3.  Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk:

The first meeting of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk was held on 9 March, 1999.  The Members quickly chose to pursue Committee work that would move toward a better understanding and an assessment of the National Children’s Agenda, a subject that first appeared on the government’s agenda in 1997.  The Sub-Committee’s work was carried by the momentum of the strong indications that the 2000 Budget would be a “Children’s Budget” and chose to strategically press for measures that could and should be included within such a Budget.  This direction was encouraged by the 12 October, 1999 Speech from the Throne, which included the intention to extend the Employment Insurance maternity and parental leave provisions, as well as the invitation to provinces and territories to negotiate an agreement on Early Childhood Development by December 2000. 

Some members of the Sub-Committee expressed reservations about the establishment of national programs and standards without recognition for provincial areas of jurisdiction, such as the possibility that the provinces might, for example, set up their own parental insurance plan to replace the employment insurance plan.

During this period, the Sub-Committee issued two Interim Reports, that recommended broader principles that the government should consider in its child and family-related measures: principles such as inclusiveness, universality, and the ongoing measurement of outcomes.

We do not want to review the list of recommendations contained in these two reports, which are already on the public record.  In the spirit of outcomes measurement, however, we would like to note that many of the policies, principles and specific measures advocated by the Sub-Committee are now in place.  These include recent increases in the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the doubling of the duration of employment insurance parental leave benefits, tax measures which benefit families with children, and the historic Early Childhood Development Initiative, signed by First Ministers in September 2000.  While not assuming credit for the hard work and commitment on the part of government officials and multiple stakeholders in these successes, the Sub-Committee is proud of its role as a public champion that provided political impetus during the development of these initiatives.  We believe that our Sub-Committee, as well as the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, has played an active role in ensuring inclusiveness, transparency and momentum in the process.

During this Session of Parliament, the Sub-Committee remains committed to monitor the implementation of the Early Childhood Development Initiative (ECDI), in particular the reporting that was jointly agreed to by the federal and the provincial and territorial governments.  The ECDI contains the requirement to report annually on investments related to young children and their families, as well as to develop a set of mutually agreed upon indicators that will be used to measure the results of these investments.  The Sub-Committee members have agreed that this will be one area of their work during the current Session.

We have also been intrigued and encouraged by the government’s commitment in the January 2001 Speech from the Throne to focus its attention on the plight of Aboriginal children and their families.  We agree with the government that the situation of Aboriginal children is unacceptable and that concerted, sustained action on this situation is long overdue.  We intend to devote much of our energy, beginning in the fall 2001, on examining the situation of Aboriginal children from birth to age 12.  We want to understand the current package of services and how these can be built on.  We must understand the horizontal nature of the work of the various federal departments such as Indian and Northern Affairs Development, Health Canada, HRDC and Justice.  This means studying how they work together, and how they, in turn, work with the provinces, territories and Aboriginal communities.  We intend to monitor the implementation of the ECDI for Aboriginal children, both on and off reserve and to recommend any further measures that are necessary to supplement supports and services for young children.

Underpinning the work outlined above, we are cognisant that  the Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) will expire and is scheduled for review by February 2002.  Most members of the Sub-Committee have not only expressed interest in the government’s plans for the review and possible renewal of the SUFA, but also advocated a role for Parliamentarians in this process.  We believe that Parliamentary Committees, in particular the two Sub-Committees that have direct roles in examining social policy, are a natural forum for public participation in what should, by definition, be an open, transparent process.  We feel well-placed to act as conduits for citizen and stakeholder input.  Consequently, we propose that, in parallel to the two subject areas outlined above, we will examine the review of SUFA, to determine the government’s plans for SUFA as well as to press for open, transparent and public input into this process.  In effect, we see ourselves as part of the SUFA process, a crucial element of ensuring the principles of public participation, openness, transparency and accountability that are the foundation of the Agreement.

4.  Our Joint Undertakings

The first section of this report outlines some of the reasons for the success of the Sub-Committees in our work.   What should be stressed is the degree to which the Sub-Committees that work on horizontal policy issues, themselves work horizontally. The two Sub-Committees have held several joint meetings on the subject of children with disabilities.  We intend to do so again to examine the issue of Aboriginal children with disabilities, an issue which is representative of both a classic horizontal issue, and an issue in which the most vulnerable members of society “fall through the cracks” of our existing policies and programs.  We intend to share our work on indicators and outcomes measurement, to pool our resources and lessons learned, as well as to ensure that each Sub-Committee remains as horizontal in outlook as possible.  The shared list of concerns, such as housing, health care, balancing income vs. services, supports to families, will ensure that both Sub-Committees must continue to collaborate and incorporate each other’s work into their own.

One recent example of the collaborative work of the Sub-Committees is the joint roundtable meeting, held on 30 May, 2001, which examined the issue of children with disabilities and their families.  Family networks from across the country provided consistent testimony concerning the gaps in supports and services for children with disabilities.  That these gaps persist despite the government’s policy pronouncements in the areas of children and disabilities indicates that neither policy area is sufficiently horizontal in nature.  The government’s In Unison strategy fails to address children with disabilities.  Similarly, the National Children’s Agenda does not address children with disabilities.  Although the Early Childhood Development Initiative includes children of varying abilities, it does not address the needs of children beyond the age of six.  No single policy framework that exists within the federal government adequately addresses the needs of children with disabilities and their families.

7.  The Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk jointly recommend that the Government of Canada should develop a strategy to address directly the need for supports and services for children with disabilities and their families.

The government has taken the important step of extending maternity and parental leave provisions under the Employment Insurance Act.  We support and applaud this initiative.  However, we also recognize that it is limited for several reasons:

·        The use of the Employment Insurance Act as the vehicle for this benefit, by definition, limits the number of parents who can take advantage of it.

·        Self-employed parents are not covered under the Employment Insurance Act.

·        Many parents, due to part-time employment or low-wage jobs, are unable to either qualify or financially bear the cost of taking the time from work.

·        The employment insurance plan provides only 55 per cent of salary.  Low- and middle-income earners cannot easily afford to take an extended leave of absence under these conditions.

8.  The Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk jointly recommend that the government consider ways to make qualification for Employment Insurance benefits more flexible to enable a broader number of parents to qualify for maternity and parental leave.  Some members suggest that the government consider negotiating with the provinces that wish to establish a parental insurance plan as an extension of their family policy because they believe that an insurance plan that is reserved strictly for parental leave would be much more accessible and much more generous.

In the October 1999 Speech from the Throne, the government stated its intention to develop a family-friendly workplace policy.  There has been little evidence that the development of this policy has advanced substantially.  The extension of parental leave benefits, as outlined above are limited, not only in terms of who may qualify for them, but also in terms of the purpose for which leave may be claimed.  While the first year of life is a crucial developmental period for children, the needs of families are far more extensive.  Parents with children with disabilities and workers caring for elderly, often disabled, family members also need supports and services that are not available to them. Because Canada has a rapidly aging population, the need for these services and supports will only increase.  We believe that to function in an effective horizontal manner, the government must address these issues in its family-friendly workplace policy.

9.  The Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk jointly recommend that the Government of Canada should report to the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk to outline its progress in developing its family-friendly workplace policy by 30 September 2001 and provide an implementation date to Parliament for its full family-friendly workplace policy.  We also recommend that the government’s family-friendly workplace policy include specific provisions for the needs of all families, including those with children with disabilities and those with elderly members in need of care.