c)  Tools for Accountability

 

We believe that our respective Sub-Committees need to look closely at the nature of an accountability framework.  Obviously, we see the mandate and activities of the Sub-Committees themselves as one element that ensures accountability.  We have addressed this question in our previous reports and have done so again in the previous section of this report.  But equally obviously, the Sub-Committees and their activities provide only part of the answer to the issue of accountability.

 

Currently, there are options that are being discussed by the community for both children and disability.  For both, these include a mixture of institutional or legislative accountability measures and the need to put in place agreed-upon outcomes and the indicators that measure whether these outcomes have been achieved.  For both, we need to have answers to questions like:

 

• How are these issues incorporated in the way that governments ‘do business’ that is in planning, implementing, reporting and evaluating their policies and programs?
• How can we even out or equalize the outcomes of government policies and programs?
• Who decides which outcomes are desirable?
• What measures are put in place to determine whether these outcomes have been achieved?

 

Without prejudging future findings, it seems evident that no single mechanism will be a sufficient catalyst for significant and permanent change.  In the case of children, Canada was one of the first signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  A Secretary of State for Children and Youth exists, the National Child Benefit has been increased significantly since its creation in 1999, the ECDI was signed in September 2000 and the federal government and the provinces/territories are negotiating indicators.

 

On the surface, it would appear that children are well supported.  Nevertheless, the rate of child poverty, perhaps the single easily comprehended significant indicator and predictor of poor outcomes for children, remains unacceptably high, most recently reported at 18 per cent.[1]  Canada has one of the highest rates of teen suicide in the world.  The situation of Aboriginal children is a national embarrassment and requires urgent action.  Clearly, gaps in mechanisms that both support children and ensure accountability continue to exist.  There is an urgent need to reduce child poverty.

 

In the case of children’s issues, there are several possibilities to explore that may address these needs:

 

• A commissioner for children;
• A comprehensive, inclusive selection of comparable indicators to measure outcomes of the elements contained in the ECDI;
• On-going monitoring of the implementation of the ECDI and the NCB;
• Increased supports and services for Aboriginal children and families, including Aboriginal children with disabilities;
• Specific targets to reduce poverty.

 

In the case of disability issues, the different evolution of this policy area means closely examining several similar but also different possibilities.  Because progress has not been as assured, these include a more comprehensive study of institutional accountability mechanisms such as:

 

• A Canadians with disabilities act as proposed in The Will to Act:  Equal Citizenship for Canadians with Disabilities (The Scott Taskforce Report);

 

• A commissioner on disability issues;

 

• The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s assumption of a monitoring and enforcement agency for disability (much like its current role in employment equity);

 

• A dedicated minister or advisory body such as secretary of state for disability issues or a Prime Minister’s advisory council.

 

They also include such things as looking at the development and implementation of a disability lens that can promote the inclusion of considerations regarding disability in appropriate policies and programs. 

 

All these suggestions to move forward on agenda require some in-depth study of their advantages and disadvantages before either Sub-Committee would feel comfortable in recommending that any single measure, or combination of measures, could adequately address the accountability issue.  We would have to look at how various models have worked in Canada and in other jurisdictions.  In the disability area for example, at first glance, the Americans with Disabilities Act could provide an appropriate model for Canada to follow.  But before we could reach this conclusion, we would have to look at the extent to which the American legislation is a civil rights measure whose enforcement is based on private litigation.  Is this appropriate in the Canadian context where the rights of people with disabilities are protected by Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act?

 

d)  Transparency and a Role for Parliament

 

Regardless of which federal levers each Sub-Committee eventually agrees to support, some members believe that the single critical common element is the Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA).  Signed in 1999, SUFA is scheduled for review by February 2002:8

 

…governments will jointly undertake a full review of the Agreement and its implementation and make appropriate adjustments to the Framework as required.  This review will ensure significant opportunities for input and feed-back from Canadians and all interested parties, including social policy experts, private sector and voluntary organizations.9

 

The SUFA’s key principles provide the context in which the policy parameters for both children and people with disabilities are, and will be, set.  They are:

 

·        Ensuring access to essential programs and services of reasonably comparable quality;

·        Assistance to those in need;

·        Working in partnership with various players and ensuring that Canadians have meaningful input into social policies and programs;

·        Providing sustainable funding for social programs;

·        Creating public accountability and transparency.

 

Because the Social Union Framework Agreement is a political document, it should be subject to a review by Parliament.  This review should be carried out by parliamentary committees that can build on the SUFA’s commitment to transparency and not only include input by the federal departments involved in various aspects of implementing the SUFA but also listen to the voices of Canadians as suggested by the Minister of Human Resources Development.10

 

The Social Union Framework Agreement was established in part to advance the issues of children and disabilities. To date, there has been some advancement on the issue of early childhood development, but little in the area of disabilities or children with disabilities.  The SUFA is due to be examined for possible modification and/or renewal by February 2002.

 

Recommendations

 

10.  The Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk and the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities jointly recommend that the government provide the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities with a clear statement of how it intends to proceed with this review, what timeframe the Committee can expect the government to follow and what process this review will take.

 

 

11.    The Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk and the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities jointly recommend that the government support a review of the Social Union Framework Agreement by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and our two Sub-Committees.