HUMA Committee Report

 

A COMMON VISION

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk and the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities have established substantial records of achievement since they were established.  The members of both Sub-Committees believe that it is time to explain our activities, share our successes, express our frustrations and outline our future plans.  This report – the first joint committee report for many years - aims to do this.  We hope that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities can make use of the lessons learned in its own undertakings and in its work with us.  We also believe that the House of Commons itself might find our activities something of a model in its own efforts to make Parliament a more effective and respected institution.

 

This report has several purposes:

 

• It outlines a working model of how the Sub-Committees have dealt with, and intend to address, the horizontal issues that fall within their mandates.
• It identifies issues that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities should be aware of, and could include in its own workplans.
• It makes recommendations (endorsed by each Sub-Committee for its area of interest) for action by the government.

 

Chapter I

WHEN ISSUES CROSS BOUNDARIES

 

1.  The Problem

 

The Auditor General pointed out in his recent report that “more and more, government needs to manage initiatives that span two or more federal departments.”1  We know that the treatment of horizontal issues, such as children and youth or persons with disabilities, reflects society’s broad vision.  The commitments that the federal government makes to Canadians are often targeted at such issue areas in its various Speeches from the Throne or federal budgets.  The most recent of these have mentioned both children and persons with disabilities, which have been singled out as key priorities of society and of government. 

 

These federal commitments, however, do not fit easily within the structures of the federal government.  They cut across departmental lines, they affect the operations of many agencies and they are intimately interwoven with the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories as well as the voluntary and private sectors.  This means that no one jurisdiction – let alone one federal department - can control decisions, resources and activities.  Success depends on developing and sustaining a common vision of outcomes, objectives and lines of accountability.

 

Just as the government must learn to manage horizontal issues, Parliament must do the same.  The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, for example, has a very broad mandate but it is restricted to scrutinizing the operations of a single department – albeit one that touches the lives of all Canadians and with the largest expenditures in the federal government.  The Standing Committee does not have the time to deal with many of the important subjects that fall within its mandate, let alone horizontal questions that touch other departments.  Prior to the establishment of the two Sub-Committees, for example, the Standing Committee could not devote any substantial amount of time to children or to people with disabilities.  As a consequence, important issues in these two areas were in danger of going forward without any parliamentary input or sanction.  That was the reason for the establishment of the Sub-Committees.

 

2.  Our Sub-Committees:  A solution

 

We believe that the Sub-Committees have made a singular contribution  with regard to horizontal issues for several reasons:

 

• The membership is self-selected.  Members have joined both Sub-Committees because each of them has a serious and ongoing interest in the broad subject matter within the committee’s mandate. 
• Members work collaboratively and value non-partisanship.  Because of the interest that the members have in finding practical solutions to the questions affecting children and persons with disabilities, both Sub-Committees have functioned in a consensual manner that has led to their being seen as champions within Parliament and government generally.
• Their size facilitates their activities.  Because both Sub-Committees are half the size of the Standing Committee, they have more flexibility in making choices and conducting their work than a larger parliamentary committee.  They also can proceed more informally in developing their work-plans and carrying out their activities.  They have, for example, had considerable success with roundtables that bring various interests from the community together.
• Because they deal with horizontal issues, they actively seek ways to work collaboratively on issues that simultaneously touch each Sub-Committee’s areas of interest.  This means, for example, that for an issue such as children with disabilities, the Sub-Committees hold joint meetings and search for joint solutions.  This collaboration also has the benefit of increased profile and provides a broader institutional point of contact for stakeholders.
• They develop an extensive base of knowledge that informs their work and the recommendations in their reports.  Each Sub-Committee focuses on a set of issues that affect one segment of Canadian society.  As they proceed with their meetings, they develop a relationship with the public servants, non-governmental organizations and experts who also work with, and understand, that segment of society.  This gives them ongoing access to a pool of knowledge that encourages and permits the members to accumulate a level of expertise that enables them to probe more deeply and, we hope, to greater effect.
• Their structures, processes and mandates enable them to examine issues that transcend departmental policy borders and areas that Standing Committees do not have the time to examine in any depth.  For example, such issues as Aboriginal children are not addressed by either the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities nor the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, due in large part to the legislative demands borne by these Standing Committees.
• The underlying common bond is social policy.  This requires each Sub-Committee to grapple with common concerns, such as challenges in delivering social programs, outcomes and indicators measurement, federal/provincial/territorial jurisdictional and allocation clarity, as well as the regular discussion of fundamental social values that underpin and frame their meetings.  Each one of these issues is fundamental to the work of both Sub-Committees.  The common challenges and frustrations also encourage inter-committee collaboration.
• Due to their structure and mandate, the Sub-Committees are freed from having to review legislation and are able to focus on a policy goal or goals.  In the case of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk, much of its past work was oriented to the policy shaping of the Early Childhood Development Initiative.  In the case of the Sub-Committee on Persons with Disabilities, the Sub-Committee helped push the government to reinstate the Health and Activity Limitation Survey following the 2001 Census and is now seeking movement on other key policy issues.  By focussing on policies, particularly policies in the making, they are effective in a way that standing committees, which work more reactively and focus on main estimates and legislation, are not.  

 

As a result of all these factors, each of the Sub-Committees gained a level of respect that is all too infrequently given to Parliamentary institutions.  Each has become a national forum for the issues that it addresses.  They are seen by the community, and by government, as making a contribution that no other body can make.  Both of them are acknowledged as providing an accountability centre in ways that most other parliamentary committees do not.  For example, in his most recent report, the Auditor General cites the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities as providing leadership in the area of disability.  The report concludes that “the Sub-committee’s continued attention can keep the issue on the government’s agenda for action.”[1]  The same can be said for the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk.

 

In large part, the acknowledgement of the leadership of the Sub-Committees reflects the fact that the government itself has not yet clearly or completely worked out the manner that it will itself deal with horizontal questions.  Because of this, the work of the two Sub-Committees is of increased importance.  They ensure that children’s issues and disability issues do not get lost in the shuffle or ignored because the federal departments tend to think hierarchically and are structured to function within vertical “silos”.  Horizontal issues are messy and many departments do not always take the time to consult with each other and to work together to find sufficient horizontal measures.  The “how” of working horizontally is often the root of the problem.  Departments spend so much time worrying about the “how” that they do not have much left for the “what” or the “when”.  Moreover, functional integration can be as much a problem within departments as across them.  Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), with its vast range of policy responsibilities has demonstrated difficulty in incorporating disability issues within its other social policy initiatives.  For example, last year it appeared that children with disabilities were not comprehensively included in the National Children’s Agenda or the negotiations for the federal/provincial Early Childhood Development Initiative (ECDI).  After the two Sub-Committees held a joint meeting in June 2000 on children with disabilities, and made clear their view that children with disabilities should be included in the ECDI, it was.  In other cases, the lack of a “lead” department results in a lack of examination.  For example, homelessness, an important social policy issue, lacks a “home” department and consequently, is not the subject of automatic scrutiny in the regular Parliamentary Committee process.  

 

Because the federal government is not organized to deal with horizontal issues, we believe that it is important to keep the various government departments accountable for their activities.  Holding their feet to the fire means calling in the various ministers responsible (for example Finance, Justice, Health, Human Resources Development, Indian Affairs and Northern Development) for the different aspects of our issues and trying to convince them that they need to ensure that concrete action on disability issues or children’s issues should be included in their broader departmental agenda.

 

3.  Our challenges

 

While both Sub-Committees believe that we have considerable accomplishments, we both confront similar challenges: 

·        To what extent can other parliamentary committees incorporate our issues?  For example, we believe that it is important that when another parliamentary committee takes on a study (for example, the Canada Labour Code revisions, post-secondary education or mental health) that it needs to incorporate the children or persons with disabilities’ perspective.  This is as true of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities as with others.

·        Where do issues go?  It is not always clear that an issue has a natural home or who decides where that home should be.  For example, both Sub-Committees are interested in various aspects of aboriginal children with disabilities but should this go to either? both? or to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources?   Would a report on Aboriginal children be submitted to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities or to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, or both?  Where do intergovernmental questions concerning social issues go, given that the ultimate bureaucratic “home” is the Privy Council Office, a central agency?  Making recommendations that involve action by the federal government’s central agencies remains a conundrum for all parliamentary committees.  As long as House of Commons committees mirror the “silos” of government departments, who can or will address the need for involvement by central agencies?  When Sub-Committees, like ours, address recommendations or suggestions to central agencies, we do not usually get an appropriate response.

·        How do we solve the problem of parliamentary accountability?  Both Sub-Committees have an interest in government spending in their areas.  But information is neither collected nor presented in the estimates documents, Departmental Performance Reports or Reports on Planning and Priorities, in a manner that allows the Sub-Committees to gain any real appreciation of how much money is being spent where - or to what effect.  Neither Sub-Committee has any responsibility for conducting hearings on, or approving, estimates related to children or to persons with disabilities.  This, in effect, means that both Sub-Committees lack a certain ‘gravitas’ that ensures that their recommendations are directed with maximum effect.

·        Should the Sub-Committees be permanent fixtures of the House of Commons?  Neither Sub-Committee has an assurance that it will be established from one Parliamentary session to the next.  At the beginning of each session of Parliament, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities must take a decision to establish both Sub-Committees.  This means there is always a period of uncertainty about whether either or both will be allowed to continue its work.

·        How independent should Sub-Committees be?  Neither Sub-Committee has the ability to report to the House of Commons.  The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities must approve their reports that are presented in the House as a report of the Standing Committee itself.  The Sub-Committees’ budgets require approval of the Standing Committee.  They cannot sit when the Standing Committee sits, without approval of the Chair of the Standing Committee. While reporting through the Standing Committee provides the Sub-Committees' reports with additional clout, it also introduces an element of uncertainty that other parliamentary committees do not face.

 

1.  The Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk and the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities jointly recommend that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended so that both Sub-Committees:

a.         be constituted as a matter of course at the beginning of each session of Parliament.

b.         have the ability to set their own budgets, establish their own meeting schedule without restrictions, and report to the House of Commons.

 

2.      The Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk and the Status of Persons with Disabilities jointly recommend that each of them be given the task of reviewing and approving the estimates for the horizontal issues within their individual mandates by the appropriate federal and parliamentary authorities.