Human Resources Committee on March 31st, 2009

[Dr. Andrew Lynk]

I'll add one thing. When it comes to giving the provinces and territories money, which we have to do and I'm glad we do, that money isn't always well spent, although it may be spent with the best of intentions. I'll just give you two examples.

One, you may have heard of the old head start program that was supposed to help children and families who are poor. They would use lay visitors to go into homes. It was shown in the States, at least in the early models, that it made no difference at all to long-term outcomes when it came to school readiness, decreased teen pregnancy rates, issues with the justice system, etc. When they actually used public health nurses to go into the homes of low-income families and help out in the first couple of years with parenting advice, that did make a positive difference. Yet very few provinces, if any—really, none of them—have adopted it. They tend to spend it on the lay visitors in the old head start models, and that's concerning if there's no accountability. We're giving money for doing a good thing to help low-income families, but if it's not being measured and there are no targets, how do we know if it's working or not? How do we know if kids with cancer are going to do better if we don't find out who is living and who is dying at the end of the year? It's the same thing. There is no scientific rigour or accountability in that.

The other issue I can speak to that caused us some frustration was that in Nova Scotia our start date for grade primary used to be September 1 as opposed to December 31. Last year the provincial government thought they would put it in line with the rest of the country. They spent a lot of money hiring a lot of extra teachers, and they're having a lot of immature grade 4s coming in. That money could have been better spent on more preschool programs for the four- and five-year-olds in areas where there were a lot of low-income families around the schools, where we know those schools don't do as well and the kids don't come to school better prepared. It's those sorts of things, and the government is really not held accountable, because no one is checking to see if their school readiness and outcomes are a little better than other provinces. We intend to do that at the CPS and hold all the provinces accountable for that reason, to make sure they're spending money based on interventions that are evidence based and best practice.

Yes, if the federal government can help tie those transfers to accountability standards, I'm all for that. I know it's complicated, as was mentioned. Unfortunately, not all provinces and territories spend their money wisely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lynk and Ms. Chow.

We're going to move to the Conservatives, with Mr. Komarnicki, for seven minutes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, I will share my time with Mr. Cannan.

I have a few questions and I'll start with Jody Dallaire.

I understand from Andrew, with respect to federal transfers to provinces, that although Canada's social transfer increases every year, you'd like to see conditions attached to those transfers. Is that correct?

[Jody Dallaire]

Absolutely, and we'd like to see the transfer amounts increased as well.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Even more than we're already increasing it.

The second thing is that we are transferring $250 million annually to the provinces and territories specifically for child care spaces. You agree that's good, but you'd like to see more and you'd like to see some conditions added as well. Is that correct?

[Jody Dallaire]

If I had to choose between more and conditions, I'd choose conditions, in that we'd be measuring what those dollars are actually achieving.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

If we weren't going to increase the $250 million we are transferring to provinces and territories, you'd like to see conditions imposed on it.

[Jody Dallaire]

I'd like to see conditions to make sure we measure how those dollars are being spent and if they're meeting specific benchmarks and timelines to meet children's needs in communities, yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I understand that you also thought that money could perhaps be better spent by directing it specifically to child care.

We have a national child care benefit that goes to families, about $3.6 billion, and we have a Canada child tax benefit, which together with the national child benefit amounts to about $9.4 billion. The Canada child tax benefit for a two-child low-income family is about $6,431 a year. You're not suggesting that those moneys would be better spent by targeting them to child care. Are you saying that aspect of it is working well and you're happy with it and you'd like to see more dollars spent in a different way?

[Jody Dallaire]

Could you repeat which benefits you referenced?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The national child benefit and the Canadian child tax benefit, totally, encompass about $9.4 billion, which puts a two-child low-income family in a position of receiving of $6,431. You're not saying those funds should be reallocated somehow to child care spaces or benefits. Are you saying that? Or are you happy with what is being done and you'd like to see more done?

[Jody Dallaire]

I think we're talking about two different things. Income supports to families are important. We recognize that as part of a poverty reduction strategy.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Are you happy with that?

[Jody Dallaire]

We do recognize the importance of that. We need to make sure the money is actually making it to families and to measure that it is making a difference.

But in terms of early learning and child care, Canada finishes last in international studies by the OECD, by UNICEF. We have a lot of ground to catch up. I think it's very important that we allocate funds to child care as well, to actually catch up to the international community and meet the needs of our children.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

I will pass it on to Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, colleagues and Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

Poverty is a very important issue to all Canadians and each one of us around this room. It has a non-partisan effect in every constituency, no matter what race, religion, sex, demographic. We could all share all kinds of stories, from young to old....

I represent a riding in the interior of British Columbia that has a high number of seniors. It's a serious issue. Within our budget, we have addressed the age credit and trying to find ways to help people get off the welfare wall. Mr. Flaherty relayed the working income tax benefit.

I want to clarify something. I spent nine years in local government working on the social planning committees and with the province of British Columbia on programs for housing and child care initiatives. Federally, we are restricted. There are difficulties within the Constitution, and we have to clarify the divisions. If we wanted to automatically set up a national standard, there would be some roadblocks, obviously, set up by our friends in Quebec and other communities. We have to recognize that we work within the Constitution.

Our government has re-established stable and predictable funding to the provinces. As my colleague mentioned, there is the annual Canada health transfer at 6% per annum until 2014, a 3% increase to our social transfer and child care funding, and housing agreements with the territories and the provinces. In British Columbia, there's a 30-year agreement. That's about $2.2 billion over the 30 years. And we continue to work with programs.

Specifically from Dr. Lynk, I liked your analogy as far as setting goals for reducing leukemia down to 92% goes. There's a similar initiative to eradicate polio around the world, with the Rotary. Our government has invested in Afghanistan. It's one of the four countries left in the world....

In your opinion, what measures have we taken today, as a government, to help reduce and hopefully eradicate child poverty or to move in that direction?

[Dr. Andrew Lynk]

This may be a philosophical argument, and I'm not an expert in some of the policy research in which my colleagues here are. But take, for example, the heavy emphasis by Parliament in the last two to three years on health care waiting times—for cancer treatment, for hips and knees, I think for diagnostic imaging, and for cataracts. I might be missing one or two points, but those were the main ones, I think. Nowhere there was there any mention of mental health.

All of us who work with families and children of low income and even high income know that mental health services, especially for people in smaller areas, are sparse and hard to access, and that this lack causes tremendous impact. I see families and children in my office, and the mother is depressed and can't function, and the child is not functioning at school, and we can't get her in to see somebody, or she can't afford medications. When you ask what we can do federally, those are the types of things, I guess. I think it's placing the emphasis on the right areas and measuring the right things.

All of us baby boomers want to have our hips replaced within a month or two, when the time comes for all of us to have that done. Maybe there needs to be an emphasis on our having to wait a little bit longer and on that money and emphasis going to more important programs that are actually going to pay bigger dividends.

So in response to your question, it's a philosophical emphasis, if you're asking me. We were concerned, from the Canadian Paediatric Society, that child mental health and adult mental health were left out of the wait time issue.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I appreciate that. Mental health is crucial. Senator Kirby's report was tabled, and we're working with our government to have Senator Kirby lead the way. And accountability is crucial.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan and Dr. Lynk.

We're going to move to our second round, which will be five minutes of questions and answers. I'm going to turn the floor over to Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

In my opinion, that was a good answer Ms. Dallaire. I would like to remind committee members that there is presently a tax assistance program for children. We also have what is known as the Canada Child Tax Benefit.

This is the child tax benefit, and it is not the same thing. It is not included in what we call the child care programs. I would like to make that very clear.

I'd like to go back a little bit in terms of fundamental—what can I say?—

—in terms of fundamental principles with respect to poverty in Canada. As my colleague, Ms. Minna, stated earlier, what you told us today is not new to anyone around this table.

I would like to hear you speak again about some things for the benefit of certain persons and perhaps even for certain parties present today. For example, I would like you to talk about family benefits provided through direct financial assistance, or the $6,000 that Mr. Komarnicki spoke about just now.

Do you believe that this had significant benefits for families in terms of the health of families and children especially?

Even more important, more fundamental, is the responsibility of the Government of Canada. What is your perspective? I would like you to comment in detail. I hope this will be recorded in the minutes of our meetings.

What do you believe is the federal government’s responsibility in this area? We know that it is shared with the provinces. Given the lack of time, I would appreciate it if you would not speak about provincial responsibilities, but speak strictly about the responsibilities of the federal government.

[Jody Dallaire]

First of all, I will answer the second question. The federal government’s responsibility is to establish national criteria. For example, what are the objectives of a child care system?

The government must draft either legislation or criteria for a national policy, which obviously excludes Quebec since it already has a provincial child care system. The provinces could access this funding if they meet the criteria and report annually to the federal government. This allows for diversity in the delivery of services.

New Brunswick has a lot of catching up to do. I am from New Brunswick.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Your accent gave it away, Mrs. Dallaire. It is very pleasant.

[Jody Dallaire]

At the outset, it may wish to invest in creating more spaces; other provinces, where more spaces exist, may wish to focus on accessibility. Nonetheless, this allows for flexibility in the provincial approaches to the problem but there are basic criteria that must be met.

With regard to direct funding to families, I can speak more specifically about the program for families: $100 a month per child under the age of six. Families have told us that they do appreciate the program. There might be enough left over after taxes to pay for the gas to take their children to child care but it does not in any way help them find a space when none are available. Even when they find a space, the cost of child care is about $12,000 a year. There is a large gap between these amounts.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Lynk?

[Dr. Andrew Lynk]

I don't want to repeat myself, but I would respectfully and humbly add one plea to all the members of Parliament here, when you go back and talk in caucus to your leaders. As I recall watching the last televised leaders debate during the election, I did not hear the issue of poverty being raised once by any of the four or five leaders that I heard. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I listened pretty carefully. I think if the inflation rate or the interest rate had been 15% or 17%, that would have been discussed, but the fact that the child poverty rate is about 17%...I don't understand why it wasn't discussed. So I think that needs to be up front and centre.

If you want to be selfish, it's not just an issue of social justice for the people who are disadvantaged. It doesn't help any of our society in the present or the future if we don't help lift these people up. It's an important thing to be debated.

Thank you.