[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 7, 1996
.0907 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
We now have a quorum.
We are pleased to welcome witnesses from the National Crime Prevention Council,Dr. Hastings and Ms Bradshaw.
We are glad that you've agreed to participate in what we see as an important study. We hope that, while this morning's session will be brief and to the point, it will be just the first of several contacts we'll have over the course of this study.
Dr. Ross Hastings (Chair, National Crime Prevention Council): We're thrilled to see that the committee is moving into this area and very grateful for the chance to participate as witnesses.
I'm here along with Claudette Bradshaw, who is the co-chair of the council's committee on prevention in children. Basically, the committee focuses on children from the age of zero to the age of six. We also have with us three members of the secretariat: Elaine Scott, who is executive director of the council; Francine Charlebois, from the Department of Justice; and Catherine MacLeod, who is the secretariat senior adviser who participated in the work of the committee.
To explain briefly what the council itself is about, we were established in July 1994.
We have a twofold mandate.
Part of it is to advise governments on suggestions for developing a comprehensive prevention strategy. Essentially, the logic there is that the solution to crime will have to be as complex as the problems that underlie the problems of criminality and victimization.
Secondly, we hope to be a resource to and a voice for communities - a resource to in the sense that we're trying to develop information packages and community mobilization strategies, and a voice for in the sense that we're trying to bring back to different levels of government the message about the need to support communities in implementing those kinds of programs.
The council's work plan is divided into three topics and is somewhat summarized in our annual report, copies of which I believe the clerk has for everybody.
The priority in the work of the council is children and young people, and the guiding intuition behind the council's work is that if you look at children who become persistent offenders at from 12 to 18 years of age, the kids who are most in trouble under the YOA, what you find almost inevitably is that these kids are not randomly distributed. They're identifiable very early in their lives, even from zero to six years of age.
There's a whole series of risk factors, about which Ms Bradshaw will speak to you.
Secondly, we are working on developing supports to the work done by those priority committees, especially in the areas of economic and cost-benefit analysis, best practices around community-based programming, and community mobilization. One of our concerns is that a lot of work is being devolved to communities without necessarily providing communities with the supports they need to take up those challenges. We're very concerned that it not be a halfway process.
.0910
We're also focusing on a number of topical issues, essentially around the idea of making constructive suggestions about how money could be diverted.
Ms Claudette Bradshaw (Co-Chair, Prevention and Children Committee, National Crime Prevention Council): Thank you for having us present. À mes amis français, bonjour. Thank God I'm an Acadian and I can speak fast.
To give you a bit of background, I spent six years in Boys and Girls Clubs when I was young. Through my work with the Boys and Girls Club I've developed a program in Moncton for children aged two to five and their families. These are all abused children. Many of them have already had a sexual relationship.
When I was appointed to the National Crime Prevention Council, at our third meeting Ross and Elaine asked what the priorities were for the next three years. I have to tell you that being at the community level, sitting there with doctors of criminology and psychologists and psychiatrists and chiefs of police, I never thought that crime prevention answering to two ministers would be for ages prenatal to six. In my career it was the most important decision I've ever seen taken in this country pertaining to children at risk and our Canadian deficit.
I was asked to co-chair the committee with Doug McNally, who at the time was chief of police in Edmonton. That alone says a lot for the decision the National Crime Prevention Council made. We were permitted to choose seven members from the National Crime Prevention Council to be on our committee.
We've been working on a guidebook. The guidebook is looking at ages prenatal to six. What can we do with children from prenatal to six? I understand that in your committee, you're looking at prenatal to three. That is excellent because prenatal to three is also very important.
A voice: It's also to six.
Ms Bradshaw: Great, that's even better than I thought this morning.
We're looking at the prenatal factor. We're looking at the birth factor, we're looking within the family factor, the toddler and pre-school years, and then we will also be looking at the school year.
Let me give you my thoughts on one area. I was able to go to Edmonton and work with the street people, with the prostitutes. How many children do we have in our country who have fetal alcohol syndrome because parents were taking drugs or alcohol during their pregnancy?
How many children do we pay for later because nobody understood them in our community? For example, how many people do you know who adopted children, brought them into their home, and are putting them in care as adolescents because they don't know the child? Many of these children they adopted at birth or at the age of one, two, or three might have had fetal alcohol syndrome.
I think we also need to study prostitution in our country when we look at children at risk that we pay for later because they commit crimes. Do we have 50,000 to 60,000 children who are left with pimps or with God knows who every night while the moms are prostituting in this country?
When we look at the issue of prenatal to six, these are issues that our guidebook wanted to look at. The one thing we did was that we did it with the community. We went out with the guidebook that Dr. Steinhauer helped us to build. We went to community-based agencies across this country and said Dr. Steinhauer helped us create a roof and walls of programs for prenatal to six. Now, community-based programs; let's put in the cupboards and the staircase. Let's build something that everybody in our country can use to prevent crime.
The reality checks went beyond our expectations. For example, in Baker Lake we had the RCMP, we had public health, we had aboriginal people who work at the community level, and we had aboriginal politicians. The RCMP's reaction was ``Wow, you're not asking me to do prevention. They always ask me to do prevention. My job is not prevention.'' You are going to be working prevention at the community level. It was excellent.
In Moncton, the United Way executive director said ``Great, come and speak to the board of directors of every United Way agency, because this is where it's at; we need to prevent crime''.
.0915
We're going to be making our guidebook official at a conference being held in Prince Edward Island June 1 to June 4. I invite all of you to come. We're going to have about 300 people there from across Canada. The conference will be about crime prevention.
In September or October, we're going to add an action plan to our guidebook and we're also going to do a cost analysis. It's really neat. Today, businesses want to see what they get for their money, and they're absolutely right. We can no longer afford to do things in the wrong way, so we're going to do a cost analysis.
We're going to go to every capital city across Canada, in either September or October. And, to every MP, I hope that when we go to your capital city, you'll be there with us. I don't care if you're Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Reform, come with us and let's do the thing...
[Translation]
And of course, the Bloc Québécois will also be there.
[English]
This is the last thing I want to tell you. Every time I speak to a politician or to a bureaucrat they say it's a big boat to move. Look at it as a boat. Your community-based agencies are in the engine room, your bureaucrats and your provincial government are on the deck doing their manoeuvres, and the federal government is leading that ship.
With the community in the engine room and with the feds, we can do this. Today, if we look at crime prevention - from prenatal to the age of six - we can guarantee every child born today that by the time he or she is 25, Canada will be the only country that will be closing prisons and Canada will be the only country without a deficit, because in 1996 we took prenatal to six...
I want to leave you with this thought. Our guidebook is not there to fix children. Our guidebook is there to work with families so families can fix their home environment. Teach a parent how to parent and I'll show you a child who will become a self-sufficient, contributing member of our country. You will never have to pay for that child. That child will pay you.
I want to thank you for being on our wavelength. If we work together, we can make it. Thank you for the invitation.
The Chairman: Thanks, Claudette. Thanks, Ross.
Pauline Picard.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard (Drummond): I gather that a number of studies have been done on factors affecting children between 0 and 6 that are likely to result later on in criminal behaviour. I also see that you've been working on putting into place strategies aimed at helping these children.
The committee is examining the subject at the present time and would like to do some studies but I see that the National Council has already done work on this issue. What are your concrete recommendations? There is no point in having the same work done by both the Council and the committee but we would like to be active and do something that will enable us to make good recommendations to the government for programs that can provide assistance to these children. What type of concrete recommendations would you have to make?
Ms Bradshaw: At the first meeting of the National Crime Prevention Council that I attended, there were observers and three groups who had carried out studies on children. I must say I am getting tired of all these studies and I agree with you that we should sit down and start thinking about some concrete action.
When I made a comparison with a boat, I meant that the federal government, in providing money to the provinces, should not only be concerned with providing money to administration but should set aside a certain amount for community programs. That is not the case at the present time. I explained to you that community programs were the engine of this boat, with the captain in charge, but they forgot to look after the needs of the children who are passengers.
.0920
Committees and politicians could work together for the next ten years. We're going to have to convince industrialists and various government and community companies to invest money in prevention because it's important. Are you willing to come aboard with us?
Mrs. Picard: Thank you.
Mr. Hastings: Maybe I could add a few comments to what was said. There are two important points that are noted in the studies that have been done, and we do have some summaries or factsheets that were distributed to you. There are a large number of good programs but most of the effective programs are successful only for a given age group, that is at a particular stage of the child's development. So it is important to ensure that the program is provided at the right place and the right time.
It is also clear that the program must not be limited to the child alone but we must take into account the family's development. We often think that children are at risk because they come from bad families. The family is blamed when we should recognize that the family needs knowledge, skills and resources to manage. Unless such skills resources and knowledge are provided to the family, the child is exposed to a huge risk.
Mrs. Picard: You say that subsidies are given to the provinces but that there is duplication or overlap and that community organizations do not always have the money or resources necessary to implement prevention strategies. This is something we must look after.
Ms Bradshaw: Yes, we are going to have to think about this.
Mrs. Picard: We need program evaluation.
Ms Bradshaw: Yes. We must also learn some lessons from what we've done over the past 30 years where we've been attempting to solve all these problems with money. We've spent lost of money in helping children and their families but haven't really thought about how to deal with the problem. High-risk children often come from poor families. For a long time we've tried to keep our poor out of sight. We are going to have to transform our mindset and realize that prevention is very important. We've got a lot of work ahead of us and we must work together. We'll be happy to guide you. Thank you.
Mrs. Picard: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Sharon is next. I'm sorry, you don't look like Sharon.
Grant.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): You could only wish.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Hill: You said that if you could just make certain that mum was able to parent well many problems in our society would be solved, and I agree wholeheartedly with that. Could you comment on your association's view of at-home parenting with the mum versus parenting outside the home with day care and institutional parenting?
Ms Bradshaw: One of the things...and I hate to do this because I might lose credibility... After 27 years of being in this field, of being with parents every day, I've met only two single mums. A lot of the mums that I deal with have boyfriends and relationships. One of the big things we've tried to do in the guide book is to speak to ``parents'', because in our program if there's a boyfriend he comes into our program because he's part of that family. I think we have to begin by speaking to parents, and we have to be realistic about it.
I've never been poor and I'm not from an abusive family. As I said to the member from the Bloc Québécois, that's why it's so important that we begin to teach ourselves about what we are talking about when we talk about at-risk children. You're speaking about parents who were brought up in 20, 30 or 40 foster care homes. You're speaking about parents who were very abused.
Shell Canada built us a big kitchen. The parents come in and do 14 weeks, hands-on with food. If I told you today that some parents will use hot water and cold water, but don't know that hot and cold water make lukewarm water, would you believe me? If I told you today that they think a can of carrots, a can of peas and a can of wax beans is a meal, would you believe me? When you look at our statistics, this is what you see.
.0925
When we speak to you about at-risk children, this is what we mean when we speak to you about parents who are good people but who have never had what we've had. If you were brought up in a home in which your parents were like that and you were also abused, you had somebody who modelled for you and you're here today.
We need to begin by creating a program where we don't just fix any more. We need to create programs that see our federal money and our provincial money going to things that are long term, not more band-aid, not more six-week programs. Let's look at the mom when she's pregnant. Let's follow through with that pregnancy. Let's look at the child when he's born and he's at risk. Let's follow through, and let's try prevention earlier and earlier. We can't afford to spend our money any more in band-aid work. We can't afford to spend money after the fact any more. We've been doing that for thirty years.
I don't know if I'm answering you, but the types of programs that they need are of three kinds. Some of them need the in-home; some of them need the centre-based; some of them need psychiatric treatment; some of them need the institution. There's not one program that we can standardize. We don't standardize. We live our lives.
We need to start speaking to our professionals to get attached, because for the parent who has been abused all his or her life and is now abusing his or her child, we need to create a dependency - and that's not a word in government, because we don't like to create dependencies. If I look around the table here today, how many of you depend on your family, how many of you depend on your friends, how many of you depend on your church? You're independent today because you had dependencies. So we have to start looking, we have to start asking about the needs of our children who are at risk, and the big question is who those children are.
Mr. Hill: You mentioned that one of the big problems with impoverished women is fetal alcohol syndrome, drinking when they're pregnant.
Ms Bradshaw: It's one.
Mr. Hill: One of our colleagues here has presented a program for labelling alcoholic beverages to try to raise the education level for those individuals. What would you think of labelling on alcoholic beverages to raise the public awareness of fetal alcohol syndrome?
Ms Bradshaw: I believe it wouldn't be bad for your children and my personal children, my family children. But my other-family children have started drinking beer in their milk bottles. We have children who will put the elastic on and wash the syringe when mom takes her drugs. So you can do what you want with the beer bottle at that age, as many of them can't read or write.
When we speak of children at risk and when we give you our fact sheets, this goes beyond those issues. For the children I have worked with for 22 years, and for their parents, you could put all the labelling you want on the bottles and it wouldn't mean anything to them. It would mean something to my children. It would mean something to your children.
Mr. Hill: So you're saying it would be too late in that instance.
Ms Bradshaw: Exactly.
Mr. Hill: I have one other question, then, if I might. Have you a country to look at, another jurisdiction to look at, that is better in prevention than Canada is on these issues? Is there someone who we can say has already tried this, started this, and is already seeing results?
Ms Bradshaw: We are working closely with Dr. Weikart, who did the Perry study and showed that one dollar is worth... We had Dr. Weikart with us three weeks ago in Moncton to do a conference, and I understand he's also going to be in Edmonton in May to do a conference.
I look at you when you ask me that question and I hear about Sweden and the United States. I think we get the respect that we get when we travel with our Canadian flag on our suitcase because we're Canadians and we've always learned to do things right. If you asked me that question, I would have to look you in the eye and say Canada is probably one of the best countries as far as having been able to take care of its people. Right now, I think we're at a crucial point in terms of whether we're going to turn toward countries that haven't been or are going to continue being Canadian and doing it right.
So when I look at you and you ask me that question, I have to say that we have Dr. Weikart, but as far as a country taking care of its people and doing things right is concerned, when you travel with your suitcase, have the Canadian flag on it and you'll always get a smile.
.0930
Dr. Hastings: You can go one step further on that question, though. Given that so much of this within Canada is under provincial jurisdiction, you can look at a province like Quebec. It has been a little more generous in its support to early parents and a little more tolerant at the level of support to children in trouble. It also has the lowest rates of persistent offending and the smallest amount of trouble with juvenile delinquency. So it does suggest that, even internally, there are very important lessons that we can be picking up on.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): I was going to mention that. We have the same problems in Quebec. You talk about prevention and I think we can also talk about repairing things that aren't working properly.
We'll also have to give some thought to future developments. Unfortunately I don't think there will be fewer single parent families. If we want to take appropriate preventive steps, we must have some idea of what social changes are likely to occur. Do you have any thoughts on that?
The situation we find ourselves in now may have changed completely in ten years. We're now in 1996 and we'll soon have reached the year 2000. Who can tell what the situation will be then? Will television still be as powerful in influencing society?
I'm thinking of a lots of things like drug taking, for example, and organized crime etc. Do you have any ideas about how we can do this? How do we see future developments in relation to this issue?
Mr. Hastings: I agree that that is the question we have to ask. It's rather similar to the previous question about whether the child is better looked after at home or outside.
For most of us the ideal situation would be to have both parents at home and the fewest possible hours worked outside. We could attempt to create all sorts of contexts.
At the present time the important thing is to know how we are going to adapt to the social changes that are taking place at the federal, provincial and community levels. There are two possible strategies. The first would be to have a family support policy using money in an attempt to prop up the old system, which may be the ideal one but which is not very realistic nowadays. The second strategy, in my opinion, the more realistic one would involve determining what the child's needs are. The model that we are proposing is to look after the child from before birth until he starts being socialized in attending school with particular attention being given to difficult thresholds.
These critical thresholds should constitute the basis for implementing reflection on community programs. Because of the detrimental affect of social changes on families, our responsibility is to provide the best possible family support at the community level.
Fortunately, as we have observed in our travels throughout the country, there are hundreds of programs in existence and they are successful in spite of many difficulties. It's encouraging to see this success in spite of the lack of support and the problems involved in creating an integrated system. We would like to implement these programs in a more systematic way.
I should point out that in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada governments are making an attempt to put their financial house in order and are cutting back on expenditures, particularly in social and health programs. The consequences are disastrous.
During national volunteer week I recently attended a seminar where I heard volunteers explain that they had become the victims of such cutbacks and were expected to take on more responsibilities with less money.
.0935
That is indeed one if the effects. It's frustrating to see that our cutback strategies are a unfortunately not designed as investment strategies. We cut back but not always in the right place and when money is invested, it's not invested in the right place.
Let me give you an example of this kind of stupidity. It costs $100,000 a year to keep a young person in prison. Imagine what we could do with $100,000 in community programs! It would seem that the people of Canada are willing to see an increase in the present population, including youth, even when this takes away money from demonstrably effective early childhood programs.
So the emphasis should be reversed. It's like a pension plan. You don't get much after one or two years but in 10, 15 or 20 years you get a good return. This is an investment strategy that has shown its worth.
[English]
The Chairman: I must extend my apologies for overlooking my great friend, Joe Volpe. I should never do that, and I know I'll pay for it.
Mr. Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It's better to be recognized later rather than never.
I want to compliment the presenters on the energy with which they've made their presentation. They sound very convinced about what they should do, and I suppose that's the very first step towards convincing others.
I wonder if I might just quote from NCPC Priorities and Activities, which seems to reiterate some of the statements that you've made on this matter. You believe the failure, and I quote:
- ...to respond to the needs of children and their families is at the heart of the problem of crime and
victimization among youth.
- Our objective is to help design practical solutions which communities can implement in
response to this challenge.
I have a couple of questions in this regard, and my questions are designed more to get a better understanding of what you mean. You did indicate that you need to know exactly who we're talking about, so I want to know who we're talking about.
In the last ten years, we've allowed approximately 2.5 million brand-new people to enter this country through our immigration policies. Without judging the merits of that decision, the fact of life is that there are a lot of children who came along as part of that 2.5 million, or who have now emerged from that 2.5 million. Does your preliminary analysis take that into account?
Ms Bradshaw: Okay, I like a devil's advocate, because if we're going -
Mr. Volpe: I haven't started yet.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Ms Bradshaw: All right, but if we're going to work together in the next three years so that we have a message to give them, let's go out and give it. We need to be able to answer each other and argue with each other and then hug each other.
The ``who'' that I've been with for 22 years - and the stats show this - are children who very often are born from generation after generation of poverty. We don't know these people. I've been with them every year for 22 years and I still don't know them. I learn from them every day, because it's a life totally different from yours and mine. So that's the ``who''.
I think we need to really educate ourselves when we speak of children at risk. When we speak of children in poverty, it's not everybody. I've met poor people who are so rich just because they're so rich. But when you speak of abuse and generational...then there are high-risk children. Those are the ones I'm speaking about. I'm saying we need to ask what we need to do to break that generation of the children who are born.
.0940
On your immigration question, you also need to know I refused to sit on any federal committees for ten years, for two reasons. First, I didn't have the time. Second, I was afraid of flying. When I accepted this, I had to fly like crazy across this country, and every time I walk on the plane I say if I die, I die for a child.
So I didn't know the immigration issue. When I got into Toronto last February, I walked into an immigration complex and it blew me away. I think there were 45 different communities in that complex. My first reaction when I walked into that complex was, good Lord, if we bring them into our country because we care about what is going to happen to them in their country, how are we treating them? If we don't treat them properly -
Mr. Volpe: I might interrupt you and go back to this, since you've introduced the word ``community'' again. Perhaps Toronto is not the premier example for jumping off into the discussion, but since you brought up the example let me pursue it further.
There are those who hold that one of the reasons a city like Toronto works is that many of these people who have come have brought with them a tight ethic of family responsibility; not community responsibility, family responsibility. Those same people hold that the focus on community is at the expense of the focus on family.
Ms Bradshaw: But when we discussed our guidebook...and we discussed it at length, and I hope when it comes out in June we will be sending you each a copy, and I hope you get back to Elaine with your opinion of how you felt about it. We discussed that at length, and we asked, are we going to break it down as to one community versus another one? There was a big discussion on that. Then we said no, because it doesn't matter what colour you are or what race you are, the child and the mom have a need. When the child is born it needs the bonding and the caring.
So with our guidebook we tried not to get into that a lot. I think that's what always happens to our children and with all the research we do. Whenever we start speaking about children we bring in the different types of issues -
Mr. Volpe: I'm trying to understand exactly how this would work. I still have some questions to fill in the gap.
Ms Bradshaw: Maybe what I should do is pass you to the doctor.
Mr. Volpe: Not necessarily.
About 25 years ago Ontario underwent a series of social changes and made some policy decisions to reflect some of those social changes. It said since our school boards essentially reflect community and what our school boards are designed to do is to maintain the continuum of values that are inherent in any community, what we'll do now to build a larger character is to eliminate the small school boards and amalgamate, because certain values permeate all of society.
That system is still going on. In the province of Ontario it is proposed the number of school boards be reduced to something like 80. Twenty-five years ago there was something in excess of 300.
When you have the elimination of a local influence - and I think I'm reflecting your response - are you taking away from the kinds of prescriptions you're offering for the resolving of general social ills? That's number one.
.0945
Number two, are you suggesting we inculcate a certain community ethos by the re-education of mothers?
Number three, if in fact that is what you're suggesting, are you aware that there are those who hold that, for example, the first nations community is at greatest risk because there has been a failure in past generations to build that community ethos, or to replace the one that was there with a functional one, as people move out of the small community?
So I guess number four is are you suggesting something that goes beyond family into community at the expense of family? Or are you suggesting a restructuring of financial priorities to ensure that the basic ethics of community living inherent in the smallest microcosm of society be re-nurtured?
Dr. Hastings: The answer is yes.
Mr. Volpe: To all questions?
Dr. Hastings: No. I'll try to collapse a couple.
The tension you're depicting is the tension between the family and the community and their relative priorities. In our view - and I think I speak for the committee - the focus is definitely on the family. That's who services have to be provided for.
Also, though, there is recognition of the fact that governments systematically over the last generation have pulled out of direct provision of those family supports. The example that's coming to mind is family allowance, which was in a sense the federal government saying ``We will take charge of providing some of the resources we know families need''.
Governments, for good financial and sometimes bad policy reasons, have systematically pulled out of that at the very point in time when families are becoming less able to cope. They're less equipped with the knowledge, the skills and the resources they need.
What we're suggesting is it's for families, but it will probably have to be by communities. I would argue that until you equip families to participate actively, you're not going to get community building and community development. We see it as a building block for not only families but also communities.
The last comment I would make is you have to be very careful about the issue of immigration. There's an enormous overlap between immigration and poverty. Canada has an enormous number of incredibly successful immigrants, financially and community-wise, who have melded into the country almost seamlessly. The ones who haven't tend to be the newest ones and the ones who come from the most problematic situations, culturally and politically. The adjustment period for them is just beginning, and unfortunately, especially since the 1980s, they've arrived at a time when we've pulled back some of the supports to receive them.
Ms Bradshaw: You said something that clicked with me when you talked about the aboriginal community. I did a lot of work in New Brunswick with the aboriginal communities. I agree with you that we've taken away a lot of what they had that was rich.
Let me give you an example. We had a lot of suicides on the Big Cove reserve. We went in there and did an inquiry, a study, the whole bit. Do you know what we came out with? We need more psychologists, more psychiatrists, more drug treatment centres and more alcohol treatment centres, and we need a mental health clinic. Not one person during all that inquiry questioned the prenatal-to-six group.
I'll tell you, at Christmastime, when I had every media person in my building, I brought it up. I said ``What did I teach you guys in 22 years?'' This is what the guide book is about. We have to begin by looking, because all children need the same things, no matter what colour or race they are.
The Chairman: We're well out of time, but three people haven't yet had an opportunity to question, so I'm going to give them an opportunity for a quick question, if you don't mind, in this order: Paul, Beryl and Andy.
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
.0950
Can you tell me, in your experience, how many women would have been aware of FAS-FAE?
Ms Bradshaw: My sad thing that I have to tell you is, not a lot.
Mr. Szabo: Not a lot. So if someone said to you that 95% of women in Canada know about FAS and don't drink during pregnancy, you would have a problem with that?
Ms Bradshaw: No.
What did you ask me?
Mr. Szabo: If someone suggested that 95% of women know it is dangerous to drink during pregnancy, would you have a problem with that statement?
Ms Bradshaw: Oh no.
Mr. Szabo: They wouldn't be right, would they?
Ms Bradshaw: It depends on who you talk about. If you talk about my friends, we're aware of it. If you speak about the families that I have at Head Start, it's not even -
Mr. Szabo: The last question is, are you familiar with the major study that was just announced - I think it came out of New Jersey, probably the most comprehensive compilation of studies on childhood interventions - and its comment about something to the effect that if you have more than ten hours of institutionalized care per week, it can increase the risk factors of negative outcomes?
Dr. Hastings: I'm aware only of some of the media reports on that study.
What you want to be careful of is what those ten hours of institutional care correlate to, and they usually correlate back to poverty and high levels of stress in the family.
Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): Thank you, Dr. Hastings and Ms Bradshaw.
I too want to congratulate you on a very sincere presentation, Ms Bradshaw.
The National Crime Prevention Council was established in 1994 by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, and you are dealing with children from the prenatal stage to the age of six. As you know, we are now bringing forth a work plan to deal with the same age group as you are dealing with. When we're talking about developmental issues, we talk about the same things as you: nutrition, nurturing, early education, and so on.
I'm compacting my question because of the shortage of time. I am concerned that there's overlap here, that what we are dealing with is something that you could be dealing with providing we add the Minister of Health to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice. For the sake of saving costs, what would be your comments on us as a committee saying to the Minister of Health, ``This should really come under the jurisdiction of this group here. Take it out of our hands'', and letting you deal with the health issues as you're doing your ``report to''?
Dr. Hastings: My comment would be very simple. We'd be delighted to take that on as part of the challenge.
I would point out that we already have somebody from the Department of Health in the secretariat.
I think the larger issue you're addressing is the need for us finally to get away from organizing problems around institutions' capacity and willingness to take them on and, instead, to begin to reorganize our institutions on the basis of the kinds of problems and challenges we have to face. Kids should come first, basically.
Mrs. Gaffney: But you are doing health within your -
Dr. Hastings: Yes.
Mrs. Gaffney: Already.
You didn't comment on whether you think there's going to be an overlap there, a cost that we could do without.
Dr. Hastings: In the short run there probably will be some overlap, because only now are we developing a language and a set of strategies for coordinating those issues. I think that in the medium to long run we'll all discover that we're working pretty much in the same direction and we can sort the roles out.
Mrs. Gaffney: All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Before you bring the gavel down on me, I want you to think about what it looks like when a Newfoundlander comes between two New Brunswickers talking.
I have to say how proud all of us in New Brunswick are of Head Start and Claudette. She has taken on legendary proportions.
When you talk about the fact that there are people who don't know that if you have hot water and cold water and you put them together you get lukewarm water, to some extent - and I don't mean this as a disparaging comment about anybody - in the area of public policy in terms of at-risk kids, I think we're equally ignorant about what we're talking about.
.0955
I say this at a very personal level. My wife comes from that circumstance. For all my good intentions all my life, I never really understood what I was talking about until I understood the life she had - and I still don't. As you say, you can live it forever, but you never really understand.
So I think in programming we have to be careful about things such as what constitutes a single mom. There's a public policy when we decide we're going to bring on a program that's for single mothers, when we don't even know what single mothers are. Certainly the single mother doesn't think she's a single mother. She thinks her partner, her friend, is as much involved in her life...perhaps not with the same level of stability and continuity. I think that's a perfect place to come to terms with that.
On the question of communities and families, I want to speak about reading and literacy and so on. One of the places I've seen that work very well is in family-based literacy programs. They're community delivered but family embraced. You get the best of both worlds. You're developing the family in the way I think our colleague Mr. Volpe was encouraging, but it's a recognition that sometimes families are broadly defined. Certainly in the case of my wife's situation, in the conventional sense it wasn't a family we would know, as middle-class Canadians. So there had to be a community. There wasn't anything else.
How important, Claudette, is the fundamental ability to make choices that are dependent on the ability to read?
Ms Bradshaw: Until four years ago our parents would talk to us greatly about the abuse they went through, which was out of this world, and they would also tell us very openly about abusing their children, which again is out of this world. But very seldom would they tell us they're illiterate. Not until we opened up the kitchen, where they came in to do the hands-on...
We like to teach. We're professional teachers. We're good at ``you bad, me teach you''. That's us. But when we do the hands-on, that's when we find out they really don't know.
So we started a literacy class in our program. We're very high-risk, don't forget. Out of fourteen parents in our literacy class, six have hit a plateau of grade 5. They've been sitting there for a year now and nothing comes in; nothing. We've been wanting to get into a computer program, through Mount Allison University. Mount A developed the computer program. We want to bring it into our literacy class and use the six people on this computer program to see if we couldn't bring them up if we taught them through the computer.
Well, guess what? We can't get the money because we're a non-profit agency. We're not a university and we're not private, so we can't do that research. It's so important, because if we say ``read a book'', they can't read.
How many of you know people who follow someone on social assistance in a grocery store? Your constituents will ask you why you give them more money. They buy a pizza that's already made and they buy Campbell's soup. Well, yes. They can't read. What do you want them to buy, dog food? If we could teach them how to read, they would know what to buy when they go to a grocery store.
Let me come in here with you and give you a box that's written in Chinese - well, some of you might know how to read it - and there are an envelope and two boxes. I'd like to see what kind of recipe you're going to come up with.
That's why I say it's going to take three years for us to speak, for us to travel, for us to be together, so the captain of the boat, the manoeuvrers, and we in the engine room are speaking the same language. I'm telling you, if we can learn to do this in three years... No kidding. When the children who are born today graduate from university, there will be a job, there will be no deficit, and we'll be closing our prisons.
So there's a right way and a wrong way.
The Chairman: Antoine.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I see that we don't have much time but I'd like to tell you that your presentation was very interesting. I read the questions and the background paper prepared by the Library Research Branch. I discovered in this document a rather new concept for me, this idea of resilience.
.1000
At first glance, it seems an interesting concept. If as part of our prevention efforts we were able to teach our children this kind of resilience in specific situations, it would be quite useful.
I don't expect you to explain but I'd like to thank you for drawing my attention to the idea. It seems to me that if we're not able to carry out a full evaluation of all the programs, which would be a long and tedious process, you could perhaps tell us a bit about the success stories, that is those programs that have proven to be worthwhile and that we could use as a good model.
Mr. Hastings: We have to make an important distinction between a full and comprehensive strategy and individual programs that are pieces part of this strategy.
A program that comes to my mind is one for young mothers. It was set up here in Ottawa at the Youville Centre for 15, 16 and 17 year old pregnant girls who are able to stay on at high school during their pregnancy and once they've given birth there is a cooperative program to provide care for their babies.
The program has a high success rate. Ninety-two out of 110 of these girls have finished high school and most of them now have a job. It's a very modest program offered mainly by volunteers but it fits in perfectly into an overall strategy.
That is the best kind of approach. The time for massive programs is over because governments no longer have the money. If we wish to reestablish a series of programs that aren't keeping with this strategy, we will have to work gradually and demonstrate that they can be successful before incorporating them.
Mr. Dubé: Do you have a list of these programs?
Mr. Hastings: In the document, you will see that whenever we identify a particular stage with its associated risks and dangers, we also attempt to indicate one or two programs that have proven to be successful.
In the long term, we would like these documents to be used at the community level in identifying problems.
We would also like to establish a full list of effective programs to give some guidance to these communities as well as some short cuts.
Mr. Dubé: Will it be published in the near future?
Mr. Hastings: We hope that all these documents will be available by the end of our mandate a year from now.
Mr. Dubé: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Ross, thank you very much.
Before we break I just want to say to the committee that we're going to have a brief in camera session to deal with a couple of issues. Before that, I would suggest that we take a few minutes to mingle with all five of the people from the crime prevention group. Tell us who they are again, Ross, please.
Dr. Hastings: Elaine Scott is the executive director of the council and of the national strategy on prevention; Catherine MacLeod has done an enormous amount of the legwork, pulling together seven very fractious committee members, and so deserves a great deal of credit; and Francine Charlebois from Justice is also very highly involved in coordinating the work we're doing around community mobilization and federal-provincial liaison in this area.
The Chairman: We've enjoyed your participation, and I'm going to suggest to the committee that we take five or six minutes to have a coffee with our witnesses and just pick their brains a little more before we reconvene.
Pauline has something before we break.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate Ms Bradshaw and Mr. Hastings for their excellent presentation and work. It is obvious that they are really involved in this field and determine to provide assistance to children and improve the general situation. Once again my congratulations.
Ms Bradshaw: Your contribution has also been important.
[English]
The Chairman: I'll adjourn the meeting.