SCYR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH AT RISK OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

SOUS-COMITÉ DES ENFANTS ET JEUNES À RISQUE DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 4, 2001

• 1539

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): Our New Year's resolution is to announce the beginning of the meeting at 3:15 to prevent people from going back to their offices, because we know the frailty of humankind.

Welcome, everybody. Libby Davies is on her way, and we may be joined by others.

I apologize, first of all, for the very sudden notice, but I thought it was best that we get our work underway before the Easter break because we've been delayed by all sorts of things. I won't go into it, but it's been challenging trying to put this together. It's nobody's fault; it's just that the mechanics have been problematic, including letters not received by the clerk and goodness knows what else. But we're here.

• 1540

[Translation]

I think we can welcome everyone, as we are forming a new team. I am delighted to see all of you here.

[English]

I have just a little word of history about this subcommittee while we're waiting for Libby Davies to come, and she has been on it before.

We are technically, as you know, a subcommittee of the human resources development committee. They have two subcommittees—one of which is meeting, confusingly, just around the corner and which is on disability, chaired by Carolyn Bennett, and the other on children and youth at risk.

The thing that can be said about these two subcommittees is that because they attract less attention than the committee from which they spring—that is, human resources development—and because they tend to attract to themselves people who have a common interest in children or in disability as the case may be, the subcommittees often tend to be far more cooperative and I think effective than the main committee, for reasons which are not the main committee's fault.

The other thing to be said is that when you're looking at children, the way the federal government is set up, there are easily 16 or 17 departments of government that have some program or other that affects children. We're dealing not simply with HRD; we're dealing with Health Canada, with Justice, with Finance, with Environment Canada... We're dealing with a great number of departments that have a direct or indirect impact on the lives of children.

The third thing to be said is that the mandate of the committee really covers children and youth. My understanding would be really from conception to age 18. What we found in our initial work is that we have tended to concentrate on the period from conception to six, for a variety of reasons. That is not to say that we're going to be limited to that, but we've been effective, I think, in getting the government to move on the early childhood development agenda. I think we should try to make sure that we continue to be effective and to monitor what they're doing. I think we've been influential.

The fourth thing to say is that—and this is summarized in the note you got about... You know you've got three things here. You've got the appendix 1, which is essentially the document that is part of the briefing book to the HRD committee, which was simply a report on what we've been doing. Then you have the appendix 2, which is the early childhood development initiative. This is the short version.

When we met before the election, which was the last time, we really focused on two different files. One was looking at whether there was a way the government could help on the family work balance. We had some quite interesting meetings.

The other was, in a sense, the one that has had more follow-through. That has been on early childhood development because what we were focusing on was trying to understand what are the optimum conditions to produce the healthy, thriving, coping, competent children we want by the time they hit the school system? A lot of the answers seem to reside... there's a number of answers, but a lot of the answers can be found at the community level, which of course is very challenging for the federal government.

We have in front of us a document that the researcher, Julie MacKenzie—who is here and who has been with the committee for a while, and we thank her for doing this—has prepared. Essentially I said to her, look, what is it that is in the Speech from the Throne where there is work to be done, where there is a commitment by the government but we're not sure how it's going to work, or where there are initiatives that need to be followed through and to be monitored to see how they're going?

• 1545

I think she's quite correctly zeroed in on two big files. One is simply understanding how the early childhood development deal will come out—how the early childhood development initiative of last September 11, the $2.2 billion deal over five years, is actually working. The other is to ask, what will that deal mean for aboriginal children, and what are we going to do about aboriginal children? That must be the most challenging file of all.

[Translation]

This situation presents a rather amusing paradox. While Quebec is not a party to this agreement, it stands as a model from a community standpoint. That's why we are so pleased to have the full participation of the Bloc Québécois because it represents Quebec ridings.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that within Canada and even North America, Quebec leads the way on child development issues. There is no doubt about it, hence the importance of always including Quebec in our considerations.

[English]

Welcome, Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Sorry I'm late.

The Chair: Well, I've been giving the history.

As the clerk has pointed out—or I guess we could all figure out for ourselves—we don't have a lot of time when we get back. We have to do a couple of things today just to be in business. One of them is to make a budget submission to the main committee. This is problematic, because we don't know what we're doing. But despite that, it is important that we at least give ourselves the option of having witnesses. So Madame Belisle has very wisely drawn up a budget, which we would want to get going with and which we can amend if we have greater requirements. But if we don't get going on the budget, we don't have the option of having witnesses from...

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Does the budget apply solely to the period up until June?

The Chair: That's correct.

Ms. Monique Guay: And in September, we reapply for funds. That's important to know.

The Chair: The process begins anew.

Ms. Monique Guay: I see.

The Chair: It's not bad for two months.

[English]

Yes, Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies: Just in terms of witnesses, I know we haven't been meeting, so we haven't all got caught up to date, but since the last time the committee met I've tried to stay in contact with at least some of the groups I deal with—the NGOs in the child care community and early childhood development. One of the things I have heard repeatedly is that, on the one hand, people are somewhat satisfied that things are still progressing with the children's agenda, and there were the commitments made in the budget and the throne speech. I mean, people obviously don't think it's enough, but at least there's something there.

I think there's a lot of concern about the issue of accountability in terms of the wider community and how this is actually going to unfold. While under the social union the federal government is talking to provincial ministers, and they've set up this whole apparatus to study the outcomes and to monitor what provincial governments are doing, the feedback that I've gotten from some of the groups is that they really don't have a sense of where they would fit in. And their ability to even influence the discussion or the debate and how these programs are developed and whether or not there are certain principles that are adopted... All of that is really up in the air, and I think they feel they don't have any impact on that.

So if we were considering witnesses, I think that one avenue we could pursue is the idea of what is the involvement of the NGO community or civil society, and is there a way we could forward something to the minister and encourage her to make sure that some of these groups are included? I think even the idea of a meeting or conference of some of the key stakeholders from across the country is very important.

• 1550

I thought we could bring in witnesses to look at what kind of process they think should unfold through this social union. What is their role in it, and how can we strengthen their participation and support? That's certainly something I'm interested in looking at.

I realize there's a whole bunch of issues there, but this subject keeps coming up again and again, so I feel it needs to be addressed.

The Chair: In fact if we focus for just a moment on the early childhood development deal, there are a couple of questions that relate to this issue. The first is how the federal government knows how the different provinces will spend those colour-coded dollars.

Let's take Ontario: $114 million out of $300 million goes to Ontario this year. It would be nice to know what they're planning to do with it.

[Translation]

There is no problem in Quebec's case. All available funding goes to the child care system.

[English]

In British Columbia as well, I daresay all the money we send there will be properly used for developing the child care system. But there's still that issue of how we can know what's going on—what's the appropriate way for us to find out what the provinces are up to.

Then there's the wider issue of reporting to Canadians, not to governments. This is referred to, by the way, in the longer text on the early childhood development deal. Governments should report to their citizens on what's up. They should be accountable to the people and make outcomes transparent. That's really important.

I should mention an opportunity we may have, as a committee, to pull a lot of folks together at the same time. From May 10 to May 12 there is a major conference here in Ottawa on early childhood development at the community level, with representatives coming from right across the country,

[Translation]

including Quebec and all the territories.

[English]

What I had tentatively suggested—and I obviously need your approval to carry on—is that this committee might think of having some kind of session at the conference with these folks. We should take advantage of the fact that they're coming here, and be part of that conference.

I didn't want to go too far down that road without consulting you, but if I may do a bit of negotiating, I think it would help their conference. By the way, the conference is sponsored in part by the people from Ottawa-Carleton's Success by Six program, and in part by HRD applied research, so it's very appropriate that we should be part of it. I think there are 300 people there, including some of the most interesting people in this field from across the country.

Roy.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, CA): Mr. Chairman, the United Nations claims Canada is number one, but if you put in the plight of the aboriginal people, I think we're down to about 38.

I have eight reserves in my constituency, and because of the act, logistically speaking it's very, very difficult to get visitations without going through some barriers. If it's possible for us to lend the support of this committee, John, I hope we can have some native social workers in here, because if you've never been there yourself, you can't believe what the situation is like, I can tell you.

The point is, of course, that sometimes we can't get funds to them because it all gets blocked at the front door. If you could follow me to some of these reserves, you would cry to see what's going on.

The Chair: You're from Saskatchewan, right?

• 1555

Mr. Roy Bailey: With the largest percentage of native population, and we need to deal with this. I hope that eventually legislation will cure some of our problems, but in the meantime, there are thousands of innocent kids really at risk.

The Chair: Alan.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry to come in at the tail end of both Libby's and Roy's comments, but it seems as though we're trying to frame the next phase of the committee's dialogue and outreach.

I think Libby mentioned the social union framework. The early childhood development programs fit into many sorts of transfers and packages, as I understand it. There's a large bulk transfer to the provinces under the Canada Health Act, and then there are some direct transfers within the context of the social union framework. That's allowed within the principles that were announced.

I understand the social union framework requires an evaluation measurement in its three-year mandate. Could the committee avail itself of the opportunity to meet with HRD staff who are part of the framework, and come forward with some terms of reference for measuring the program—particularly as it relates to early childhood development? Could we use that as a springboard for the committee to evaluate the program and any of its parts?

The Chair: You have raised a fascinating question.

There are really almost three different elements on the table. There's the early childhood development deal. There's the aboriginal question, and its relationship to the early childhood development deal—and I may want to spend a minute talking about what I think that might be. And then there's what all this means in terms of evaluating the social union framework agreement, which is coming up for renewal. It has to be done by February of next year, which isn't a lot of time.

That may even suggest a sequence of work for us. If we only have eight sessions before the summer, I suspect we might want to use the early childhood development deal to try to understand where that's going, and to put some pressure on the process to drive it toward the things Libby talked about—accountability involvement, and so on.

Second, there's an unresolved issue. If you read the text very carefully—make sure you get the full text, it's not that long—the end part is very interesting: all governments and heads of governments commit themselves to doing the right thing for the populations for which they're responsible. I understand this to mean that where the federal government has a fiduciary trust for aboriginal kids, we have to report by this September on a baseline inventory of the services. You see that the four elements of the early childhood deal are set out on page one.

So by September 1 of this year, all governments—including Canada—have to report on what's available. That's called a baseline. So the question to ask right away, before we get out of here in June, is what are we doing about the aboriginal population? That's our first order of business, because that deadline is September.

By the way, my understanding of part of the answer to that question is that after they did the deal with the provinces and the territories in September there was supposed to have been a further internal deal between HRD and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. But the election intervened, so there is no money. Of the $300 million available, it's not clear that any money is specifically going to first nations on reserves. It's an interesting problem.

So I think we want to hear about that, and to put a little heat under the process. But coming back to the social union framework agreement question, I think it's very interesting that there's never a direct reference to the agreement in the early childhood deal. Although this might be the only example you can actually think of that looks like it's a SUFA deal, they have been very careful not to declare it to be.

• 1600

I think we can follow all three themes. I think one session we might want to have before school's out, so to speak, is to bring in the people from Intergovernmental Affairs and HRD and say, “First of all, is this a SUFA deal? You haven't said it is. If it isn't, why not? If it is, explain how the SUFA rules are...”. Some of the language of the deal is SUFA inspired, such as all that stuff about accountability. But it would be nice to render explicit things that seem to be implicit. Also, I think it would be very good for us to lead the file to some degree on how they're going to handle this renewal of SUFA, because this may be the only thing they have to show for it.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, the national child benefit initiative is cited as an outcome of the social union framework agreement.

The Chair: It precedes it.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Well, that's not what I've been told.

The Chair: If they're telling you that, it's just historically not true. The social union framework agreement was signed in February 1999, and the child benefit was negotiated before that.

Ms. Libby Davies: Then they put it under the cover of SUFA, though. Is that not correct?

The Chair: They kind of claim this is what we meant. This is an example of what we were already doing and that kind of fits the model after the fact. That's okay. I want the social union framework agreement too.

Are these three subjects ones we're all interested in, that we see the interconnections between, and that we'd like to have looked at? Am I getting agreement on that?

What I am thinking, Roy, in terms of the kind of in-depth work we might want to do on aboriginal children, is that with the time available we might want to get our feet wet here in Ottawa and then get into it in a more focused way in the fall.

Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies: Just to give you my opinion, to tell you the truth, I'm not so fired up over the first one about SUFA and whether it means this or that. I think we could get embroiled in that. I'm more interested in really trying to nail down what is the involvement of all of these groups that have such incredible expertise and resources and are delivering the services as best they can right now on the ground and in getting them in on it. So to the extent that we have a debate on where SUFA is at and whether or not the ECD is part of it, that's fine, but let's not get totally wrapped up in that and sort of start spinning around.

On the aboriginal issue, I agree that is a very important focus. It was highlighted in the throne speech, and I think the more we can push that, the better. If we do that, I would also want to include in that some aspect of urban aboriginal. In my riding of Vancouver East and in places such as Winnipeg, which has the largest... Fifty percent of aboriginal people live off reserve, and there are huge questions about the fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal people off reserve. I realize that there are questions about the services that are provided on reserve, but I would want to make sure that it is also looking at this bigger picture. If you look at what's happening right now in the urban environment to kids or aboriginal people generally, it's as much a horror story, maybe worse, as what's happening on reserve. We don't want to lose that aspect of it.

The Chair: Next is Monique and then Anita. Sorry, Anita, I neglected you.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, as I was not part of this committee, this is all new to me. I am, however, greatly interested in this matter. It's important that we attend the conference you spoke of earlier so that as members of the committee, we are able to emphasize the important role we play.

• 1605

We could also take this opportunity to meet face to face with people, rather than have them come here, which can be very expensive. We could save some money in the process. At the same time, we could meet with certain aboriginal groups attending the conference. Of course, not everyone will be in attendance.

I also think it's a good idea to focus exclusively on aboriginal youth this fall, as my colleague suggested, since this promises to be a fairly arduous task, one that will require some traveling on the part of committee members. We don't know for certain yet. We'll have to wait and see. However, the committee has some serious work ahead of it. We cannot approach this subject matter in the conventional way.

The Chair: I agree.

Ms. Monique Guay: Another issue to which I am very sensitive is that while Canada is number one in the world, one in every five children in this country lives below the poverty line.

Even though Quebec is not a party to the social agreement, I think we can contribute our extensive experience in this area to the process. As you know, our social policies are highly advanced. You can count on our support during this committee's hearings and I am delighted to be able to contribute to this process.

However, there is no question that anything under Quebec jurisdiction... As you know, we're quite sensitive to such matters. I believe though that we have a great deal to contribute to the process on many levels.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Next is Anita and then Tony.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, John, or Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm being informal. I hope you don't mind.

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay.

When I first put up my hand, I was really putting it up to endorse the participation at the conference. Whether it's full attendance or meeting with people, I would certainly welcome that.

There has been a lot of talk about the aboriginal issue, and we have talked about it in other forums. I appreciate all the work that has been done on early childhood development and the amount of work that needs to continue to be done.

But I am as much concerned about—and one can't be separated from the other—as Libby Davies says, the urban aboriginal. When I first looked at the title of this committee, the words “Youth at Risk” hit me. I'm concerned about young aboriginal people in my community of urban Winnipeg who are significantly at risk from a whole variety of less-than-desirable activities. There are a number of locally based interventions going on, with some being very successful and some having mixed results. Some have been very expensive and some far less so.

I am concerned about young adolescents, many of whom are parents themselves. When I look at the issues related to early childhood, I understand that there's obviously overlap and congruency, but I do believe that it requires a special strategy. I can't give you the numbers today, but at one point a number of years ago the Winnipeg School Division had about 500 students who were themselves parents. These were the children who were in school.

There are many other issues I would also like to deal with that have relevance to it.

The Chair: Tony.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was glad to hear the comments from Monique across the way because they really echo where I sit. I have an interest in this. There's the area you come from, Roy, and then you talk about the urban aboriginals where you come from, Libby and Anita. I'm from Niagara. We're not the urbanites of Mr. Tonks' area, nor are we rural. We're somewhere in between. But I know that children are at risk in my area as well, in communities of 100,000 or 20,000. But as I sit here, I tend to think that maybe what I see in my area is very pale in comparison to what is across the country.

• 1610

I think if we're looking for a starting point to get off the block, so to speak, I think this conference is an excellent suggestion because it's one thing to say that we're going to try to gain focus from around the table here, but boy, to go out to the conference, such as the one that you're suggesting... what an opportunity for input and to have maybe what we see there give us some focus as to where we should be going.

So, John, I totally endorse what you are suggesting—not understanding the format under which it's going to take part, but we'll get there, and we'll start from somewhere. So I would wholly endorse it in hopes that it will give us a chance to start—a starting point.

The Chair: Let me try to pull this together, then, because I think everyone's made excellent points. I think there's a way, if we sequence things right, of managing to accommodate everything.

First of all, with regard to the conference, what I'm going to do, or I'm going to ask my friend over there to do, working closely with the clerk or her successor, is... I'm going to try, first of all, to make sure that we all get free invitations, because this conference—

Ms. Libby Davies: It's an expensive conference.

The Chair: It's an expensive conference.

Ms. Libby Davies: You've got to pay to go, normally?

The Chair: Normally you have to pay, but what I'm going to try to do is negotiate. What I would suggest is that... What I think would make the most sense would be for me to try to have everybody as special guests at the conference, so that you get the program and can go to hear the presentations, and that we perhaps pull together on one of the days a special breakfast or some such meeting, which would be an official meeting of the committee, to meet some of the people so we can actually have an official event, but obviously I have to negotiate that. I've already talked to the conference organizers informally about that. So we want a bit of publicity, but I think it would be good if it came.

I remind you this is a Thursday-Friday-Saturday operation, so I realize that most people will try to get away, but if you can look ahead to your schedule and see whether you might consider staying on, then I think it makes more sense to have it a little bit later rather than earlier, because we'll be in a better position having been moving around the conference to take part in things and to meet folks.

They indicated, I think, as I say, that there might be a possibility. They've already started pencilling... they were prepared to pencil in something like on the Saturday morning—

Ms. Anita Neville: John, who's sponsoring this conference?

The Chair: It is a combination of the Ottawa-Carleton Success by Six program and Human Resources Development Canada's applied research division. They're getting grants from all over the place. Let me put it this way: we're not going to commit to anything. I have a feeling that discussions of Saturday might have been trying to the... that may be against... who knows.

Let me take that under advisement and see what I can do to make sure that we get invited to it and that we find a spot which is appropriate and parliamentary for ourselves to be there, to take advantage of all those people coming. I would then propose that we use our regular meeting time to... I think it is important that we review the early childhood development deal—where it stands and what the provinces are doing—and that we get some good briefings on that, plus how we're going to meet our own obligations, as I understand them, for September, particularly with regard to aboriginal kids.

I very much take the point that Anita made, which is that perhaps when we come to look ahead, particularly if it's the fall, to aboriginal kids, maybe we really need to look at children and youth. We can't just stop at six because the problems we've seen are so acute, so we understand that we're not just confining ourselves to that age group—nor, to take the point that several have made, are we going to confine ourselves to on-reserve kids.

• 1615

I would also say, though, that I think part of our work as a committee is to find out what other committees are doing. In other words, the aboriginal affairs committee is currently looking at aboriginal housing. I sit on that committee as vice-chair, so I'll try to make sure that what we're doing is consistent with what they're doing, but we're not running into each other. Because obviously kids live in houses.

If you would permit me, Libby, to try to do at least one session on what all of this has to do with the social union framework just before we go in June—because the more it has something to do with it, the more we can use it as a tool to get the kind of accountability from the NGOs that you want. That's my point. If this is a way of putting the squeeze on them, it's not worth investing a huge amount of time, but let's at least find out where this fits into the social union framework process, if we can make that work for us.

Ms. Libby Davies: How many meetings do we have?

The Chair: We have about eight.

Ms. Libby Davies: So if we did one on the SUFA, could we follow that up with a consultation with some of the groups?

The Chair: Sure.

We might want to do that after our conference, so we'll have a better sense of what we want.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

The Chair: Sorry, Roy.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I don't think in the timeframe that we have, dealing with the duplication... you move them from the federal government to provincial services that come by the federal government. I don't think in the timeframe we have that we could really get into it. At this conference, I doubt if we'll even be able to get it into... You would have to pull in provincial representatives and social workers and so on.

Maybe that's a fall study, the aboriginal study.

The Chair: The aboriginal study. That's what I say.

Mr. Roy Bailey: The time doesn't permit us to look at this seriously.

The Chair: No, no.

The Clerk of the Committee: May I point out something? Because this all comes as news to me.

The Chair: Of course.

The Clerk: For a committee to really meet as a committee outside the precincts of the House, which is the East Block, here, the Centre Block, and the West Block—

Mr. Roy Bailey: And Wellington.

The Clerk: —even though you're at the Château Laurier across the street, you cannot meet as a full-fledged committee unless you have authorization to travel by the House.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Even if it's down the street.

Ms. Monique Guay: We'll take cabs.

The Chair: That's right. She's right.

The Clerk: I'm just pointing this out to you. There's nothing that prevents you from going and representing yourselves as members of the committee and being part of it and organizing, but it would never be recognized as a meeting of the committee.

The Chair: Except—and maybe I'm wrong—I recall the heritage committee making various site visits. For example, we went off to see the CBC—

Ms. Libby Davies: Field trips. We'll take a field trip.

The Chair: Field trips.

The Clerk: Yes, okay. But then there aren't the minutes and there's not... If you don't want them—

Ms. Anita Neville: It would be deemed—

The Chair: There will be translation at the conference, so...

The Clerk: No, no. That's fine.

Ms. Julie MacKenzie (Committee Researcher): It could get read into the record and turned into—

The Clerk: But then, as you see, it could be recorded back here.

The Chair: Recorded back here.

The Clerk: I just wanted to verify that.

The Chair: Okay.

Tony.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Again, maybe just as another revelation of my newness here, when I hear “children and youth at risk”, they've tried to wrestle around an age group. You say from conception to six maybe, or beyond. Do we have a clear definition? Or maybe it is somewhere. What does “at risk” mean? To me, it runs the gamut.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes.

The Chair: It does.

There are two questions that are important. One is what “at risk” means, which Julie will answer. The other thing that is perhaps conceptually useful is that part of what we're dealing with here is this bizarre thing known as the national children's agenda, which also precedes SUFA, but from which, one might argue, the national child benefit has sprung, the early childhood development initiative has sprung... this continuing conversation between the provinces and the territories and the federal government about what we want to do for kids.

The way they break down the children and youth thing is as follows. They essentially focus on four transition points. The first is transition to life, which they view as the prenatal and postnatal piece from conception to first year. The transition to school is from about age two to six. The transition to adolescence is up to 12, and then transition to adulthood is up to 18. So they chunk it out, but part of the developmental theory would argue that the transition points are some of the most crucial moments, because very big things happen.

• 1620

So that's the children and youth bit. The at risk bit, do you want to have a go at that?

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Libby Davies: I was actually going to give a totally different answer, that the title came up because, if I remember correctly, now-Minister Bradshaw was on the committee and she wanted to include youth at risk.

The Chair: That's how it started.

Ms. Libby Davies: She was on the committee, and so we all said, okay, sure, fine. So it became children and youth at risk.

The Chair: Then I took over.

Ms. Libby Davies: To be frank, since then we've really focused more on children, early childhood development, and issues in that area. But it was put in there originally because Claudette wanted it.

The Chair: You blew my cover.

Ms. Libby Davies: And then she moved on.

[Translation]

The Chair: My cover has been blown.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: As a quick follow-up, does that include children with disabilities, or is it just strictly—

Ms. Monique Guay: That's the other thing.

The Chair: In order to resolve that very question, because we work very closely with Carolyn Bennett and the other committee, we have on one previous occasion had a joint meeting, and it is anticipated that we will have future joint meetings, particularly since we meet at the same time, so that we will deal with them conjointement.

Let me try to pull things together, because I'm sensing consensus, and before something dreadful happens to it, or it evaporates, or disappears like mercury, I want to grab it. Oh, there's one more thing I have to tell you. On April 26, which is not a Wednesday—

The Clerk: No, it's a Thursday morning.

The Chair: Thursday morning at eleven, HRD has asked both this subcommittee and that on disability, which is also meeting today for the first time, to appear before them and give an account of our doings.

The Clerk: Of what you want to do maybe.

The Chair: It won't take long.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Let's go to a conference.

The Chair: The HRD committee, the main committee, wants to know what we're up to, and they want to spend an hour with us and an hour with disability. We only have one meeting, the day before, which is April 25...

[Translation]

We will be gone for two weeks. Therefore, please note the time, 3:15 p.m., very carefully.

[English]

So here's the challenge. They've said to us they'd like a report on which way we're going. I think I can tell them that. “Would you like to bring witnesses?” I don't know what I'm supposed to say, because we just met. We have an hour to talk to them.

You're on the main committee, aren't you?

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I am a member as well.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, you're on the main committee.

The Clerk: You have four on the main committee.

Ms. Monique Guay: Alan also.

The Chair: So I guess the question is, what are we going to do?

Ms. Monique Guay: Isn't it at the main committee that this is going to come up?

The Chair: Yes, the main committee has requested us.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I think we should even ask for a little extra in case we need to meet with witnesses. We can't just say that we have no idea and that we will decide later. We want to attend the conference, following which there will be a meeting. We'll all see each other again and we can decide at that time which witnesses to hear from and how we will proceed. Therefore, we need to ask the main committee for extra time for witnesses.

The Chair: Fortunately there are enough of you on the main committee because I'm no longer a member. Therefore, I move that as members of the subcommittee, we announce the components of our work plan and that we proceed to discuss it.

Ms. Monique Guay: Fine.

The Chair: If there is any mention of witnesses, I would prefer...

[English]

I think the best way to go is simply to tell them what we've talked about this afternoon. We'll have a better sense of a work plan. We will have had only one meeting between now and then. And then we can invite their comments and suggestions, rather than trying to cook up a witness list.

Does that make sense?

• 1625

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Libby Davies: So could we get on with planning our next meeting?

The Chair: That's what I was now going to move to.

Can I actually now ask you to pass the budget?

Ms. Anita Neville: I so move.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Could I get clarification, John?

The Chair: Yes, sure.

Mr. Roy Bailey: At the top it referred to the subcommittee on children and youth at risk—

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Roy Bailey: —and it also says of the human resources... Is that for the combined two subcommittees?

The Chair: No, just ours.

Mr. Roy Bailey: All right. Thank you very much.

The Chair: The problem with everything here is that because the main committee includes the words “and the status of persons with disabilities”, we're the subcommittee of—

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: The first part.

The Chair: Yes, right. Do we have agreement to proceed in this fashion?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: I hope when it comes to you via Madam Belisle, you'll do your duty, you folks who are on the main committee.

The Clerk: If I might add, the ones who are not on the main committee might like to come for that session as substitutes and actually sit—

The Chair: Sure.

The Clerk: —at that meeting. You'll definitely come, but maybe Mr. Bailey—

Mr. Roy Bailey: How many members are on the main committee?

The Clerk: Eighteen.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Eighteen? God, I was on transport for three years, sometimes by myself. Eighteen!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Clerk: It's easy for you to replace one or the other.

The Chair: Can I make a suggestion for our next meeting, because that's the one that will be the day before. I think it would be very useful, because there are only two of us who were here before, to have a really good briefing on the ECD deal, just to remind us of the elements of it. Also, what we really want is an update on what the provinces or the territories have indicated to the federal government they're doing so far. Where are we in this? Is it going to be possible to produce some witnesses? We can talk about this afterwards, but I think that's the first order of business, just to have an update on that.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: When is this meeting?

The Chair: April 25.

Ms. Monique Guay: Just before... Perfect.

The Chair: Fine then.

[English]

Then the next meeting would be May 2. I think about May 9, which is the day before the conference, and I'm wondering if we could have some of the people who are coming in for May 10 and 11 come a day early. Maybe that's the way to handle it.

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: Here's an idea. If we decide to make it a bit of a show, not just a show, but if we had a big session—

Ms. Monique Guay: Awwww!

[Translation]

The Chair: It would be nice if we could have a larger room, with a television. The main committee made similar arrangements in the past, specifically...

The Clerk: We've often made these kinds of arrangements.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Can we tentatively work on the idea of piggybacking, with some of those folks coming in for May 10?

Ms. Monique Guay: May 9.

[Translation]

The Chair: Then day before then. That would be the 9th.

[English]

The Clerk: And then it would be a full, real committee meeting.

The Chair: Yes, right.

The Clerk: And you'd be recognized when you go to the conference.

The Chair: We'd all be recognized—that might be the very best thing to do. It would be the pre-conference piece.

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: Do you like this idea?

Ms. Anita Neville: I like it.

Ms. Libby Davies: I have one small point. I have seen the conference stuff and I saw some material on who all the speakers are. This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think we want a showcase of the high-profile speakers and the academics. I really want to see the people who are at the ground level, who are really slugging it out, and who can bring the concerns and issues they're dealing with.

• 1630

So if you're agreeable on that, I don't think we want just another showcase.

The Chair: No, no. That's not what I meant. The main committee, a few years ago, actually did something like this, and they had in the community representatives.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, I was there.

The Chair: I think it would be wonderful to take advantage of their knowledge. In some cases the community representatives will be giving us an update, because they were here previously to talk to us. I could name names, but there were people from Vancouver and other folks who are working on the ground.

[Translation]

For instance, we have 1, 2, 3 GO! In Montreal, as well as Richard Tremblay.

[English]

So perhaps we can coordinate with Margo and the folks organizing the conference to be able to see the guest list and the program.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: I very much would like to hear from the people on the ground. As well, could we try to ensure that, if possible, there are representatives from the communities we come from?

The Chair: Oh, yes. We will try to do a little matchup with communities.

Actually, there's a great group on the Niagara Peninsula.

Who's the chief medical officer there, Tony?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Dr. Robin Williams.

The Chair: Robin Williams? The perfect person to have.

[Translation]

Which riding do you represent?

Ms. Monique Guay: Laurentides.

The Clerk: Mont-Tremblant.

The Chair: I was at Mont-Tremblant over the weekend.

Ms. Monique Guay: Everyone travels to my riding for the skiing. However, there are a number of such communities in the area.

The Chair: I was skiing there last Saturday.

Ms. Monique Guay: We have a group of people that work with street kids. We could invite them to testify. I can think of two other groups as well. We can talk about this again, Ms. Belisle.

[English]

The Chair: So we have an ambitious target for the ninth, which is great.

We then might want to do something on the second, which will be... well, let's not. I think it would probably, if we want it related to this community piece, if we want it related to this ECD deal...

Maybe we want to a bit of an update on accountability mechanisms, because the first piece will just tell us where they...

You see, one of the things the deal promises is that the first year they're going to try to figure out what resources are on the ground. The second year they have to try to come up with some comparable indicators, some outcome indicators, to see how we're doing.

It might be useful to get a bit of an update on what the thinking is on indicators, because it's

[Translation]

results. What's been done? Is it working?

[English]

Would that make sense as a préambule? Okay. That's that.

So this would involve our friend Zeesman?

Ms. Julie MacKenzie: Yes.

The Chair: Then, in the remaining time, we have to have one session on understanding the SUFA part.

Go ahead.

Mr. Alan Tonks: John, you may have a different impression of it, because my corporate memory here is fragmented, but I didn't mean that we should be looking at SUFA separately from the childhood development program. My understanding is that SUFA is the framework—and we may disagree, but just accept this for the moment—out of which various programs, including the childhood development program, come.

If you look at the wording in the report we have here, the wording is exactly the same in terms of principles, in terms of indicators, in terms of measurements, and so on. I didn't think that we were going to test the edges. That's what the HRDC committee has to do in terms of indicators of the program right across the board.

What I thought we were going to do is just what you are now talking about—that is, what are the indicators, what are the measurements, what are the programs, and what are the provincial relationships in that particular area—not everything else under SUFA.

• 1635

The Chair: But there are really two parts to the discussion. One is the development of instruments for measurement, which might include birth weight, readiness to learn measures, that sort of stuff. Those are things that require some agreement and some more work.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Right.

The Chair: Okay, that's one set of discussions. Part of that does feed into the SUFA process, but a larger part also refers to what Libby was talking about: what's the reporting mechanism, what's the involvement mechanism, how do we really deal with the reporting to Canadians part of all of this? So I think they're related conversations, but they're different conversations. I think what we can do is see what the relationship is. Let's make more explicit the relationship between what we understand the SUFA process to be and what we understand this agreement to be. That would be a discussion that could follow fairly shortly thereafter.

At that point, I think, we want to get going on a first understanding of both the ECD and the larger aboriginal part, and we can do a certain amount with the officials here before we go away. But those are roughly the tasks we will attempt to slot in. I think this will give us enough direction to get going on. I think we should keep doing mid-course corrections to see where we are, because you may, as a result of the conference, wish to—I don't want to nail down things too far in advance, because if people say, I really want to get going on, I found this neat conversation...

For example, there's a guy coming from Vancouver called Clyde Hertzman, who has done this remarkable exercise in community mapping of Vancouver, in which he relates socio-economic status to outcomes, but loads in all sorts of other things, like social housing and child care. It's an absolutely remarkable study and really very helpful in understanding how these things work. I'm just saying that we may find some people we want to talk more to as a result of our floating around the conference.

Do we have enough of a work plan to give you a sense of...

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: People are happy? Okay.

Let me tell you, I'm happy. I think this is a great group. I think we're going to do important stuff and we're going to have fun.

Ms. Anita Neville: Fun's the good part.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you and until next time.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.