I mean, it shouldn't take a national survey to tell us that, but we do know that it's a very important determinant of how kids do.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Libby Davies, Maria Minna, and that will be it.

Ms. Libby Davies: I actually wanted to pick up on Carolyn's point earlier about consultation and where we go from here. I think consultation is a word that's very much abused. Often it's filling in some little thing at the end of a booklet, and your comments go somewhere or other. There isn't actually a debate and an exchange that takes place.

In terms of this committee, I feel we shouldn't be asking to be part of this. We should just be saying, “We expect this to happen.” One of the really important things is that around this table—and this has been a good little committee—we have five political parties, representing pretty well all regions of Canada.

It's not just a matter of us going out as MPs and asking individuals in our ridings, “What do you think about this?”—and we may want to do that—but about having real dialogue and discussion.

I know a lot of the groups are really frustrated about this national children's agenda. To be cynical for a moment, there is a sense that it's all done. You have a bunch of guys in suits who meet for a few days and work out this agenda—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

A voice: —

Ms. Libby Davies: Well, no, I think there is that sense, that it's going to be fairly limited. It has all the nice window dressing and all of that, but substantially, in terms of what will change as far as policy directions, from the road we've been going down, which is the massive change from universal programs to targeting minuscule little bits here and here...

I take your point about the $155 million. You know, when the minister says it, it's like, wow, $155 million, but when you put it in the context of what we actually spend on education for elementary children, you begin to get the picture.

I guess I'd like some assurance that there is a genuine effort from the bureaucracy side—I know you can't speak for the ministers—that a committee like this at least does have some elements of dialogue; that we do share information and ideas; that we're not just going to be saying, well, here you are, and we want your little bit of consultation.

We want to be a place where groups can come and have that discussion here on Parliament Hill and be part of things before the agenda is set, if it isn't already.

I don't know if you can respond to that.

Mr. Brian Ward: One, there is no agenda yet. There are the beginnings of this dialogue, and the basis on which it will be built.

I take the level of frustration, but it might have been worse if we had come and said, gee, we're thinking of doing something for children, when we would have been through the values discussion, and what were the key themes we might want to do.

We have served ministers who have taken, I think, an important step of leadership in saying accelerate national discussion and concern on children's issues, and some day we hope to come up with a plan that is coherent. We're going to say, okay, here are the important elements on which we must build, and now we want a debate on that.

• 1710

You've raised several points that are in your hands—not ours, and not even the ministers' today, but yours—to determine. I think groups would like to come to you. They certainly like to come to us. We keep saying, you know, we can listen, and we can advise, but we're not making decisions.

These will be made, we hope, in legislatures across the country, with ministers, with organizations and church groups and recreational organizations. They will talk about children, and they will say, no, it should be families in here, or they will say, yes, we think this is another way of doing it.

You couldn't find a group of bureaucrats who would be more thrilled to get on with the job when we have a good sense of direction and some targets we want to hit.

The Chairman: The last question goes to Maria Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna: First, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I, for one, however it's come about, am very glad it's here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Maria Minna: No, really; I've been talking about it for some time. I've been involved with these issues, as I think other members around the table have, long before I ever became a politician. We've been back and forth on these issues. We fought for universal child care—or at least I did in my other lives—and all kinds of different things. I'm just glad we're dealing with it, and it's here.

What I would like to suggest for you to think about as you discuss this with possibly counterparts in other provinces or focus groups or what have you is that obviously we need to have choice and flexibility across the country. The structures in rural Canada are different from those in urban centres, and of course the aboriginal communities are different and so on. In many ways, in the urban centres, for instance...

In Ontario, we had started it. Then it stopped, because of a different philosophy. Now, with this, hopefully we'll go back to it. The elementary schools, with the focus on the hub, the parent drop-in centres, or whatever you want to call them...

I have for some years lobbied and pushed in Ontario, and I didn't succeed. I'm bringing back that same idea, that we invest, as you said, in children. We agreed, at some point in time in our history, that we fundamentally had to get children ready in education, and that it had to be universal in order for us to have a society that functioned really well. Now we know through science and all kinds of other stuff that learning starts much earlier, and that if we don't deal with it, by the time they get to six years old and grade one, it really doesn't matter any more, in a sense.

Somehow, that universality, that approach of a collective responsibility, has to start much sooner. Children don't stop needing care when they reach six. From zero to six is important, but there's also kindergarten, when they go part time. The parents work, in many cases around the clock. Sometimes they work part time, sometimes they are self-employed, sometimes they have shift work. There are parents who are very poor and whose children do very well and there are parents who are middle class and whose children do very badly, because parenting skills are not there or because of the dysfunctionality of the family.

If the core of the community, the school, was also the family drop-in centre, or the family resource centre, as I call it, and the family focus, the school would know the kids. I mean, I remember when I dealt with schools and the home and school associations. I knew which of the kids' parents worked, which were the professionals, which did piecework, which worked nights, daytime, or what have you, and the incomes.

So there's a certain amount of knowledge within the community structure. If all the services are pooled together, there is a seamlessness of assistance such that when the child reaches age six and goes to kindergarten or grade one, at 3:30 p.m., when the mother or father is still working, suddenly the child isn't now having to look for child care; it's part of the community support services.

It's the same place where you do the prenatal, where you do the CAPC, where you do the whatever. All of these pieces and the parenting skills fall within. That's where you follow the child from zero to whenever they leave grade eight, because then you can see which child is doing well, and the teachers can notice. The professionalism is there.

In Ontario, I must say, the school boards have resisted this. They somehow see this as a threat, although the previous two governments started doing it anyway, and I think it had started to blossom slowly. Unfortunately, the current government has decided to dismantle that. Hopefully this will lead us back to that.

• 1715

There's no point in talking about a national children's agenda if you don't accept the fundamental philosophy that, first, if we believe zero to six is important, then that means it's a universal situation, and if we agree that's what it is, then how do you structure that?

It seems to me that it's around the community elementary schools you structure it in urban centres. I imagine in rural parts of Canada, as we consult with them, they will have their own solutions and suggestions. I've met with a lot of them over the last four or five years, and they have some great suggestions.

Mr. Brian Ward: I'm hopeful that the children's agenda, in the context of the social union, will help us with a specific problem I would like to recount, without telling you which province it is in.

CAPC projects have had, in effect, subsidized rent in schools. Now there's a change in policy, and they are going to pay. Many are leaving, having to find new places.

Now, this seems to be a counter-strategy in terms of what we're all trying to do—

Ms. Maria Minna: I agree.

Mr. Brian Ward: —but we have no mechanisms to say, you know, we've all agreed to a few things here; we all have some ideas here. And that's what I hope will come out in September.

Ms. Maria Minna: That's why I'm glad it's here.

Mr. Brian Ward: Yes. People will say, okay, we have these; early child development is important; our systems will work together on it. People at the local community level can say, look, it's been agreed to, so let's solve this problem in a way that will effectively help children.

So I agree; I think maybe there's some hope today.

The Chairman: On that cheerful note, having had a very exciting meeting—which, for those who care for this type of excitement, was quite choice—I want to thank the three of you for not only so ably filling in to represent the parting ministers, but also—and I say this personally—for your own personal level of commitment to this cause, which is shared by all the members of the committee of whatever political party.

So thank you for adding to our enlightenment. We appreciate your coming.

We are adjourned.