HUMA Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
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.
[1] Federal/Provincial/Territorial
Ministers Responsible for Social Services, The National Child Benefit Progress
Report: 2000, p. 35
8 It must be pointed out that Quebec has not signed the Social Union Framework Agreement. The agreement in principle that the Sub-Committee on Children study this issue is conditional on the federal government giving full recognition to the areas of jurisdiction that belong to Quebec and the other provinces under the Constitution. Under the social union framework, Quebec is laying claim to the right of the provinces to withdraw from federal programs with full compensation, in light of the fact that the province has not signed this agreement.
9 A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians: An Agreement between the Government of Canada
and the Governments of the Provinces and Territories, 4 February, 1999, p. 5
10 Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities, Evidence, Meeting No.
4, 10 May 2001, (12:00).