HUMA Committee Report

Background

In its Interim Report of June 1999, the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk made 11 observations that reflected consistent messages brought to the Sub-Committee by some of the most important policy researchers, community representatives, government official and ministers who have worked to identify issues and suggest solutions.

The Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk was re-established in November 1999. At that time the members agreed to undertake a very short inquiry that sought to:

• Provide a forum for public input into the identification of key substantive features of a national action plan;
• Identify key spending priorities for the 2000 Budget and;
• Contribute to the identification of long term priorities as the national action plan takes shape

The Sub-Committee has heard from key witnesses who contributed to our discussion of immediate priorities for the 2000 Budget, as well as the principles that must inform the more general development of a long-term strategy to support Canadian families and their children.

Recognizing the very tight time constraints and in keeping with our short term goal of making a contribution to the decisions involved in the 2000 Budget we make the following observations:

We can not point to huge successes when it comes to supporting children and families. However, Canada has a long and distinguished history with respect to the level and scope of support it delivers to seniors and Canada is recognized internationally for the extent to which our health care system delivers quality health care to all Canadians. But, in the international arena Canada’s record compares less than favorably with many countries – particularly in terms of support to our youngest citizens from 0-6 years of age. Here Canada is dismally behind. In order to redress this situation governments must make a firm five year fiscal commitment to develop an integrated public policy framework for families and children.

Policy experts, researchers, front-line service deliverers, non-governmental organizations and indeed the entire child advocacy community have all converged around the view that governments can no longer afford to fund a selection of piece-meal programs aimed at children. While it is fair to say that, in the main, these programs have benefited some children and some families, a patchwork approach is neither efficient in terms of supporting children and families nor cost-effective, over the long-term. There is strong agreement that a horizontal policy framework must operate on two simultaneous tracks - one that focuses on income support for families and one that focuses on services for families and children.

With respect to income support, many experts have confirmed the importance of tax recognition for families with children and provided evidence that low, moderate and middle income families have borne a significant brunt of changes to the tax system over the past number of years. We are supportive of modifications to the tax system that will spell some relief for families with children, particularly those families at low, moderate and middle-income levels. We concur with the government`s commitment to modify the current system of parental benefits. We believe that increasing the level of benefits, extending the duration of parental benefits and easing the qualification requirements for these benefits is an integral part of income support for families.

The third key component of income support – the National Child Benefit (NCB) – is scheduled to receive a third significant investment by 1 July 2001. We recognize the philosophy that underpins the NCB and we were told that reaching the crucial target of $2500.00 per child would move closer to fully replacing welfare-delivered child benefits. An immediate $1.5 billion improvement to the NCB and extending it to all low income families, including those on social assistance, is crucial. We fully support the move to commit th this amount in the February 2000 budget.

The other policy and program track – services for families and children – must not be ignored. We know that the provision of services falls within provincial jurisdiction and we respect provincial competencies in this area. The federal government has a leadership role. We are encouraged by the government’s commitment to guide a process of federal/provincial agreement to strengthen community supports, which we feel must include such options as child care, housing, early learning programs and parenting courses. These kinds of services will enhance early childhood development. A five-year fiscal framework of investment in services that support families and children, within the context of a co-ordinated and coherent policy framework is necessary to provide consistency, predictability and stability. There is resounding support for an approach that both maximizes accessibility and respects parental choice,among policy groups who appeared before the Committee.

The expression of federal leadership on the services front must – in our view – be monetary in nature. We believe that the federal government should commit, in the February 2000 Budget, a substantial amount of money ( i.e $.5 billion) – up front – in order to convince the provinces that it is serious about reaching a federal/provincial agreement on early childhood services at the community level by December 2000. Following that, the federal government must create a fund that begins with an initial $500 million increasing by $500 million each year for a total investment of $7.5 Billion over the course of the five-year early childhood development fund.

The Committee wants to underscore the importance of government transparency and accountability. The framework within which all levels of government design and implement social policy has changed. Canadians need to be involved in the development of social priorities and they want to be assured that the intended results of programs are actually being achieved. Reporting on these outcomes in a transparent fashion is crucial. Perhaps nowhere are these principles more important than in the case of supporting families and their children, initiatives that involve many government departments, at all levels, simultaneously. The weight of scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that improving the quality of life of all families and children contributes substantially to positive outcomes for individuals and a higher degree of social cohesion for Canadian society.

We were told more than once during our meetings that Quebec has established a system of integrated income and support services for families and children. Since its introduction, Quebec has radically expanded its child care services with a funding structure that allocates 80% of the costs to the province and 20% to parents. This level of service has, in turn, expanded the demand for licensed child care spots and the province has found it necessary to make substantial additional investments to move towards meeting that demand.

With respect to federal spending power and the initiation of new Canada-wide initiatives supported by transfers to provinces and territories, the Social Union Framework Agreement clearly stipulates the principles of working collectively to identify priorities shared among a majority of the provinces before moving forward. In cases where provinces do not require the total transfer to meet the objectives of new initiatives, they are able to reinvest those funds in a similar or related priority area. We also recognize that there must be some way of compensating provinces, such as Quebec, for any additional costs it has already incurred in meeting priorities that fall within the same envelope. Subsequent negotiations with the provinces and territories must accommodate provinces that have led in the field, facilitating a "race to the top".

Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk
Official Opposition Dissenting Opinion
December 1999 Report
Eric Lowther, MP

The Official Opposition believes that the family is the most essential building block of society, and families have the primary responsibility for raising children. The Reform Party’s Statement of Principles #7 states that "We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society."

As the Interim Report notes, the sub-committee was re-established in November 1999. In December 1999, the Sub-committee has written an Interim report. As one can imagine, there have been very few meetings since the re-establishment of the Sub-committee, and thus, relatively few viewpoints have been heard. Therefore, it is difficult for the Sub-committee to make any recommendations of any great authority in this December 1999 report.

In the June 1999 Interim report of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk, the Official Opposition wrote a dissenting opinion which stated that, "A rather significant omission of the interim report is a failure to acknowledge that, as a sub-committee dedicated to addressing issues as they relate to "children and youth at risk," the interim report fails to address which children are defined as "children and youth at risk." … [S]uch a statement of the sub-committee’s mandate would be helpful before embarking upon a study of "children and youth at risk." Otherwise, the sub-committee report may give the impression that every child without a government program is a "child at risk." This would seem to contradict the views of parents themselves, as Statistics Canada notes, "By far the majority of children living in Canada are in excellent or very good health according to their parents."¹" Unfortunately, the December 1999 Interim report of this same Sub-committee makes little progress in this respect.

The June 1999 Official Opposition dissenting opinion also stated that the Sub-Committee "fails to adequately acknowledge … the role that high levels of taxation have played in the increased stress levels of Canadian families." Again, the December 1999 Interim report of this same Sub-committee has the same shortcoming.

The December 1999 Interim report of the Sub-committee states, "many experts have confirmed the importance of tax recognition for families with children and provided evidence that low, moderate and middle income families have borne a significant brunt of changes to the tax system over the past number of years. We are supportive of modifications to the tax system that will spell some relief for families with children, particularly those families at low, moderate and middle-income levels…"

The Official Opposition believes that Canadian families need more than just "some" tax relief. Statistics Canada notes that "Personal income taxes continue to make up the largest share of household spending. In 1997, an average of 21 cents of every dollar went towards personal income taxes, followed by 20 cents for shelter, 12 cents for transportation and 11 cents for food.²" The Official Opposition believes that taxes should not be the biggest item in the family budget, and thus, Canadians need substantial, broad-based tax relief.

Unfortunately, the main stumbling block to any meaningful tax and debt relief program is in the governments own 50/50 plan to spend away half of any surpluses. The federal government has stated its plans to spend half of any projected surpluses on new spending and apply the remaining half to an ill-defined mix of debt and tax reductions. The Official Opposition believes this is a very short-sighted approach, and that tax and debt relief should be the priority over any plans for new spending.

The December 1999 Interim report of the Sub-committee talks about increasing spending in a number of areas, including $7.5 billion in an early childhood development fund. In addition to overlooking the greater need for significant tax relief, these and other recommendations fail to acknowledge that, according to the National Accounts of Canada, government program spending per person has never been higher than it is today. However, after hearing presentations from just five organizations at three meetings held from November to December, 1999, the Sub-committee report recommends that $7.5 billion be spent on an early childhood development fund, as well as various other suggestions for increased spending. Given the few viewpoints heard by the sub-committee, it is difficult to put much weight in these recommendations, nor in other statements that the Interim Report makes like, "Policy experts, researchers, front-line service deliverers, non-governmental organizations and indeed the entire child advocacy community have all converged around the view…" The Sub-committee has heard from relatively few of these representatives, and the Sub-committee's report should recognize these limitations, lest it risk being written off as myopic, unrealistic, and self-serving.

Finally, the Official Opposition believes in the equality of all provinces and recognizes that the provinces have primary responsibility in the provision of social services. The report says, "We know that the provision of services falls within provincial jurisdiction and we respect provincial competencies in this area. The federal government has a leadership role." One has to question this statement, because if something is not within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government, Ottawa clearly does not have a "leadership role."

The report later states, "We also recognize that there must be some way of compensating provinces, such as Quebec, for any additional costs it has already incurred in meeting priorities that fall within the same envelope." This statement seems to suggest that the federal government owes something to Quebec or other provinces for beginning programs which are not even under federal jurisdiction. In order to be fair to all provinces, no province should have retroactive compensation. The criteria for retroactive funding is also unfair to other provinces which may have established piecemeal programs in the past which may or may not deserve retroactive funding. Finally, this recommendation establishes a damaging precedent for the future, and should be ignored.

The needs of families under stress with children at risk are best met at a community and local government level. New federal bureaucracies for children funded by non-optional taxes from their parents is not in the best interests of children.

December 14, 1999

A first reading of the Report gives the BQ the impression that the Committee is determined to resolve the disastrous state of the fight against child poverty brought on by six years of social deficit under the Liberals. In fact, however, the absence of any real will to recognize the provinces' constitutional jurisdiction in this area may well mean that the recommendations contained in the Report will remain no more than good intentions.

The federal government wants to assume leadership that, under the Constitution, it does not have. Instead, it should avoid repeating its past mistakes and should provide stable financial support to the provinces that so urgently need it.

The Committee is addressing the issue the wrong way around. If it wants the federal government to invest in children's affairs, it should propose that funds be transferred to Quebec and the provinces, leaving them full control over programs in this area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In its present form, the Report emphasizes national action and integrated federal policy, which run counter to any kind of flexibility. Where services to the public are concerned, for example, given the proliferation of existing programs, an integrated approach can be implemented only by Quebec and the provinces. Any federal approach would harm the logical integration and the synergy of provincial programs.

Resolving the issue of child poverty means resolving the issue of the millions of families that live in unacceptable conditions. Although the federal government now has the means to act, in some areas it will provide support only in the year 2001. This strategy looks more like an effort to achieve political gains than a will to wage a genuine fight against child poverty. The need is urgent; the money is available; and the solutions are known: it is time to stop talking and start acting--now.

Where reduced services to the public are concerned, the federal government is responsible for many of the difficulties facing Quebec and the provinces, particularly because of the significant cuts its has made to the CHST. The first thing the federal government should do is to re-establish the programs for which funding was cut, especially the CHST. We point out that by far most areas in which the federal government investment should be given high priority fall under provincial jurisdiction: health, social services, education, and income security. We demand that support for these high-priority areas be provided through existing channels, so that Quebec and the provinces can meet the needs of their populations. We also warn against setting up new programs eventually to be paid for by the provinces.

We criticize the fact that the Report does not address the issue of limited EI eligibility, which has in fact victimized many families. As well, in the most recent Speech from the Throne, the government announced that it intended to extend parental leave from six months to one year. Although extended parental leave seems like a gain for working men and women, in reality it is not and advantage at all. The government's refusal to overhaul the EI eligibility rules raises a question: Who will be able to benefit from extended parental leave? And the government's refusal to change the parental leave benefit level of 55% of salary raises a further question: Who can afford to live for a full year on half pay?

Poor children live in poor families, which must spend from 30% to 50% of their low incomes on rent or simply live in substandard housing. It is urgent that the federal government invest new money in public housing, transfer that money to the provinces, and take into account the provinces' needs.

The Committee repeatedly justifies federal government intervention by referring to the Social Union agreement. We must bear in mind that Quebec did not sign that agreement. If the federal government really wants to respect what is being done in Quebec, it must not only say so but also, if it wants to set up programs that already exist in Quebec, offer Quebec financial compensation.

Essentially, the Report seems to want to impose the Social Union agreement on Quebec, with no regard for what is being done there. Underlying national standards is a centralizing vision that does not respect the needs of the provinces and is, not a creative, dynamic approach, but an effort to infantilize the provinces.

Although figures were specified by a number of organizations testifying about child poverty, the various solutions proposed in the Report are flawed by a lack of clarity about amounts to be allocated to the provinces in light of the priorities they have themselves identified.

If the purpose of the Report is to influence the Finance Minister about how much money to allocate to children's affairs, the Report should have included a plan backed by detailed figures and more specific deadlines to ensure progress in such crucial areas as the following:

• public housing;


• parental leave;


• extended EI eligibility


• tax breaks for families with children; and


• support services for families and children.

This absence of will makes the Report look more like a collection of good intentions than a serious exercise in eliminating child and family poverty. Furthermore, the tax break proposal does not specify which option the government should choose: reimbursable and non-reimbursable income tax credits, or indexed taxation. This point should have been clearer; indeed, the BQ made a number of suggestions regarding taxation.

Christiane Gagnon

MP for Québec and BQ Critic for Poverty, Children's Affairs, the Family, and Public Housing

Libby Davies, MP

NDP Spokesperson for Children and Youth
New Democratic Party Caucus

Millions of Canadian children are at risk in this country. They are at risk of waking up in a shelter, or in inadequate housing. They are at risk of going to bed hungry, and performing poorly in school because they lack adequate nutrition. They are at risk of spending the rest of their lives trying to make up for shortfalls in the early years, between 0 and 6, when the base is set for a lifetime of learning, behaviour and health.

There's no longer any debate about what it takes for children to get a good start in life. Yet, today, even as large and growing budget surpluses are forecast far into the future, Canada is the only country in the industrialized world with no universal program recognizing the value and the costs of raising children. A decade ago, when the House of Commons resolved unanimously to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, one in seven Canadian children were poor. Today, it’s one child in five.

Government must reassert the importance of children and our obligation to end poverty. We must give our kids a good start in life. Setting the budgetary priorities towards meeting these challenges was a key goal of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk.

While we commend the committee for its direction, we believe that the report falls short in meeting key benchmarks that are crucial to reversing the damage of the past and setting the groundwork for a more promising future.

New Democrats believe that the upcoming federal budget must include a substantial and immediate federal commitment to Canadian children and families as the beginning of a five year social investment plan. The following elements are crucial and must be adopted in the 2000 Federal Budget:

• A national childcare and early childhood education plan. Today more than 60 % of women with children under the age of six are in the workforce, yet only 9% of children in need of care have access to regulated childcare. In order to rectify this, the federal government must commit $2.5 billion for a quality childhood care and education program that is universal and affordable;
• Currently, the national child benefit, Canada’s major transfer program to combat child poverty reaches only 36% of poor families. An immediate $1.5 billion improvement to the National Child Benefit, extending it to all low-income families, including those on social assistance, is crucial;
• Commitments by the government to extend parental benefits to one year amount to very little if eligibility guidelines render most women ineligible. An additional $1 billion for expanded eligibility and increased benefit levels for maternity and parental leave under the EI program;

• The adoption of a national housing strategy which recognizes housing as a basic right and meets the goal of providing an additional 1% of total program spending on housing.

Dissenting Report -- Progressive Conservative Party of Canada

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (PC Party) supports the general approach of the Report of the Sub-committee on Children and Youth at Risk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. However, the PC Party considers that it must present a dissenting report because of the absence of certain key points.

We approve the proposed amendment to the parental leave benefits plan, in particular the extension of the leave and the greater flexibility in eligibility criteria. This change will make a useful and necessary contribution to family income. However, the PC Party considers that it would have been better to propose within the Report a specific time that the amendment would come into force. Because federal aid to parents ought to be put in place as quickly is possible, the PC Party considers that this amendment to the parental leave benefits plan ought to take effect in July 2000.

The current government is planning to make a third major investment in the National Child Benefit (NCB) before July 1, 2001. This means that Canadian families could have to wait 18 months before they receive the promised amount. The PC Party is concerned that the value of the NCB, which is an essential part of the income of a great many low-income Canadian families, is shrinking every year because of inflation. At present, an adjustment mechanism is provided for this benefit, but the inflation rate must be 3% before the mechanism is activated. According to Statistics Canada, inflation has for several years remained below this ceiling. It has however been fluctuating enough to affect families’ buying power considerably. The cost of food, clothing and rent are going up steadily, but families have no more money than they ever did to pay for them. These families must be given some means of following fluctuations in the cost of living and meeting their financial obligations, by ensuring that they benefit from the real value of the amount they receive. For these reasons, the PC Party is in favour of indexing the National Child Benefit. The Party also proposes that the coming into force of the third investment in the NCB be rescheduled from July 1, 2001, to July 1, 2000.

The Report nowhere mentions the problem that many families are encountering with their provincial government. While Canadian families overall are growing poorer year by year because of the undermining effect of inflation, those receiving social assistance are even more affected than the rest, because the new benefit is wholly deductible from their social assistance. The provinces are in fact re-investing the money thus freed in social services for children and low-income families (day-care centres, pharmacare, dental care insurance). However, at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting in April 1997of ministers responsible for social services, the ministers affirmed that the National Child Benefit was not supposed to disadvantage families with children on social assistance. The PC Party proposes that the federal government negotiate with its provincial and territorial partners on eliminating any provincial or territorial measure designed to clawback the National Child Benefit.

The federal government must demonstrate its leadership in services by its financial contribution. However, while the PC Party approves of federal government efforts to reach a federal-provincial agreement by December 2000 on services to young children at the community level, it considers arbitrary and excessive the proposed half billion dollars a year proposed in the Subcommittee’s Report. The present federal budget surplus is relatively modest, and results to a certain extent from surpluses engendered by excessive revenues in the Employment Insurance system. The forecast federal budget surpluses for the next five years must be approached with caution. The numbers could certainly change. It should also be noted that the sums proposed in the Report do not come with any conditions: no details are given as to how the federal money should be spent.

Meeting No. 9

Tuesday, December 14, 1999

The Standing Committe on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities met at 11:48 a.m. this day, in Room 308, West Block, the Chair, Peter Adams, presiding.

Member(s) of the Committee present: Peter Adams, Paul Crête, Libby Davies, Jean Dubé, John Godfrey, Dale Johnston, Larry McCormick, Rey Pagtakhan, Andy Scott and Maurice Vellacott.

Acting Member(s) present: Carolyn Bennett for Bonnie Brown, Eric Lowther for Diane Ablonczy, Reg Belair for Raymonde Folco and Murray Calder for Karen Redman.

In attendance: From the Library of Parliament: Sandra Harder, Researcher; Kevin Kerr, Researcher; Bill Young, Researcher.

Witness(es): From the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation: Norman Riddell, Executive Director and CEO; Jean Lapierre, Director of Communications; Alex Usher, Senior Policy Advisor.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), study on matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the Department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House

Norman Riddell made a statement and answered questions.

At 12:46 p.m., On a motion by Libby Davies, it was agreed,-

At 12:47 p.m. the Committee proceeded to sit in camera to consider the report of the Sub-Committee on Children & Youth at Risk.

It was moved, -- That the interim report of the Sub-Committee on Children & Youth at Risk be adopted as amended as the First Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

After debate, the question being put on the motion, it was agreed to.

It was agreed, -- That the Clerk be authorized to make such editorial and typographical changes as necessary without changing the substance of the report and

That the Chair be authorized to present the report to the House.

It was agreed, -- That the Committee authorize the printing of the dissenting opinions as an appendix to this report immediately following the signature of the Chair; that the dissenting opinions be limited to not more than 3 pages; and that the dissenting opinions be delivered in both official languages to the Clerk of the Committee not later than Wednesday, December 15, 1999 at noon.

At 1:15 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Danielle Belisle

Clerk of the Committee