SCYR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, January 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.))

Ms. Bayla Kolk (Director General, Aboriginal Relations Office, Department of Human Resources Development)

The Chair

Ms. Bayla Kolk

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

¹

1555

º

1600

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Spencer

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Mr. Ron Paulhus (Team Leader, Aboriginal Program Policy, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Spencer

Ms. Bayla Kolk

º

1610

Mr. Spencer

Ms. Bayla Kolk

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Mr. Ron Paulhus

Ms. Monique Guay

º

1615

Mr. Ron Paulhus

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Ron Paulhus

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Ron Paulhus

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Ms. Monique Guay

º

1620

Ms. Bayla Kolk

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.)

Ms. Bayla Kolk

º

1625

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Bayla Kolk

º

1630

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Ms. Neville

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Ms. Anita Neville

º

1635

Mr. Ron Paulhus

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

º

1640

Ms. Bayla Kolk

The Chair

Ms. Bayla Kolk

The Chair

Ms. Bayla Kolk

Ms. Mary Quinn (Director General of Social Policy, Strategic Policy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development)

Ms. Kathryn McDade (Director of Children's Policy, Strategic Policy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development)

º

1645

The Chair

Ms. Kathryn McDade

The Chair

Ms. Kathryn McDade

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Bayla Kolk

The Chair

Ms. Kathryn McDade

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Spencer

Ms. Bayla Kolk

The Chair

º

1655

Ms. Kathryn McDade

The Chair

Ms. Kathryn McDade

The Chair

Ms. Bayla Kolk

The Chair

---

CANADA

Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 015

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Wednesday, January 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): I would notify members that if they're having an identity crisis because they don't have their name tags, the tags are coming. So if you can just keep remembering who you are until such time as we actually get the name tags, we will carry on.

    I can see all my colleagues, so I see sufficient number for us to proceed.

    Just to regroup, what we're doing is a study that attempts to use the committee as a way of going horizontally across a number of departments and programs so that we can better understand all of the federal government's programs that affect aboriginal children.

    We're delighted today to welcome our next department, the Department of Human Resources Development, to explain how their programs and services fit into the larger picture. To do that, we have, I see, one named witness and several mystery guests. I'm going to ask Ms. Kolk to introduce her team, and then to make some opening remarks on behalf of the subcommittee, who are gradually filling in the chairs, and whose names will be known to you eventually.

    Welcome. I'm John Godfrey, by the way.

    Ms. Bayla Kolk (Director General, Aboriginal Relations Office, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you very much. Would you like me to begin before the other committee members are here?

    The Chair: I think it would be a good thing to do, because they will drift in, and some of them will not be able to come today. So I think I would just begin, if I were you. We will carry on.

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: Okay. Thank you very much. I think that's better now.

    I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Bayla Kolk, and I'm director general of the Aboriginal Relations Office at HRDC. I have with me several colleagues today. I hope that after I give my presentation, my colleagues can also add their expertise.

    I have Mary Quinn, who's director general of social policy in strategic policy at HRDC. Beside Mary is Kathryn McDade, who's director of children's policy in social policy. On my left, I have two members of my own team, Ron Paulhus, and Ashique Bishwas, who are both senior advisers and are spending quite a bit of their time on the child care file as well as the disabilities file.

    I am here today to talk about the first nations and Inuit child care initiative, which is a component of our larger strategy, the aboriginal human resources development strategy, which is the core business of my group, the Aboriginal Relations Office.

    I'm here today on behalf of my department to give you a component of the horizontal picture that Mr. Godfrey has talked about--aboriginal programming for children across the Government of Canada.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    I'm referring to the First Nations and Inuit Child-Care Initiative.

[English]

    Along with many other federal departments, HRDC is playing a significant role in the lives of first nations and Inuit children. I understand that some of the other departments have reported to you on the status of their programming.

    Today I want to begin the presentation by giving a short background on the inception and primary objectives of the first nation and Inuit child-care initiative. I will then go on to describe some accomplishments, successes to date, current challenges, and what we are doing to address these challenges. As well as the deck presentation that you have in front of you, you have at tab 2 a questionnaire that we have sent out to our child-care providers--the aboriginal groups who are our partners. At the end of the deck presentation, I want to take you through that questionnaire so that you can see what issues are continuing to engage us and need further study.

    I will also explain how the first nations and Inuit child-care initiative fits in the larger framework of early childhood development, and the added value the program extracts by forming strategic partnerships with other federal, provincial, territorial child-care-related programming.

    This presentation is intended to give you a good overview of the child-care program run by HRDC, which I must emphasize is a work in progress. There's a great variety of capacity across the country. Some of the groups have a lot of experience in this area; others are just starting out. As you will hear, we are trying to engage with them in a lot of conferences and workshops and the sharing of best practices. So it's a process of continuous improvement.

    On the broader topic of early childhood development--when we get to that--Mary and Kathryn are prepared to answer questions that point to the broader initiative.

    Let's look at this initiative itself. It began in 1993 as a red book commitment and became real in 1995 as the first nations and Inuit child-care initiative was launched at HRDC. The goal then was to create 6,000 spaces for children in the north and in the first nations community. Although data is somewhat sketchy, we believe that prior to this, there were approximately 1,700 to 2,500 subsidized and regular spaces for child care, primarily in Ontario and Alberta. For the most part, in the rest of the country first nations and Inuit parents and their children were not receiving child care in the same way as non-aboriginal people in Canada.

    This initiative was a first step towards providing child care services in the first nations and Inuit communities that would be comparable to services received by Canada's non-aboriginal children. Originally the program received funding for $6 million in 1995-96; $20 million in 1996-97; $40 million in 1997-98; and $36 million in ongoing annual funding.

[Translation]

    Following up on a 1993 Red Book commitment, the government set about in 1995 to establish a child care system for children residing in northern and First Nations communities. Initial funding was pegged at $36 million. The money was used to provide quality child care services for First Nations and Inuit children. For the first time ever, child care services similar to those available in the provinces and territories were offered on reserves.

[English]

    In 1999 this initiative was brought under the newly created aboriginal human resource development strategy, which we refer to as AHRDS, to take advantage of its delivery mechanism within a framework of a new partnership between HRDC and aboriginal communities. The AHRDS strategy is a $1.6 billion five-year strategy; that's approximately $320 million a year. It is a partnership between HRDC and aboriginal groups in which the aboriginal groups assume responsibility and funding to design and deliver labour-market programming that is best suited for the aboriginal communities. We refer to it as an empowerment strategy. The money flows from HRDC. We have an office in headquarters--the Aboriginal Relations Office--and we have a network of officials in all our regional offices who are effectively the front-line workers dealing with the aboriginal groups. They visit the reserves in the communities. They get to know the workers--in this case the child care workers--and develop ongoing relationships.

    The broader strategy is mostly about labour market programming. We also have components, besides that for child care, for disabilities, and for youth and capacity building. The child care component, because it is linked to our labour market programming, is seen as an assistance to help parents get their training, find employment, stay in the workforce, and at the same time to give the young children an opportunity for a very good start in life. So it has multiple objectives that we're trying to achieve.

    I mentioned there was $36 million ongoing since the inception of the strategy. Since then, an additional $5 million per year has been dedicated under the AHRDS. That brings $41 million under the first nations and Inuit child care.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    The existing network was made a part of the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Strategy in 1999. The AHRDS is a five-year, $1.6 billion strategy devised to provide aboriginal partners with the opportunity to design and deliver labour market programs that meet the needs of their communities.

[English]

    On the next slide--I'm at slide 5 now--you will see an allocation, which is an 83%-17% split. This allocation was devised with some complexity by the aboriginal groups in extensive consultations with federal officials, and the allocation of funding was determined by taking into account the variables of the population of children, the remoteness of the communities, and also whether or not there was a level of funding from other sources, including other levels of government. So this resulted in an 83%-17% split of the total funding. Of the 17% off-reserve, about half goes to Inuit in the territories, one-quarter to Inuit in Quebec and Labrador, and one-quarter to first nations in the territories.

    The next page shows you the breakdown by province. The largest is Manitoba, at over $7 million per year, then Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec, B.C., Ontario, Nunavut at $3.2 million, and so on down to P.E.I. at $58,000. So looking at this, bear in mind child population, remoteness, and whether or not there are partners already assisting.

    I'd like now to talk about some of the successes and accomplishments to date. I told you previously that the original goal was to fund directly 6,000 new child care spaces. We've well exceeded that goal. The program now provides direct funding to approximately 7,000 child care spaces and 390 first nations and Inuit communities nationally. The communities determine a variety of delivery models. Some provide the service with no cost to parents, while others charge a nominal service fee. Many of the child care centres serve as integrated platforms for other initiatives, such as federal and provincial government early child development programs for the purpose of expanding and enhancing child care services.

    You probably know about Health Canada's Aboriginal Head Start, child care that is delivered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in Ontario and Alberta. Quebec has a $5-a-day child care initiative as well. These are a few of the examples that are well integrated into the first nations and Inuit child care initiative at the grassroots level. The funding may come from other sources, but the child care providers themselves know how to integrate these to make maximum benefit of the various programs, and we are certainly there to help them do so.

    In addition to the 7,000 that were created through our funding, it was always stated at the beginning that the funding was intended to leverage and encourage funding and assistance from other parties, and what we have seen is that another 7,000 child care spaces have been created through that leveraging. We're at over 14,000, so we well exceeded the original goals.

    In 1997 HRDC undertook an evaluation of the program with some of the following interesting results: 93% of those surveyed expressed satisfaction with the level of staff skills and training, 99% felt that it had a positive impact on their community, 96% felt it had a positive impact on their own family, and 84% were happy with the quality of the facilities.

[Translation]

    The FNICCI has directly funded approximately 7,000 child care spaces and covers 390 First Nations and Inuit communities. The initiative serves as a platform for 7,000 additional child care spaces funded by other means. According to an evaluation of the FNICCI done in 1997, feedback has been positive.

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    Our current initiative is that in late fall 2001, the Aboriginal Relations Office of HRDC sent out a comprehensive questionnaire, which I wish to take you through in a moment. We sent it to our agreement holders and regional officials, and asked them to spread it out to all the child care service providers they could find. I say it that way because there are probably more centres than we're aware of, and we're also trying to find out the full lay of the land.

    We've received answers to approximately 85 questionnaires now, are awaiting the others, and have begun to make evaluations of the information we received. I expect it will take some time to receive all the questionnaire responses, and we hope to be able to wrap them up with a report in the spring, which I will be happy to share with the committee.

    The data collected by the survey will ensure that we have a better understanding of the existing challenges, and provide the basis for discussions with stakeholders in seeking solutions. We will be working toward effective and sustained solutions, once we have a better understanding of the issues. This initiative is well-supported by our stakeholders.

    When I meet with AHRDA holders--our agreement holders--one issue that always comes up is the desire for more workshops and conferences, to share best practices on child care. We had a national AHRDA conference in Ottawa at the beginning of December, with over 500 aboriginal participants from across the country. From that conference, as well as other workshops, these are some challenges we are now aware of.

    There is certainly an increased demand for child care spaces in existing centres. That's not surprising, because I'm sure you know that demographically the aboriginal population is growing quickly and there are many children. Some communities still do not have any child care facilities. There is a significant increase in demand for infant spaces, and as we know, infant spaces are more costly because of the need for more labour-intensive child care. There are large gaps in the capacity to deal with special needs children.

    Other issues include how the child care providers get access to training, and how to deal with sometimes low salaries and the effect that might have on a high turnover rate. Also, our stakeholders want more assistance from us on coordination of programs and funding from all sources.

    About half of the child care centres are currently experiencing long waiting lists, and many communities still lack child care. There are approximately 640 communities, and currently we provide coverage to only about 390 of them.

    I mentioned that at present there is no capacity to deal with children with special needs. We hope the recent budget announcement in December will help correct that. There was an allocation of $25 million per year for enhancing initiatives and intensifying efforts to reduce the incidence and effect of fetal alcohol ayndrome, which is certainly a very prevalent issue in these child care centres. Education and awareness will make all the difference.

    The cost of child care in the remote and northern communities has also increased. I've mentioned the salary scales and what to do about the high turnover. This has become a serious problem in nearly all locations.

[Translation]

    Here are some of the current challenges that we know of: increased demand for child care spaces; many communities without any child care facilities; a significant increase in demand for “infant” care spaces; large gaps in the capacity to deal with special needs children; and a lack of information on communities without childcare. Other problems include access to training, salary disparities and high staff turnover. One area of concern is the coordination of programs and funding from all sources.

¹  (1555)  

[English]

    What is HRDC doing to address these issues? To better address these issues and coordinate the child care program with the head start program, we are participating in the Aboriginal Head Start national committee. Our regions also work closely with Health Canada to promote stronger linkages between the child care initiative and head start programming. The regions arranged for conferences to create opportunities for child care workers to meet and share best practices.

    As I've mentioned before, in many communities, our child care program serves as a platform for other child care related programs and services. In many communities, we are now considering expanding these platforms. For instance, in Nunavut, we have initiated dialogues with three agreement holders, AHRDA holders, who have agreed to pool child care funding from all sources and provide the services through one body. That notion of integration and one body is very appealing to many of the AHRDA holders I've met.

    Last year we participated in Health Canada's on- and off-reserve Aboriginal Head Start national training workshops. I mentioned my team members, Ron Paulhus and Ashique Biswas. They have attended many of these conferences and workshops, and they're here today should you wish to hear more about some of the success stories, challenges, and the people they've met at these workshops that they are learning from. Hopefully, some of those providers are learning from our staff as well, so that it's a mutual exchange of shared best practices and addressing of the challenges.

    The sixth off-reserve Aboriginal Head Start national conference was hosted recently in Edmonton. The fourth First Nations Head Start national conference took place recently in Quebec City. These workshops provided the child care workers with an opportunity to discuss the multiple child care-related issues, talk to the Aboriginal Head Start counterparts on areas of mutual interest, and create linkages for further capacity development and promotion of best practices.

    HRDC has arranged for facilitated sessions for the Aboriginal Head Start and child care workers to meet and to share the successes and challenges. This ongoing agenda of conferences and workshops is a very important engagement strategy that we are working on currently.

    Allow me to give you some real examples of best practices. We have heard from Mary Moosetoos, a child care worker from Sturgeon Lake First Nation, about how their child care centre successfully involved the elders from their community and secured their support in teaching basic language skills to children. Think about the high turnover rate. The elders are available, and they're also full of wisdom, culture, and language that they can give to the children at an early age, and they can also help to continue the tradition of respect for elders.

    Another example is Sara Netser, from Ajajaa Pairivik Daycare in Rankin Inlet. She told us about their child care centre's success in striking a partnership with the nearby Aboriginal Head Start centre. Both centres now use the same playground and use joint funds to buy toys and playing equipment for children from both centres, with the results of economies of scale and efficiency.

    Wendy Bishop, director of Little Rascals Daycare in Ross River, Yukon—I'm very fond of that name—told us about the community's involvement in the child care program and improving the parenting skills. Parents are becoming involved in the child care centre, are learning about what kinds of standards of health care, parenting, and nutrition are being used, and it's giving them a greater awareness of early child development in their own homes.

    We are also developing tool kits. They are now in draft form, because we are in consultative mode and we want to know that they meet the needs of our clients. In these tool kits, we're providing resource and reference materials addressing the issues in relation to issues raised by the region. We also provide information on administration and financial reporting.

    Administration and financial reporting is a really important part of the AHRDA strategy as a whole. There is a very strong quid pro quo on empowerment and accountability in the grants and contributions run by HRDC. The AHRDA framework says to our holders that they are empowered to take responsibility and define their priorities. In return, the government wants to demonstrate to the people of Canada that the money is well spent. That goes across the board.

º  (1600)  

    For the child care centres, it's extremely important that we know how many people they're serving, what the needs are, and what their level of certification is. That's why I want to take you through the child care questionnaire. We also get quarterly reports from them and we do audits, so the financial aspects of it are very well monitored.

    Lastly, I want to address the broader connection to the early childhood development initiative. As you will recall, in September 2000, Canada's first ministers established ECD as a new national social policy priority. The national children's agenda sets out a broad vision consisting of values, goals, and policy areas to better support Canadian children to succeed in their lives. Early childhood development is one of those identified areas.

    In September 2000, Canada's first ministers released a communiqué pledging to work together to benefit Canada's children. In keeping with that, the Government of Canada agreed to transfer $2.2 billion to the provinces and territories to confirm incremental, predictable, and sustained investment in Canada's children. That includes investing in aboriginal children as well.

    In the 2001 budget, as part of this broad ECD strategy, the government provided a total of $185 million for efforts to reduce fetal alcohol syndrome, and measures to meet special needs at school. It also allocated funds for aboriginal children through programs such as the First Nations and Inuit child care program and Aboriginal Head Start, both on and off reserve. The exact amount that we will get from that announcement of $185 million that will be dedicated to the First Nations and Inuit child care program has yet to be determined by cabinet. We expect that to happen very soon.

    In this context, HRDC is now focusing more to incorporate the ECD-related activities in its programming. We're now at the midpoint in the AHRDA strategy. In the second half of the strategy, the child care program will focus more on dealing with the outstanding challenges that are faced by aboriginal children, and will also focus on strengthening accountability and improving reporting and program outcomes. The child care initiative will strive to forge strategic partnerships with other ECD-related programs and activities in order to strengthen early childhood development, learning, and care.

    In addition, the child care initiative will invest in establishing child care centres where none exist; creating more special needs and infant spaces; dealing with the fetal alcohol syndrome-related issues, such as prevention and awareness, assessment and delivery of therapeutic treatment; investing in child care worker training; and strengthening the sustainability of existing spaces.

    On slide 17 is a list of the other programs we're working with to make sure there is an integration of programming at the grassroots level. These include the Canada prenatal nutrition program from Health Canada; the first nations and Inuit fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects initiative at Health Canada; the Head Start program, which is the pre-school program that deals with nutrition, health, cultural issues, and other pre-school activities, from Health Canada; Better Beginnings, Brighter Futures, from Health Canada; Aboriginal Head Start in New Brunswick, from DIAND; and Alberta child care, from DIAND. We've had many recent interdepartmental meetings to make sure that primarily HRDC, DIAND, and Health are speaking from a common script, are integrating, and are making sure our aboriginal stakeholders understand the synergies of our program.

    It's important to mention that aboriginal ECD programs in many places are already well integrated at the grassroots level. People there know child care is basically about providing the spaces, some play activity, nutrition, and lunches. But if you also have an Aboriginal Head Start program that is going to offer more pre-school educational activity, it is natural to integrate them. We've seen that they know how to do it better than we could offer assistance, so we're learning from our clients.

    In conclusion, the government departments are working hard to increase their ability to work horizontally, in an attempt to increase coordination and improve outcomes. Departments such as ours, Health, and DIAND are making horizontal coordination a priority on the aboriginal children's file. By collaborating, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of how the overall ECD strategy can better serve aboriginal children.

º  (1605)  

[Translation]

    Government departments are increasingly working horizontally to have better coordination and improved outcomes. With help from PCO, HRDC is making better horizontal coordination with other departments. In future, this will provide the federal government the opportunity to better collaborate with provincial and territorial aboriginal children programming.

[English]

    That is the conclusion of the deck, but if I could ask for your patience--

    The Chair: Actually, if you don't mind, I've had a look under tab two, which is the questionnaire. I think it's extremely important, but because there are six members here and we only have slightly under an hour to have an exchange, perhaps we can get at the interventions. In the course of those interventions, it may be the case that we'll want to make reference to the questionnaire. I've had a look through it. It certainly is very interesting, and I commend it to the others as well.

    Looking at the time available and the number of members present, I suggest that we try to go five minutes each on the first round, and then we can come back.

    I welcome Mr. Spencer, who is replacing his colleague for the afternoon. Welcome. I don't know if you have some questions you'd like to direct to our witnesses.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. I feel like it's the first day on the ice here. I haven't been in this committee before, but I'm glad to be here.

    I won't have very many questions, unfortunately, because I have not been briefed ahead of time. One of the questions I have been given, though, is whether you could explain to us just how the child care program that you're talking about here differs from the Aboriginal Head Start program administered by Health Canada.

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: I'll start with the Aboriginal Head Start. It's more of a pre-school program with activities and recommendations that the child care workers will adopt. It's more targeted to ensuring a good start to life through education awareness on nutrition. It is culturally sensitive to the aboriginal community. It includes other aspects of pre-school activity.

    The First Nations and Child Care Initiative can adopt that as well, but basically we're funding the infrastructure, the actual child care spaces, simply a place to put your children during the day; some play activity; meals, of course; and for the infants, the care that an infant would need through the course of the day. So I would say that the Head Start is a more proactive, coordinated set of pre-school activities.

    Mr. Ron Paulhus (Team Leader, Aboriginal Program Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): I might add that the Head Start program is primarily aimed at a much narrower age band--ages three, four, and five--whereas the child care program is aimed at infants to age six, although there can be after-school care up to age 12. Another structural difference is in the year. Ours is 12 months a year, whereas most of the Head Start programs are the school year, 10 months, or whatever fits the local circumstances. So there are those structural differences as well.

    As Bayla said, the curricula and focus on early childhood development or readiness to learn can be adopted from one to the other.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I know you named off some percentages of satisfaction with some of the people, but how effective has this program really been in supporting employment for aboriginals, allowing them to move to employment? Is it really fulfilling that function as you hoped it would?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: That's an interesting question. I was talking to someone yesterday about there being no employment in some communities, so the person needing the child care at least has a chance to go and get some training. The employment challenges are great, and they may actually have to move out of that community once they have the training to find the employment.

    There really is a direct linkage, and I think the opportunity to put your child in child care would also be an incentive to a lot of parents to take up the training. It makes life an awful lot easier. Bear in mind that a lot of the parents are single women without support systems, and they really need all the assistance they can get.

    So it's a good question. We want to get this statistical information on the direct linkage between having an opportunity to put your child in child care and training and employment. It is part of our questionnaire, and it's part what we're trying to determine.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: If a family brings children to this program, are there any requirements or standards to be met requiring them to be in some kind of training or employment readiness program? Is there any abuse of this--simply using it as a child-relief, or a caregiver-relief program--or do they in fact have to do something with their time while the children are there?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: The beauty of this is that it is linked to the AHRDA strategy, so the child care service provider is also part of the broader AHRDA service provider. So they know each other; they know the client. That means the people in charge of labour market training would do their utmost to say, “Okay, that person has put their child in child care; here are the training programs available to them.” The linkage between the labour market component and the child care component would ensure that.

    Are there ever abuses? I would imagine there are, but I imagine they are more in the nature of someone starting a training program that maybe doesn't work out for them. Maybe they have some other problem. This goes across the board in dealing with aboriginal people on labour market training. We know it's not a matter of giving one course and off they sail into the workplace; it's a matter of multiple interventions.

    Yesterday I met with a man who runs a group in Hull called Nighthawk Technologies. His job is to bring aboriginal youth into the city, get them Microsoft training, and get them into jobs in government and in the private sector. The enlightened approach taken by this man is that he will bring them back to the class time and again. If he takes someone out of a community, they are going to graduate. It may take eight months for some; it may take two years for others. But when he sees people falling into problems who need other social services, he will make sure they're there.

    All our programming is so interrelated it takes a lot of patience and a lot of persistence. What I'm finding is that the leadership in the aboriginal groups is very strong. They are there to provide it, but not all the clients are that ready. It's a long-term intervention that's required.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spencer.

    Madam Guay.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I have several questions concerning day care and child care. As you know, Quebec has in place a fairly elaborate day care system. I'm curious as to how you cooperate with the province. Quebec's system is unique. I believe ours is the only province to provide child care for $5 a day to all working parents. How do you coordinate your efforts with Quebec? You offer a service that we already provide, and I'm not familiar with the nature of the agreement in place with First Nations. Could you elaborate on this service for our benefit?

[English]

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: I would like to ask Ron, who was recently at a conference in Quebec City, to talk about that. We have a strong appreciation of the good work that is being done in Quebec, the $5-a-day child care program, the emphasis on social services. So, when we're dealing with AHRDA holders in Quebec, we know that they're getting a very positive enhancement of the services provided by the province, but Ron has some firsthand experience with this.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ron Paulhus: Daycares in Quebec are already integrated with other programs. Service is provided through a single window in every community and the system works rather well.

    Ms. Monique Guay: You're saying that there is a single window. Is it administered by Quebec or by the federal government?

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Ron Paulhus: It's administered by regional aboriginal organizations.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Who funds the service? Is it the federal government? Or, are the funds transferred to Quebec which then takes on this responsibility? How does it work?

    Mr. Ron Paulhus: Funding is provided through several programs. Local aboriginal organizations coordinate efforts and operate much like the single window service throughout the province of Quebec.

    Ms. Monique Guay: I know the level of service is fairly advanced in Quebec, particularly on reserves where residents have truly taken responsibility for their lives. The opportunities available to them in terms of child care and so forth may be greater than in other provinces.

    Do you apply specific program standards to all of Canada? For example, given the sensitive nature of this environment, certain specific qualifications are needed to work with young aboriginal children. Do you train aboriginals for the job, or do you bring in Whites, that is people from off the reserves? What criteria do you follow? I realize that emphasis is always placed on making aboriginals take responsibility for their own lives, but it isn't always apparent that this is the case, particularly in remote regions. Therefore, do you apply specific program standards?

    Mr. Ron Paulhus: As Bayla already indicated, aboriginals in other provinces have adopted the Quebec model in order to provide service through a single window everywhere in Canada. Organizations in Nunavut have adopted this model, as have aboriginal communities in other provinces.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Is there still a serious shortage of aboriginal daycares? Aboriginal families tend to be much larger than non-native families. Hence, needs are greater. Have you evaluated these needs? If you don't have the results of this evaluation with you, perhaps you could forward that information to the committee clerk. I'd like to get an idea of the kinds of needs that still remain to be met, despite all of the efforts that are being made.

    You're doing an incredible job, but I'm convinced that there are still some needs to be met. Would you agree?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: I believe that the budget for the new initiative should be earmarked for meeting the needs of aboriginals as they relate to matters before the courts. That should be our priority as this time.

    Moreover, as Mr. Spencer mentioned, one priority for aboriginals is the link between the labour market and child care. In other words, it's important to build a community where socioeconomic conditions are good . To achieve this objective, social services must be integrated...[Editor's note: Inaudible].

    As I see it, these are certain priorities. However, needs must be defined by the aboriginal population. We provide the framework, funding and help. However, from a cultural perspective, how services are to be provided is something that must be determined by First Nations.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Therefore, they decide, based on the needs of each reserve. That's very wise and critically important as well.

    I have one final question for the witness, Mr. Chairman. The committee has heard from several departments since it began sitting, and each one, whether it be Indian and Northern Affairs, Health or some other department, administers certain programs and invests money in aboriginals and their children. We've observed that there is a certain amount of duplication and overlap. I would imagine HRDC is not immune to that either. Surely you're familiar with the problem.

    Is there any kind of overlap between your programs and those of, among others, Health Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs? If there is, have any efforts been made to rectify the problem, in so far as aboriginal children are concerned?

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: The problem is one of integration. We're trying to work together horizontally, but we are giving some consideration to adopting a more integrated structure.

    Funding now comes from various sources. Integration efforts are made at the community level. We are working to ensure a higher level of integration at the government level. However, there are advantages to having labour market programs administered by the department which benefits from the services of experts. Health Canada has its own experts as well. We are currently considering several models and trying to find the ideal one. It's a rather difficult task, but when it comes to working horizontally, I believe we are making some improvements.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Madame Guay.

    Now it's Mr. Tonks' turn.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): Thank you for your deputation here today. My questions are in search of the perfect model, because it seems to me that the horizontal integration of community-based delivery services, with the bridging of policy and funding support coming from the relative ministries, is the absolute ideal, not just for the aboriginal community, but for communities that are vulnerable right across the country. So my questioning is to understand better, in practical terms, how you're carrying out the service delivery.

    On my first question, you have access to all funding sources, whether they're allocated toward aboriginals or in an aboriginal envelope--for example, Head Start is in an envelope. But in terms of labour market restructuring and funding that may come under that, do you have access to those funds?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: HRDC manages labour-market training, but as you know, primarily the LMDAs are transferred to the provinces. My group manages funding, and only has access to the funding that is dedicated to the aboriginal human resources development strategy. Under that strategy, there's funding that goes to the aboriginal groups for labour market training, child care, disabilities, and special initiatives for youth.

    The groups themselves have access to the house of funding, but HRDC has responsibility and mandate only for what we have cabinet authority to deliver. In my case, that is the aboriginal human resources development strategy, under which this first nations and Inuit child care initiative is one component.

    But to understand what the aboriginal people have access to, which is most important, they have access to a host of child care programming. They also have access to not only the aboriginal human resource development programming, but the provincial labour market funds that have been transferred. They also have access to the youth employment strategy. So the aboriginal groups have access to special targeted programs and broad-based programs for Canadians.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Perhaps there are others who are better than I in this respect, but I don't think anyone could argue against the one-stop-shopping concept of client intake; evaluation with respect to language skills, labour market skills, and skills upgrading, as required; and employment search.

    Your program integrates all of those and supports them with child care. Does it work in specific centres in an integrated fashion, or is it an umbrella board in specific centres, that then works with non-profit delivery service organizations?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: It would depend on the size of the community. In some smaller communities, the integration between labour market programming, child care, disabilities, and so on might be somewhat easier. Usually the agreement holder appoints a service delivery board, but in larger centres they probably benefit from having a number of subagreements with contractors who have the expertise to deliver in various areas. We often meet those people as well. They're not our AHRDA holders, but they have a contract under the AHRDA as a service provider.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: So in search of the perfect model, if I can come back to the challenge, I haven't had an opportunity to go through your questionnaire in detail, but does it attempt to juxtapose, in terms of a model, what the better approach would be, what would be more easily administered, what would be more accountable, what would have measurable outputs?

    I would take two basic models. One is a model in which you would have an aboriginal board that would have decision-making capacity in order to make local decisions on whether one would work with contractors in day care, home-based day care, or whatever, in terms of skill development, whether they're working with the community college, or whether they're working with that kind of thing. The other, I suppose, is an organization of service providers who would work within certain policy directives of HRDC.

    Does your questionnaire attempt to lead you in search of the perfect model?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: We wouldn't ask our clients such a complex question.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: No, but in terms of the evaluation of—

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: Getting the input will help us move toward that, so we're asking the clients things like whether or not they charge a fee; whether they're certified by the province; whether they address special needs; how they find the money to train their people; and so on. Out of all that, we're definitely using that to look at the perfect model.

    Again, one has to bear in mind that we can work on the model from the government perspective, but the groups themselves are now at a stage of a great deal of autonomy and have to work out their own models. That's part of the empowerment strategy. They work out what works best for them. But from our perspective, we can at least try to make as clear as possible what the range of programming is, and make the access to the programming clear and simple.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I just have one final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

    Is it your intention, as a result of your evaluation, to recommend where the deficiencies in the system are and what policy changes could be made to give you a more accountable and responsive model?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: That's definitely true. This strategy's funding sunsets in 2004, so when you're now at the beginning of 2002, you're evaluating everything in order to build the case for renewal. You're looking at what works and what doesn't.

    If the strategy's going to be renewed and we see deficiencies in the way child care would be provided, then we would try to devise a different kind of framework, different parameters, and maybe a different form of accountability in order to make sure it's that much better in the next generation.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Just as a comment, that's going to be a very interesting part of this process, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to me that vulnerable communities, as I've said before, have a great deal in common with this particular issue of aboriginal people in terms of that model and in terms of effectiveness. I think that has a broader element that would be of concern to the broader HRDC committee in terms of where we're going on it.

    The Chair: We're hoping that you'll not only be around, but will serve as the working liaison between the two, along with the other members who sit on both.

    Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Ms. Neville.

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    There are a couple of areas I'm particularly interested in. I look at your chart and I see that my home province of Manitoba is the largest consumer of dollars. I'm concerned about many issues, but two in particular. One is the relationship between the delivery of services on reserve and off reserve, given that there's significant movement of children and families, particularly back and forth between reserve and urban communities. I understand the policy and the jurisdictional issues there, but I want to know what, if anything, is being done informally on the ground to facilitate the delivery of services for children when they move back and forth. I'm particularly interested in the horizontal planning and programming between departments, which you talked about and for which I commend you .

    My other issue is the horizontal delivery through programs of issues related to the prevention of FAS/FAE and the delivery of services to children and to parents who may either be parents of FAS/FAE children and/or parents who themselves are FAS/FAE.

    Those are broad questions, but they are my two particular areas of interest at the moment.

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: On the first part of the question, the initiative is for first nations and Inuit, and you saw the determination of the allocation between off reserve, which is just very small, and on reserve. Bear in mind that this doesn't cover a lot of urban aboriginals and it doesn't cover Métis. In our strategy in labour market training, we have a broader coverage. So how do we deal with that at present? AHRDA holders who are urban and Métis may use their funding for child care, but they were not included in the cabinet authority. This one is more narrowly first nations and Inuit. I hope that begins to answer your question.

    What's reflected here in Manitoba is large, but it doesn't reflect some of the other work that is being done but doesn't fit into this specific initiative. If we have the Métis group in Manitoba—and I have spoken with them—wanting to fund child care, they can under our larger AHRDA agreement.

    Ms. Anita Neville: They can?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: They can, but they didn't have a special allocation. Obviously, at the conferences, that is one of the big issues that comes from them. They would like this not to be first nations and Inuit child care, but a pan-aboriginal child care initiative. Right now, there isn't cabinet authority, but there is a way for them to spend their money on those types of activities.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Is there coordination on the delivery of services and on following the progress of children back and forth? The movement of children who move back and forth from Winnipeg, from Brandon, and then back onto reserves is significant. Is there any informal coordination on the ground? I recognize where the dollars are designated.

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: I don't know. Maybe one of my staff members has come across that mobility issue, across people moving on and off reserve or from one community to another.

    Ms. Anita Neville: This is a huge issue in the province.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Ron Paulhus: I've heard child care workers talking about that issue. We don't direct them on what to do, and we don't collect information on them. My understanding is that they find local solutions to deal with the problem, but it is a problem. People are moving on and off the reserve for training. When they move off for a period of time, do they lose the capacity for the child care for that training period before they come back? Sometimes flexibility is provided for them to come up with their own solutions, but we're not directly aware of what those solutions are.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Tell me what's happening with FAS/FAE.

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: I would like to tell you more, but that really is a question for Health Canada. It's not part of our programming. The child care centres will have the fetal alcohol syndrome awareness programs as a result of the last budget, but they will be delivered by Health Canada. For us, it's more a case of our awareness of it as a critical problem and as part of the whole social makeup of the groups we're dealing with, but we're not the experts on that program per se. Perhaps Health Canada can give you more on it.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: If I may be permitted a couple of questions, first of all I have a couple of observations.

    I think it was in response to Mr. Tonks' question, Ms. Kolk, that you outlined, in addition to the programs you're responsible for, all of the other programs that aboriginal people can access. As you ran through the list—provincial this, that, and the other thing—I kept thinking of the poor aboriginal person trying to figure them out. They'd have to be an expert on varieties of government directories, instead of just...it may be a form of one-stop shopping, but it seems to me that the concept could be broadened out. We very rarely put ourselves in the position of the actual person—I don't like the word “client”—or the citizen.

    The second observation is on what I think is a sort of schizophrenia that characterizes HRDC, one in which child care is, on the one hand, seen as a labour market device. I always thought this was most acutely apparent with the national child benefit. I remember the Minister of Finance delivering the unhappy words that we always want to make sure children are better off in a family that works than one that doesn't. I thought of the poor kids in the one that doesn't. It's not their fault. But this whole orientation toward.... The chief benefit, from the point of view of this program, is as a support to training and labour, rather than as an end in itself in terms of child development. And that's the old-fashioned part of HRDC. There's the other part of HRDC that is more evolved, and it says this is worthwhile in itself, that early childhood development is something we should be fretting about, and that could be reflected in the early childhood development initiative.

    Out of those rather grumpy observations come two sets of questions. First, forgetting the labour market for a while, it may be that there are other reasons people need child care, just as there are reasons people need Aboriginal Head Start. It isn't a labour market issue, it just happens to be the needs of the children and the needs of those families, for whatever set of reasons. As you were saying, even when they're between training periods, we surely don't think the kids should be taken out of child care. There may be perfectly good or better reasons to keep them in child care.

    You described how you've created 7,000 spots and leveraged another 7,000, but what I don't have is a systems sense of what the true need of the total number of 640 communities is, or whatever it is we're talking about. I know you're in 300 and so on, but I don't need to know what number of communities don't have it. I need to know the total number of children under the age of five or six who, by the normal ways in which we measure demand for child care, are unserved. What does that 14,000 represent, and what's the unmet need?

    So that's one set of questions, but I'll put the other one on the table for you just so you can think about it.

    The second set of questions has to do with the early childhood development initiative, which is from HRDC. Now, I'm very confused—but I'm always very confused, so there's nothing new there—about what the new initiative, the new money that was announced in the last budget, actually means. Is there a formal agreement between HRDC and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that is the equivalent of the formal agreement that the provinces signed, so that we can view and can apply the same kinds of standards? After all, the ECDI has four components that it says can be funded, pre-natal and perinatal, and you cover off part of that. But it also talks about family resources and family resource centres, to which I didn't see any reference in the materials. It talks about child care, which you do touch on. And it talks about community infrastructure-building, which doesn't seem to be there.

    What I want to know is the formal nature of this agreement. Is it as though it's with another government, or is it something different? If it's something different, that means we can't measure it. We can't actually say what Manitoba is doing and what the Government of Canada is doing. We can't ensure that we're measuring the same and are asking the same questions of our baseline set of inventories, that we then ask the questions about access in the second year, and that we then manage the outcomes in the third year. So what is this beast?

    Those are my two sets of questions. One is the system question about the total need that is met or unmet, and the second question is about the exact nature of the ECDI and whether or not this is a true ECDI deal that would fit into the sort signed on September 11, 2000, by the provinces and the federal government.

º  (1640)  

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: If I may, I think there were really three questions, because the first one was how does the aboriginal person sort through the morass of all the programming available.

    The Chair: But if you have the answer...that will be part of our report.

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: I would say that for most it's not so bad if they don't know where that programming is because they know where to go: to their friendship centre or to their AHRDA holder board.

    The Chair: I know what AHRDA is, but what's a holder?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: We have 79 agreements across Canada under the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement, so each of the 79 represents an agreement holder to us, with a leader, a board, and possibly an executive director with a structure there. The community knows that for the services that are provided there's a board of directors and there are community resource workers who know all about that, and the individual doesn't have to.

    I'm not saying that it would not be difficult for the lone aboriginal person in the city who is maybe not plugged into community services; it would be, but it's not quite so bad.

    In talking about the range of services, both targeted and across the board, I was trying to get across that we recognize the aboriginal population as the most disadvantaged group socially and economically, and we're trying to get the broadest range of services to them. But there are within the aboriginal community well-known leaders and well-known community workers who are expert in knowing about these services, so it's not up to every individual...a very important sense of community.

    I do not have the answer for you on what 14,000 represents on unmet needs. Part of that is that I hope the questionnaire will tell us how many centres there are, and in our questionnaire we ask about unmet needs. I also hope that some of the new money that's coming in the budget for research is going to help us collect the data, because our understanding of this file is somewhat anecdotal. I think it's good on the understanding of les besoins, but it's not that good in understanding the statistics of population base, of every community that has or does not have the child care services. We will work on getting answer on that for you, but I don't have it today.

    On the last part, on the broader ECD, I'll turn it over to Mary Quinn, who has been working with the other departments on this.

    Ms. Mary Quinn (Director General of Social Policy, Strategic Policy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development): Kathryn will take your question on that.

    Ms. Kathryn McDade (Director of Children's Policy, Strategic Policy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development): I'll try to take your question.

    The simple answer to your question as to whether there is a formal agreement between departments similar to the agreement that was signed between governments on early childhood development is no. But you enumerated the four areas for action in the Early Childhood Development Agreement the federal government concluded with provinces and territories.

    If you look at the commitments in the budget, you would certainly say that the commitments the government has made are consistent with those areas for action. The government has talked about investing in FAS/FAE, which of course supports the first area for action in the agreement, prenatal supports. The government has talked about investing in child care, which is one of the areas for action under the agreement, and talked about investing in Aboriginal Head Start, which is a support both for parents and families and also for early childhood development for children.

    I think that the commitments are consistent with the ECD agreement, although there's not a formal agreement that mirrors our agreement with the provinces.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: I thought at one point they were trying to negotiate one. Is this just not going to happen, or is it in the process? I thought at one point there was going to be some sort of....

     Ms. Kathryn McDade: Agreement between departments?

    The Chair: Well, yes, I thought so. I thought it kind of got washed away by the election or something.

    Ms. Kathryn McDade: No. The work between departments was to determine the strategy that was ultimately announced in the budget. The work was to determine what kinds of investments the government should be making in our own early childhood development programs. That work is reflected in the budget commitments, but there's no more formal process underway that I'm aware of.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Let me just make an announcement, one that doesn't concern you, but it does concern my colleagues. I wanted to make sure I inform them before I have to leave for another engagement that our plan now for next week is to have an in camera session to figure out where we're going in terms of a report so we can pull back a bit and just do some thinking about this. You might tell your colleague, Ms. Skelton, if you don't mind.

    Sorry to interrupt with that little bit of housekeeping.

[Translation]

    Ms. Guay.

    Ms. Monique Guay: I'll be very quick, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to make two brief comments.

    I'm sure you're doing an amazing job, but I still don't quite see how everything works, horizontally speaking. My impression is that there are still problems between the different departments. In any event, I'm anxious to see the adjustments that will be made in the future. This too will be reflected in our report, Mr. Chairman.

    I've examined your survey and I find it interesting. I'm also concerned that some have not responded. Again, we won't have the real figures to work with and again, this will impede our work. We seem to be going around in circles.

    A third important point is this: we heard from Statistics Canada and their most recent data on aboriginals dates back to 1996. Can you imagine that? The year is now 2002 and much has happened on reserves. Many children have been born. There are many new families and new projects. We're not even aware of many things because we lack the statistics...We don't even know the exact male and female aboriginal populations. Without this basic information, it's very difficult to see departments like HRDC and Health Canada invest in such programs and not know who stands to benefit or where exactly the money is going. It's very difficult to prevent waste and to ensure that there is adequate programming for everyone. Some reserves are likely less structured than others and probably have far fewer resources and capabilities to seek out such programming.

    I have a number of reservations about this, Mr. Chairman.

    You're doing a good job, but I don't think everyone is going to respond to your survey, unless you make it mandatory to do so and assign a dollar figure to the process. That's the only way you'll be successful. I don't see any other way. My concern is that we won't have a real overview of the situation.

[English]

    The Chair: Would anyone care to comment on that or react to it? It's a fair comment, but....

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: I understand that perhaps you're feeling that the early evaluation is too good to be true, and we're not looking for the results of this sondage to be all good news. In fact, we're quite genuinely looking for what the challenges are and how to meet them.

    The Chair: Go ahead, Kathryn.

    Ms. Kathryn McDade: I was going to add that I think you're talking about two things. In both areas there are significant gaps in our information. One area is programs and what we know about the impact they have on clients. And Bayla has talked about the survey she's launching with respect to first nations and Inuit child care. I know that Health Canada talked about the evaluation work they've already done on Aboriginal Head Start, for example, and they plan to build on that in the next couple of years.

    There is a reference in the budget announcement on aboriginal children to investing funds in order to be better able to measure the effectiveness of programs. So, as Bayla mentioned in her presentation, it is our hope that we will be able to make better investments in program data and client outcomes.

    The other half of your observation is the lack of basic data on child outcomes and population outcomes, in particular, on reserve. I know that when Statistics Canada met with you prior to Christmas, they talked about the aboriginal people's survey that Statistics Canada now has in the field. And that's not a survey focused on children, but it does have a component on child and family outcomes.

    We are hoping that with the funding announced in the budget we can build on that and get better socio-economic data on aboriginal children, because we realize it's a huge gap.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Mr. Spencer.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Some of us have already been getting close to this issue, but on the chart it demonstrates the first nations and the amount to off-reserve and Inuit.

    I'm from Saskatchewan, and that's the second largest group. Within Saskatchewan we have two large urban areas, Saskatoon and Regina. As Madame Guay has pointed out, perhaps we don't know how many people are involved in Regina, but it's always been said there were at least 30,000 native people there. So I see a major problem even in the city, without looking at the reserve.

    My questions then relate to how this split comes about. Does it relate to the numbers of people on reserve and the numbers of people off reserve and Inuit? Is it a percentage-type split? How did this split come about?

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: The split came about after a very lengthy process, and it was called the Halifax formula because the decisions were made in Halifax. Major aboriginal groups and federal officials laboured over the data that was available, and the major thing they were working with was the child population.

    I have now--and I don't know if it's answered Mr. Godfrey's question on unmet need--the 1996 census; there were 59,400 first nations and Inuit children. Whether all those are in need of child care I can't say, but that was the population base they were working with.

    They took into account the child population in each location, the remoteness of the community, and whether there were other services available that aboriginal people could take advantage of, and, as I said earlier, whether there was already a partnership, other sources of funding available, to judge whether the federal government assistance was needed as much as it might have been in some other areas. Those were the three main factors that went into the formula that devised this split.

    Since my arrival, and I've been in this position for ten months, I have met groups that felt they didn't benefit from the allocation. So when we have more money to spend, we're going to have to try to factor in those groups that have made a strong case that somehow they missed out. Did they miss out because of this formula, or did they miss out because a certain amount was allocated to Ontario and that particular group in Ontario did not get the benefit of the allocation by the Ontario chiefs? So it's pretty complex, but for those we're trying to allocate we're using the data available.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I have a last observation and a last question.

    My observation is we often forget that in our relations with first nations, the aboriginal peoples, we are frequently service providers in the way in which provinces normally would be for the rest of the population. I was reminded the other day that for example Health Canada runs the fifth largest medical service delivery system in the country. It ranks fifth after four provinces.

    We're dealing with a population that we know from all of our research is hugely challenged, has tremendous difficulties. So whether it's the health care field or the early childhood development field, it seems to me that we have both a huge challenge to get this thing right, and a huge opportunity to establish best practices and to establish outcome measures and to show the provinces that we're not just telling them how to play the game, because we have to play the game ourselves, and indeed we're playing with a very challenging population.

    My question, which goes perhaps to Ms. McDade, is that when it comes to the various measures spelled out in the early childhood development initiative agreement I would hope we not simply put up the best possible defence and rationale for what we're doing or that we not simply justify ourselves the best we can, but that we actually become proactive, we actually try to get out ahead, first of all, on the research and the measuring so that we can show proudly--and we've started that with the ECDI first report--that we're being as tough on ourselves as we want the provinces to be. The conditionality and the accountability starts with us. And don't forget the provinces challenged us when they met in August to do that.

    So I'm a little concerned, because it's a little like the Geneva Convention--and I'm a little touchy about that these days. Anyway, I don't like approximate, so can you help me with this? Is there a chance we can actually be the gold standard on all that conditionality that is built into the ECDI?

º  (1655)  

    Ms. Kathryn McDade: You know what the answer's going to be.

    The Chair: I want it on the record.

    Ms. Kathryn McDade: We feel we've established the gold standard--certainly it is our hope--on our own baseline report on early childhood development programs, and we intend to keep it up with respect to future years' reporting on programs and on child outcomes. The problem, of course, that's been identified is that there are huge gaps in data. The best intentions in terms of what we'd like to be able to report and the research and data we'd like to have won't be met until we make the investments in that data, and that's a long process.

    So I think we share the intentions, but we also acknowledge that there are significant gaps in what we can do right away, what we can do in our first annual report.

    The Chair: Let it be the watchword of this group, as we meet next week in camera to start figuring out where we're going, that we try to figure out how we can get not only the best data, but the best results, that is to say the best services, the best integration across departments. If we can at least move towards that then all of this will be to the good and we can really feel proud of ourselves.

    Thank you very much for adding to what is a complex study; we very much appreciate it. And thank you for bringing your team.

    Ms. Bayla Kolk: Thank you on behalf of all the team. We enjoyed the opportunity.

    The Chair: Great. We'll stay in touch. Goodbye.

    The meeting is adjourned.