THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 5, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: My name is Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler. I am a senator from Manitoba and the deputy chair of this committee.
I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia, pinch-hitting for Senator Wanda Bernard.
Senator Senior: Mere earthling, Paulette Senior, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick, sitting in for Senator Greenwood.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
The Deputy Chair: Today, we begin our study of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome our colleague and sponsor of the bill, the Honourable Senator Rosemary Moodie. Thank you for joining us today.
Senator, you have five minutes for your opening remarks, followed by questions from committee members. Senator Moodie, the floor is yours.
Hon. Rosemary Moodie, sponsor of the bill: Honourable senators, I want to begin by thanking you all in advance for your diligent consideration of this bill. I am glad Bill S-212 has found its way here because I know this committee will study this bill with rigour, which will only improve this bill.
Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada, if enacted, would provide for the development of a national strategy for Canada’s children and youth. To be clear, this bill is not the strategy, but it does prescribe some elements that should be included in a strategy, should the government receive this legislation.
For example, the bill states that a strategy should include steps toward Canada’s full compliance with certain international conventions and identify resources that would be required to implement a strategy, among other key steps.
The bill also provides a minimum standard for consultation. The list is included in section 3 — not all inclusive, but rather highlights certain groups and individuals who must not be ignored or forgotten.
I am proud of this bill both because of its intent and also because of how it was created.
Colleagues, as you know, it’s been my work to support the rights and well-being of children and youth as a priority. I have had the honour of working closely with numerous stakeholders, many of whom you will meet during your study of this bill, as well as children and youth themselves, members of Parliament, ministers and you, my honourable colleagues.
My advocacy first focused on the creation of an accountability office for children and youth. I also focused quite a bit on the issue of child poverty, access to safe drugs for kids and food insecurity.
Every time we sought to advance issues, we have been met with the failings of a patchwork system that provides poor outcomes at high costs to taxpayers; a system that is inefficient, and leaves behind those who need help most; a system that has a bias against children who are Indigenous, Black or of non-White ethnic backgrounds, children from rural and remote areas and children with disabilities; a system that lacks ambition or vision.
We don’t know where we’re going. We don’t know if children are better off today than they were yesterday. Without data, targets or goals we are flying blind. This is why we need a strategy.
In all of my conversations with senior public servants and ministers, I am constantly alarmed by the lack of clear direction or ambition.
Children get attention in a crisis but not beyond. If you asked what outcomes were desired for children in areas like health, education or safety you would be met with blank stares and, frankly, evasive answers.
This is not good enough.
Seeing these issues come up time and time again it became clear that systemic change is needed. My office began to work with stakeholders in the Fall of 2022 on the idea of a national strategy that would eventually make sense of how we care for our children and youth.
We organized round tables with stakeholders that formed the basis of this bill. You have all received a copy of the report from those round tables. So, I can say with confidence that this legislation was developed collaboratively with children and youth and their representatives. As a result, this bill was first tabled in November of 2024 and then reintroduced this year.
It is important you know, colleagues, that my staff walked through this bill with stakeholders, line by line, to ensure it matched the report and the expectations from our work.
Colleagues, this is the point: We need a vision for our children and youth. We need to decide what we want for them and how to get there. The fact that we don’t have this plan is appalling.
Resolving this issue is core to the moral integrity of our country and our standing on the world stage and for all children. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators, you will have four minutes for your question and that includes the answer.
Senator Hay: Senator Moodie, I was going to ask you a question when you spoke in the chamber about this, I just didn’t know the rules but I pulled out the question just to look at it again. I love this bill and I say at last here it is. I really applaud the bill.
I do have some questions, if I could. I would love — from your perspective — I don’t see in the bill specifically, I see a lot of reference to well-being, which is how we want young people to be, wrapped with well-being. I, of course, am worried about mental health. I don’t think it is a growing concern, I think it is in crisis and has been for a long time.
How do you see this bill address the challenges of mental health and integrating it across federal policies and programs? And maybe my tag to that is, are you at all worried with this bill around collaboration among many different parts of Health Canada, ISC and Public Health Agency of Canada that it will just be an opportunity for more cracks to be excuses? Are you worried about that when it goes to the strategy stage?
Senator Moodie: When I talk to frontliners, to children’s advocates, when I talk to people that deal with families in the welfare space I learned one thing, which is despite which province you come from, where you sit, the collaboration around a strategy and the unifying effect of it will serve them well.
It helps them to understand what is practised. It helps them to reach and access best practices more easily. And it allows them to follow a path within the differences of provinces that align as one country with an agreement at the start of this process what our vision for children, our values and goals are.
Clearly defining our priorities would ensure that governments, service providers and civil society organizations are aligned and accountable. It would maximize the effectiveness of our existing efforts by leveraging the synergies between them, taking advantage of the opportunities for coordination, tracking progress, looking at an understanding our return on investment and making informed decision to adjust our approach when necessary, to pivot.
Senator Hay: So five years out, senator, how will you look back on this and see the change? How will it be different five years from now when you are looking back on this intangibility?
Senator Moodie: This example I have for what that might look like is the example of what a country like Ireland did. They formed themselves into what you would consider a strategy that they call “Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures,” a six-year national framework that allowed them to look at how they were going to align their services, departments, community and various sectors to work together. They embedded their children’s voice in this work; created a structured, outcome-based framework with clear indicators they monitored; had regular reporting; analyzed emerging issues; and provided recommendations for future changes.
What they saw was they were able to track advancements, identify gaps and adjust their policies and move things forward to the goal much more effectively than the sporadic throwing of money and building of policies in silos that we — frankly, that’s our approach.
Senator Burey: Senator Moodie, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. As a fellow pediatrician who would imagine we would find ourselves here today on the same committee talking about something that is really important to both of us.
So I’m going to, as we do in this committee, tag team on our other senators. I want to hone in on the mental health aspect because it doesn’t specifically mention mental health, it mentions just well-being, which still isn’t defined — and we can go into that. But how do you think this strategy could integrate mental health as a key pillar in this strategy?
Senator Moodie: The first thing to realize and acknowledge is we are not building a strategy, we are giving the government legislation that directs them to do that. It does rely on the government to do some work around this to understand where their priorities are and what their goals would be.
In talking to civil society and talking to children and youth, there is a strong focus on that. How can you help us access? Twenty million kids in Canada have mental illnesses, a fraction — 20% of those — have gotten actual mental health. The numbers are abysmal.
You hear it from the kids when you talk to them. You hear it from the families, and you hear it from the providers. We need to — in the process of consultation around strategy — bring that to government so that it becomes a priority and is recognized.
I have a vision but I’m not telling the government what that vision is. This is about handing them legislation that says, you need to do this work.
Senator Burey: I’m going to get back to that point. As we know, in the Canada Health Act we have physical and mental well-being. I can’t say nothing gets done with mental health but it is left to the wayside. I wonder if we shouldn’t be more specific, because that is our intention. I’m thinking of improving the bill, and your thoughts on that? In specifying “mental health” or “mental well-being” as well as the other parameters, because we have to give them some of that. What are your thoughts on that?
Senator Moodie: I’ll start with the idea that for this to work, we cannot be too prescriptive. If we are too prescriptive and tie the hands of government, we will lose their interest in doing this work. We believe that we have put in the bill some clear requirements of the government to address certain things, including health and well-being.
Within the context of well-being, there are some clear parameters that are measured, and that includes mental health, the mental health of kids, their feeling of self-satisfaction about their lives and their futures. So it is embedded within the indicators of well-being on that whole area of well-being that is well recognized to include mental health.
Senator Senior: Thank you, Senator Moodie. I have two questions I’ll ask back to back. I’m really wanting for you to reflect and share with us — because you are a pediatrician and have had decades of experience. But was there a moment that you came across something or had an experience that inspired you to bring this forward today that you could share with us?
I’m also wondering about some of the implications with our First Nations, Métis and Inuit organizations that are expressing how they would want to be involved. How do you see that working through in terms of the strategy, or building a strategy?
Senator Moodie: Let’s start with the moment. I would say there have been many moments where there has been a failure of the system — there has been a failure of the system of care, there has been a failure of the system of how we support youth and children. I think the moment was when I was in conversation with a now-past minister of children and youth when we defined that this was one of the things Canada lacks and needs. From her perspective, she felt that if she had this, it would make her life so much easier to make the case with her ministry, her assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers to move things in a direction that was coordinated, that was clearly assessed, that would allow for pivoting, that would highlight what was working and not working; would place some order on the area of children and the investment in children in this country. That was the moment.
You asked about the folks that were involved, and I think that’s what you are asking. We had a number of groups — the Arctic Children and Youth Foundation, the Assembly of Seven Generations, the Assembly of First Nations National Youth Council, the Boys and Girls Club and the list goes on. We had a number of round tables where we just sat and listened and they conducted. We provided the same questions to each group, and they walk through a process of having dialogue around what they sought as priorities.
I know the perception of what family is for us varied across the groups. We decided to leave that specification of what family is out in terms of language, because the youth perceived who their family was and who that important person in their sphere was very differently across these groups.
Senator Muggli: Thank you, Senator Moodie. As a social worker by trade, I have also worked in this space for many years, primarily in the mental health and addiction space. I too wondered if there might be an opportunity under consideration, section 5, (a), (b), (c), (d) to add an (e) perhaps around some evidence that we have around mental health.
My question is around the section that talks about requesting the government to:
. . . identify the objectives of the Government of Canada in relation to children and youth, which must include
(i) the complete elimination of child poverty . . . .
It goes on:
(ii) a high and consistent standard of living for children and youth across Canada . . . .
I’m interested in hearing from you: What is a high standard of living? How will a strategy result in all children having a high standard of living?
Senator Moodie: What was the last question?
Senator Muggli: How will this bill result in all children having a high standard of living?
Senator Moodie: So what is a high standard of living? Access to health care; where every child feels safe; every child is treated equitably; every child feels respected and heard; and every child grows up knowing that their economic situation is not going to determine what is possible for them in that growing-up phase; and every child deserves a safe, happy and healthy opportunity to grow up.
This bill is going to align efforts around how we design policies that identify clear outcomes and keep in mind what the goal and the target is; how we implement those programs. It will distract you with a need to declare how that is going to occur. We are not suggesting that every possible item that is needed in this country will be on that first strategy, but a clear decision on what we are going to focus on with some implementing of how the programs will unfold and identifying those resources so that it is clear how that change is going to be reached.
Supporting cross-collaboration and listening to those who need the help most, consulting those folks. Canada doesn’t have a vision for our health. It doesn’t have a vision for the well-being of children and youth. We have a patchwork of programs. We have a system of supports and benefits that operate in silos and don’t often speak. It would force that interaction, that integration. Because when dealing with three things downstream, you connect, you look at the intersections, you figure out how it is working and choose the indicators that will highlight that. Then you monitor over time and identify gaps and failures and decide. It would be my dream that we would decide on the return on investment — based on the return on investment whether we keep money in that area or reassign it.
Senator Muggli: My concern is that the government understands what we are asking for when we have an expectation of a high standard of living. I wonder whether we need to define that more clearly somehow so that the expectations are clearly understood. Just food for thought for now.
Senator Moodie: Another good food for thought. The last one was excellent as well. We are listening.
Senator Arnold: Thank you, Senator Moodie, for all of your diligent work on this over the years. I take your point that we cannot be too prescriptive and that obviously every item will not be in the strategy. The strategy does call for a comprehensive one, but I believe that any strategy will fall short if children lack a stable place to call home. I have done a lot of work in inner‑city schools in New Brunswick, particularly with the children in Grade 4. I love Grade 4s. They will ask you anything. It is absolutely a preoccupation for them. New Brunswick rates of child poverty are higher than national averages.
My question is: How does the proposed framework ensure that access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing is recognized as a fundamental pillar of child and youth well-being? How will the strategy align with existing federal and provincial initiatives around housing to close those gaps that we know are growing across our nation?
Senator Moodie: The strategy would need to be defined as a goal. With that in mind, looking at how we would ensure that investments that are spent on housing clearly acknowledge how it intersects with children and youth. That would be my vision of how to make that connection. The government would be charged with the responsibility to identify housing as one of those critical areas that they would offer children as an assurance for their growing up in a healthy situation where their well-being was considered. Again, it leaves that final decision on what the focus is to the government.
When you look across the world at the countries that have done this, it has been anywhere from three critical items that have been identified to, in New Zealand, 30 or more. Depending on the comprehensive nature and the resources you wish to put into it, the level of measurement and tracking and the infrastructure that is needed is quite variable. The Government of Canada gets to define that. We are the only country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, that does not collect health data on our children in a comprehensive fashion. That is unacceptable. That’s one of the things that would be, for me, low-hanging fruit.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you on this bill. It is sorely needed.
There is one statement that struck me in the report you shared with the committee members. I saw it twice this week on two separate occasions. It is in the 2025 UNICEF report, which ranked Canada 19th out of 36 countries in terms of child well‑being. If anyone needed proof that your bill was necessary, that statement is it.
When you prepared your bill, did you identify other jurisdictions that have a holistic approach similar to the one being proposed, based on children’s rights? Is there a comparative analysis of how those jurisdictions perform in comparison with Canada? You mentioned Ireland in your opening remarks. Are there any other countries that Canada could analyze to see how we can develop a good strategy for our youth?
[English]
Senator Moodie: I named one already, Ireland. New Zealand, Australia, these are countries that we saw exemplary and similar federalism models.
Besides the issue you raised, there are examples of attempts in Canada to do good work, but with failure. There was a commitment in 1989 to a resolution promising to end child poverty by 2000. We are many, many years later and we are living with one in five kids in poverty.
We have done great things: The child benefit, child care bill, a number of things that support. What we do not have is a cohesive approach that says all investments should be streamlined toward this area to help us move more purposefully to that goal.
We reach a point then we fail, or we stall. Canada has stalled. It has stalled in children acquiring skills in school, it’s stalled now in a number of areas.
We see it in health care as well where a burdened system has brought us to a crisis during COVID. We have downsized. We need to right size health care for Canada. That is only part of the health care picture. Mental health is the other big part of it. There are a number of other considerations such disaggregated data around disease, what is happening to people and how they are accessing care. What are their health care outcomes looking like?
We are a relatively rich country and we have the opportunity to order ourselves so we are looking at things in a more systematic, purposeful way, understanding the impact of one thing on the other; housing on the ability of food security on the ability to have good educational outcomes. We have that capability.
Canada needs to think seriously about this opportunity to make a commitment to its children and to follow through in a systematic way.
Senator Cuzner: I will ask a question but I think it will more so reinforce the point you’re making.
I had the good fortune to be in the government when the Canada Child Benefit was brought in, which the reference is over 300,000 children in this country were lifted out of poverty. That’s significant.
The province of Alberta augmented that with the Alberta Child and Family Benefit and the number of kids they lifted out of poverty at that time was considerable. It was up to 40-50% of the kids in Alberta. It was significant.
In my home province of — the only province in the country, my home province of Nova Scotia, we had an 18% increase in child poverty in the same year.
It speaks to the inconsistency across the country. Your area code shouldn’t dictate the level of opportunity you receive as a kid.
Do you believe this will be able to address these types of — I know that you don’t want to be prescriptive, but will it lend itself to building this consistency across the country.
Senator Moodie: Absolutely. We know that not just in your province but in others there was a dramatic rise in poverty in 2022. At that time more than 195,000 kids fell into poverty, in a time when we thought we were making gains. So there is slippage, to choose that word. A 2.5% jump in poverty in that period.
There are provinces that understood that by enhancing that child benefit they could carry people further out of poverty. They have a lived experience that could be shared.
If we had a strategy across this country, we would be able to share among provinces what’s working, what’s best practice, what the evidence is, and what the data is. We could move people willingly.
I’m not looking at imposing anything on provinces. I’m looking at a sharing of information with a goal in mind. We all have the same goal. How do we do this?
Much like the child care model, the child care bill where everybody has come up with their own version of how they would do it. If we have an overarching set of goals we could — through a concerted effort of sharing best practice — bring people to that, push them toward that goal. Our frontliners tell us this is what would work for them.
The child advocates say, you may think we work in the provinces and you’re the feds and you can’t tell us. No, it’s the issue of how we are sharing and feeling that we are cohesive and all pulling in the same direction, that helps us. It works. It allows us to learn what Quebec is doing around children and pull those learnings into what we could be doing.
Where your experience was different from Alberta’s, if that was shared and there was a global recognition, a national recognition that this is a good or best practice, we should all be doing that, then you see the cohesive effect.
Senator McPhedran: Congratulations, Senator Moodie. I do have two questions that relate to possible amendments, and I realize that this may be premature.
I am interested by some of the responses in the consultation process you conducted leading up to the bill itself. In particular, the concern that came from some organizations, including Indigenous organizations, about the consultation time in the bill and concern that the period of time is not realistic.
I am sure you thought this though so I’m hoping you can help us understand how you landed on this. If it turns out that they are correct in predicting there isn’t sufficient time, what do you see as the solution to that?
Senator Moodie: You will note we have a phased reporting strategy. The idea behind that was it allows for a proposed end point. Should the government find themselves in that position where they are not concluding but want to continue consultation, there is a mechanism for them to continue the ongoing reporting so that through a parliamentary report they bring us up to date as a country. This would tell us where we are and this is why we have not moved to completion, and extensions would then be sought.
There is a clear recognition this is tough work. Everyone is not necessarily moving at the same pace on this. There will be people who are ready to move right away and there will be others who want more time to reflect or find a different way to come to the conclusions they would be asked to come to.
The bill has built into it a phased approach that allows for extensions. It keeps people up to date, and accountable to the fact it is moving forward.
Senator McPhedran: What I am hearing from that is a clear plan for flexibility and responsiveness in the way the bill has been drafted?
Senator Moodie: Recognizing not everyone will move at the same pace, yes.
Senator McPhedran: There was also a proposal from the SPARK Foundation making a potential connection between this bill and the proposal promoted in a number of other places within Parliament for there to be youth delegations, the training and support of youth delegations to major UN gatherings and conferences, and linking that to youth leadership in relationship to this bill. I am not going to state what I think about that. I would be interested in whether you see a close enough connection to that proposal that it would make sense to potentially include it in the bill?
Senator Moodie: Senator McPhedran, we have to be cautious here. If we expand it to be overly ambitious, we will lose the interest of the government. I want to keep it clear, simple and strategic, to use a word inappropriately.
There is room to include youth leadership development in a strategy. That can come later as part of the discussions, not a prescriptive level, no, where we are giving the government the direction through legislation to consider doing this work.
How they do this work and what they include will be the task they are set. That is where I think these folks will intersect with this exercise.
The Deputy Chair: For round two, if we can keep our questions and answers concise, we will be able to have four minutes each similar to the first round.
Senator Burey: Senator Moodie, to dig into the weeds of the bill more in section 3, a designation of minister, order-in-council, the Governor-in-Council may by order designate any federal minister to be the minister referred to in the act.
Senator Moodie, do you think for Bill S-212 that not firming up the specific minister could pose a challenge? Why did you decide to go this route?
Senator Moodie: Based on my lived experience, when we were doing this work, there were two ministers who were in charge of children. There were children and youth and gender, which also had children. That was then. Now we have a completely different scenario.
It was our clear understanding that, over time, things change. Ministers and their portfolios change. We did not want to specify there would be a children’s minister because, if there wasn’t a children’s minister, then that would negate this strategy.
We have left it that, at the time when the work is being done, the minister or ministers most responsible would be identified in this process so they are relevant to the time. Things have changed even from when we first started this work to now. It is different.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: When the minister is named, he or she is not responsible until such time as the structure changes.
Senator Hay: Senator, I will be a dog with a bone. There are prescriptive parts of the bill in here around eradicating poverty, for example. That is prescriptive.
We should consider an amendment. You cannot have a framework or strategy on youth without mental health in it. Kids will experience it, themselves or within their family. It is epidemic.
One size doesn’t fit all is also something that concerns me when I think of Canada, rural, remote, urban, distinction based when you think of Indigenous, Black, African, Caribbean, newcomers. That leads me to equity. I will state that there is no equity in health care in Canada when you think of what I said.
Suicide data is significant, the second-leading cause of death for young people. Canada has the fourth-highest youth suicide rate in the industrialized world. If you are an Indigenous young person you are nine times more likely to die by suicide than a non-indigenous individual, and if you are Inuit you are 18 times more likely.
I worry if we do not specifically call out mental health and inequity in the expectation to government they would lose interest in this. To me, if you soften that reality, you will discount young people. They will not see themselves. Would you consider this? How do you think we could incorporate it?
Senator Moodie: I welcome amendments. I welcome the fact that in this room we have some of the best minds to help us to improve the bill. That is the simple answer.
Senator Hay: In your opinion, adding an expectation around the framework around mental health, great.
Senator Moodie: Absolutely. Frame it in a way that does not tie the government’s hands but brings out the need to focus in this area.
Senator Hay: Great. I am happy to help.
Senator Senior: My question may go the same way as Senator Hay. It is not so much a question but a point I raised at another gathering with respect to ensuring that there is an understanding that children are not poor in and of themselves, but they exist in situations or families, usually single-parent families, specifically women. It is poverty within those situations we also need to address.
I wish to see a gender equity lens on this as well to try to figure out how we could do that. I think it has been a misnomer, not necessarily in this bill, but for years we talk about child poverty without realizing they exist in family situations. It is important to include that.
Senator Moodie: Your point is well taken.
From my perspective, we have to be cautious when we start to name. When you start to name, you leave people out. It becomes more difficult to reach consensus. There needs to be a balance of how far we go in terms of naming. There is reference to equity in the bill already. It is for this group to decide.
Senator Senior: Yes, I can see how we could fit well enough in the framework in terms of a GBA approach to this, as is required for all such initiatives and bills. That’s what I am imagining needs to happen and should happen for all government bills.
Senator Muggli: One of my concerns is around the importance of early childhood development because we know so much happens at that tender age that is so important.
What I noted was in the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act there are expectations stated around contributing to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We have an act, the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, that speaks to the importance of integrating, or expectations around that.
I’m trying to figure out how these bills intersect. We already have a bill that says thou shalt create an early learning and child care plan that is consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Then we have this.
I’m interested to hear your thoughts about how those two intersect.
Senator Moodie: I believe we have named all of the various agreements and conventions in our bill that would be relevant here, trying to align with what has gone before as well.
I see the child care space as being a subset. I see the accountability space as being a subset of this big strategy. That speaks to recognize the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNDRIP, and so on.
We have recognized all of the conventions here with a view to saying this is overarching, and all of those other initiatives — child and health care — falls within, and we have their specifics. I think, if we have missed something, this is the place for it to be recognized.
Senator Muggli: There is going to have to be a strategy involved to say we need this bill and the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act is a subset. How do we strategically place that, so the government doesn’t say we are already working on this?
Senator Moodie: The government will say they are already giving us food for children in schools and a child benefit. This is more about bringing it together and understanding where we are investing and how effective it has been. Where are the gaps? Are we achieving the outcomes?
There has been a lot of discussion in this space around the child benefit, of pushing it further — as you just raised, Senator Cuzner — about Alberta and how effectively they did that work. There is a lot of discussion.
Have we maximized these benefits? What are the outcomes? That kind of thinking is what this bill tries to get at, so we are taking things in a rational way toward success, not just that we have invested here and there is housing and so on.
There are emerging threats in AI. There are going to be some benefits for disabled kids. There are emerging threats around chatbots and online exploitation of children we will have to have an approach to.
Senator Muggli: This solidifies my thoughts as well for including mental health. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: This is a drafting question. In the preamble, you make specific reference to Canada’s domestic law, the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I find it interesting. At the UN level, that’s not international law; it is a declaration. Through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, we have made it domestic law in Canada, which is a good thing.
In the bill itself, you go back to referencing the UN treaty as opposed to what is actually domestic law in Canada. What was the thinking on that?
Senator Moodie: I’m not sure we intended to leave that behind. If that is a change that needs to happen, I’m game.
Senator McPhedran: It might be worth having a discussion.
Senator Moodie: When we were advised on how to put the language in, that’s where we ended up. You have pointed out something critical here. We have solidified things even more in this country.
Senator McPhedran: It actually is law in Canada.
Senator Moodie: If referring to it the way we have it is not strong or accurate enough, then we need to change that.
Senator McPhedran: With thanks to my law intern Dennis, the wording is identical. Dennis has checked both the act, the domestic law and the treaty. The wording in relation to children is identical. It is law in Canada.
Senator Moodie: Yes. That might be something we consider changing, if people think we need to be definitive about that, which I can see no problem with.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: We have taken that extra step.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Senators, that brings us to the end of today’s panel. I would like to thank Senator Moodie for her testimony today.
For our next panel, we welcome: From Employment and Social Development Canada, Hugues Vaillancourt, Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch. From Health Canada, Matthew Lynch, Director General, Policy Coordination and Planning Directorate, Health Policy Branch. And from Indigenous Services Canada, Tasha Stefanis, Director General, Strategic Policy, Jordan’s Principle and Inuit Child First Initiative; Kirsten Mattison, Director General, Strategic and Fiscal Coordination Branch, Children, Family and Learning Sector; Jennifer Novak, Director General, Mental Wellness and Health Promotion, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch; and Sacha Senecal, Director General and Chief Data Officer.
Thank you for joining us today.
Mr. Vaillancourt, since you are the only one delivering opening remarks for your panel, you will have eight minutes to speak, followed by questions from committee members. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Hugues Vaillancourt, Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you to the chair, deputy chair and members of this committee for having me and my colleagues here today.
My name is Hugues Vaillancourt, and I am the Director General of the Social Policy Directorate in the Strategic and Service Policy Branch at Employment and Social Development Canada.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathering on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[English]
Members of the committee, our understanding of Bill S-212 is that it proposes the development of a national strategy to support children and youth in Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide background on the current landscape of roles and responsibilities for children and youth rights and well-being, with a focus on Employment and Social Development Canada’s work to support children and youth in Canada.
Federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments in Canada all share responsibility for implementing and upholding children’s rights and well-being, and do so through a variety of laws, policies and programs. At the federal level, responsibility and programming for children and youth well-being spans multiple department mandates, including Employment and Social Development Canada, Canadian Heritage, Justice Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, among others.
Since 2004, Justice Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have co-led federal implementation and coordination of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, while Canadian Heritage is responsible for liaising with provinces and territories and serves as the overall lead on coordinating reports and reviews for all seven core international human rights treaties to which Canada is a party.
[Translation]
The federal government also plays a key role in the support of Indigenous children, including First Nations children ordinarily resident on reserve, offering programs and services aimed at improving the well-being and healthy development of Indigenous children.
An important part of this responsibility is the Justice Canada‑led United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDA, which became law on June 21, 2021. The act provides a framework to advance federal implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
For its part, Employment and Social Development Canada contributes to children’s well-being by supporting families and caregivers through income supports, such as the Canada Child Benefit, Children’s Special Allowances, and employment insurance programs for maternity leave, parental leave and care of critically ill children.
[English]
Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, also invests in early learning and child care to ensure that children in Canada have access to safe, high-quality environments that foster social, emotional and material foundations they need to thrive. Currently, approximately 900,000 children in Canada are benefiting from federal investment in the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.
Employment and Social Development Canada led the development of the National School Food Policy, which was informed by engagement with a variety of stakeholders, including children, and has subsequently implemented the National School Food Program, in partnership with provinces, territories and Indigenous partners to increase children’s access to nutritious meals at school, supporting their health, learning and overall well-being. On October 10, Prime Minister Carney announced that the National School Food Program will be made permanent, to ensure that kids get nutritious meals at school, while bringing down costs for parents.
Employment and Social Development Canada also provides financial assistance to students from low- and middle-income households to help them afford and access post-secondary education. This year, the department expects to provide non‑repayable Canada Student Grants and interest-free Canada Student Loans to more than 700,000 post-secondary students through student programs, including this program.
[Translation]
The department also continues to offer training and employment support to youth and students through programs like the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy, which delivers 16 programs in collaboration with 11 other federal departments, agencies and Crown Corporations, and the Student Work Placement Program.
Together, over 130,000 opportunities for youth and students will be supported this year, including 20,000 through the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy Program, 76,000 through the Canada Summer Jobs Program, and 40,000 through the Student Work Placement Program.
The department also funds community organizations and supports projects that promote the social inclusion and well‑being of vulnerable children, youth and their parents through the children and families stream of the Social Development Partnerships Program.
ESDC also leads Opportunity for All – Canada’s First Poverty Reduction Strategy. As part of the strategy, the federal government established, in legislation, a dedicated member for children’s issues within the independent National Advisory Council on Poverty. This member ensures that children’s interests are taken into consideration as the council engages with Canadians on poverty, advises on a broad range of programs and services regarding poverty reduction and publicly reports on progress being made to meet the government’s poverty reduction targets.
[English]
Employment and Social Development Canada also plays a role in ensuring that federal, provincial and territorial efforts are coordinated effectively so Canada meets its human rights obligations with respect to children. For example, ESDC is a member of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Children’s Rights, which promotes a whole-of-government approach to children’s rights and fosters collaboration across the federal government on children’s rights issues.
Other mechanisms also monitor the implementation of children’s rights, such as human rights commissions and tribunals, as well as the Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates.
Most provinces and territories also have independent children’s advocates, representatives or ombudspersons to promote and protect children’s rights and allow children to pursue remedies for rights violations.
With that, I conclude my opening remarks. I trust it has provided some helpful context. Thank you. I would be happy to answer the committee’s questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for your question and that includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or all witnesses.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here and for the work you do all the time to support young people and people in Canada. I don’t know if I’m allowed to ask this kind of a question, but I will anyway.
In your opinion, will Bill S-212 duplicate existing work that is in place? Do you feel it will make a difference? If it is adopted, the framework has to lead to a strategy that encompasses pretty much everything you said and more. Do you feel that as able to be implemented as well? If you understand my question, I’m just curious, do you support Bill S-212 at the end of the day?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you for the question. I was expecting that question. Right off the bat I’m going to disappoint many members of this committee. We certainly appreciate the intent behind the bill, including the engagement with young people that informs its development.
In terms of the government’s position on this bill, I’m not at liberty to expand on what the government’s position on this bill is at this time of the process. I’m sure there will be opportunities to hear what the government’s position is, but at this point I’m not at liberty to expand on what might or might not be the government’s position.
Senator Hay: Let’s just assume Bill S-212 is in play and it is implemented. How might you work together on this? What might get collapsed so there is not duplication? Because there’s health, social services, education, Indigenous services. How are we going to coordinate effectively, in your opinion, so we avoid the duplication but also what we don’t do is make even more fractures or silos that might exist?
Mr. Vaillancourt: I will dare to go in uncomfortable territory. If you look at the legislation, the proposed bill, there is a minister that would be appointed to lead the charge. I think that would start in terms of the work.
In terms of the existing mechanisms we use at the federal government, or in collaboration with our provincial and territorial colleagues, there are a number of committees and structures that already coordinate our work on the implementation of the convention or children’s issues more generally. So it would probably be fair to think these mechanisms could be used to help support the work.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your time.
Senator McPhedran: My question is directed to anyone on the panel who can respond to a question about Jordan’s Principle. If I could get a sense of who? Thank you, very much, Ms. Stefanis.
As you know, in Bill S-212 Jordan’s Principle is specifically mentioned. To my reading of it, it really frames Jordan’s Principle as a human rights principle.
The decision made by the Government of Canada — and I recognize you cannot speak for the minister — to significantly reduce the opportunities for families and service providers to use Jordan’s Principle for children has been explained by the government as being cases of abuse, looking at, for example, gaming consoles, training in sports.
In a recent non-compliance motion — directed against the government in front of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal — some expenses were deemed to be outside the principle, but more than that Cindy Blackstock addressed the point that, with all due respect, bureaucrats in Ottawa — most of whom are not Indigenous, most of whom do not have disabled children — are making culturally based judgments about what is or is not needed for the health of a child who qualifies under Jordan’s Principle.
One of the key points she made was about cultural competence. She pointed out the way in which decisions are made between Indigenous service agencies and health professionals serving Indigenous children. It turns out, for example, a console that allows for gaming can be very good for a child’s mental health, particularly a child in an isolated situation. And there are many variations on what I have said.
What I would like to ask, specific to Bill S-212 and the fact it positions Jordan’s Principle as a human rights principle, where does that fit within your department’s approach to the very significant cutbacks that have taken place across this country? Many of the advocates are saying these cutbacks are significantly imperiling children’s health.
The Deputy Chair: You have about a minute but it is an important question and I think an important answer, so I will also ask Senator McPhedran to go on second round so you can answer in one minute plus have more time in the second round. Is that acceptable?
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Tasha Stefanis, Director General, Strategic Policy, Jordan’s Principle and Inuit Child First Initiative, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you for your question. Indigenous Services Canada does recognize that Jordan’s Principle is a legal obligation and is based on a human rights principle.
There is extensive work happening to accept individual and group requests for Jordan’s Principle services and to support health, education and social requests for children. Those requests are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis through multiple different collaborations at a regional level, with staff who are working directly with families who are making requests, through service coordination organizations that are First Nations led.
I believe you’re referring to some of the work announced in February where there were some operational changes and some communication around parameters put in place to really build the sustainability and clarity around the services and supports Jordan’s Principle is providing.
Those things began to outline some specific areas where Jordan’s Principle requests would be reviewed through different lenses. That work has been happening across the country in collaboration with service coordinators, and also with other organizations working to clarify exactly what that means, including what’s required through letters of support from health professionals to support the requests made by families and their children.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. May I ask you to stop there? I will ask you to go on second round so that perhaps you might have a supplemental and Ms. Stefanis may have more to add. Thank you both.
Senator Moodie: My question is for Mr. Vaillancourt.
I am trying to get a sense of what exists. I know you did a description there that was complicated and complex about what exists for children in Canada.
Are there set outcomes that are overarching for all organizations that provide services, support for children in Canada? What are the clear indicators that guide and track the success of these programs shared across all of these organizations?
Mr. Vaillancourt: In terms of the data question, the indicator and outcome, as you alluded to, many programs will have their own specific targets and an objective in terms of what they are trying to achieve. I will give you a specific example in a second.
In terms of data that exists, there has been a tremendous amount of work from our colleagues at Statistics Canada that provides disaggregated data on multiple aspects of how a child is doing.
There is, for example, a portal such as the children and youth statistics available at StatCan that provides multiple different dimensions related to children and youth more generally. Another example of that would be the Quality of Life Framework which was introduced in 2021 by the government that looks at five different dimensions. This framework is not specific to children. But because of the underlying data, and the disaggregated data that exists, it provides information specific to children.
Senator Moodie: My question was what are the indicators specific to children shared across all agencies, ministries and organizations that guide you on the well-being of children? The question was: Do you have set outcomes shared by all of these organizations, departments and individuals that are being tracked?
Mr. Vaillancourt: At the moment, I would say each department has their own departmental plans that set out outcomes based on their programming.
To your question, to answer directly, there is no one set of specific indicators that are shared across departments. Those objectives and program-specific indicators are —
Senator Moodie: Are you aware of any countries that do it differently, that share and take a systems approach, monitor indicators for outcomes that are named, targeted and understand and trend what is happening with their children? Are you aware of any jurisdictions that do this?
Mr. Vaillancourt: I heard the previous witness alluding to a few countries.
Senator Moodie: Do we do that here in Canada?
Mr. Vaillancourt: We are here to discuss this.
Senator Moodie: Your answer is no.
Mr. Vaillancourt: My answer is, no. There is no one framework.
Senator Senior: My question is similar. I will reframe it.
Do you see the value in having, for lack of a better term, a national clearing house for data relating to the well-being — physical, mental, the whole child — of children in Canada?
Mr. Vaillancourt: As I mentioned in my previous answer, there is already a lot of data available. Whether there is merit in having one that is specific to children, I am hearing strong views about that around the table today.
If I am thinking about programming and the specific objective of each program, the accountability of that specific program and the targets specific to them, that is generally not how it would work. It does not mean you could not then reflect it in a clearing house like you are proposing.
At the moment, the programming and objectives associated with each program are program specific. Do they speak to how they contribute to reducing poverty or increasing well-being? In many cases, yes, they are but they are specific to that program.
Senator Senior: I have a follow-up. This is to Ms. Stefanis in particular because it concerns Indigenous, First Nations, Métis, Inuit children and youth.
I am familiar with an organization called NACY, the National Alliance for Children and Youth. I used to be a member of that organization in a former life.
I am going to ask you the same question but with respect to Indigenous children and youth in Canada.
Ms. Stefanis: We actually have our data folks here and our program lead on healthy child development. I will step away and have her come in and answer that question.
Senator Senior: I appreciate that, thank you.
Jennifer Novak, Director General, Mental Wellness and Health Promotion, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Indigenous Services Canada: Hello, everyone. My name is Jennifer Novak. I am the Director General responsible for Mental Wellness and Health Promotion.
From a health perspective, there is a health data clearing house that goes between Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and Indigenous Services Canada. We bring in all of our Indigenous partners who, through their own data sovereignty, participate in this kind of data clearing house table. In that way, we want our First Nation, Métis and Inuit partners who hold that data to be able to be active participants in how that data is used and shared between all these government departments and agencies.
That is a focal point table where we meet. I sit on that table. We meet quarterly. We bring together all of these different data elements, because there are many out there but it is not all connected.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you for the hard work you do.
Mr. Vaillancourt, this question is for you, and for anyone else who wishes to answer.
I was, as Senator Moodie spoke about, interested to hear about all of the things that ESDC does. I was interested to hear that. It seems your department, which is constant throughout all governments — am I correct — you are set in stone? Employment and Social Development Canada stays throughout — whatever that department is — all the time, then it interfaces with different ministers or ministries?
Mr. Vaillancourt: It has been there for a long time, it is probably fair to say, yes.
Senator Burey: Exactly. That is what I wanted to get to.
You seem to have some of the significant pieces of the puzzle — you have been there a long time, and likely will be there — the school nutrition program, child tax benefit, student loans, all of those numbers of things. Should you be named in this bill?
Mr. Vaillancourt: That is a good question. I would like to flip that back to the committee.
Honestly, I do not know I am best positioned to say. It would be logical for anyone to think about ESDC. I do not think I am in a position to opine definitively one way or the other.
Senator Burey: Are there any comments from anyone else on that?
Ms. Stefanis: I am trying to remember if the name of the minister that the department works within has stayed constant for the whole time.
Senator Burey: No.
Ms. Stefanis: The bill attempts to name a ministerial lead.
Senator Burey: I am talking about accountability — that is what I am trying to get at — over the long term.
Ms. Novak: For us in the health space, especially as we try to take a distinction-based approach to health, as an example we have the First Nations Mental Wellness Continuum Framework. From a First Nations perspective, yes, there are individual elements to that framework that was First Nation-developed, led by the Thunderbird Partnership Foundation. They take a more holistic and comprehensive look, because wellness comes from community. It doesn’t come from just individuals. Although at the centre of the First Nations Mental Wellness Continuum Framework everyone is working toward hope, meaning, belonging and purpose, all of the outer rings of the onion of this framework bring in all of the different partners.
Because this was First Nation-developed, that is our beacon, our guiding light. We don’t impose a federal strategy on top of that framework. We take that framework and see how government can “MacGyver” against that strategy and align our priorities and investments against the direction. Because, especially from a distinction-based approach, we want them to let us know what wellness looks like for them, what well‑being — whatever word we want to use — looks like in the long term, and how we achieve those outcomes in a meaningful way for them.
Senator Burey: Thank you. I know I have a follow-up question somewhere in here.
Would they take it from me as a written question for later? I have not fully formed the question.
The Deputy Chair: You are out of time. Do you wish to ask them for a written answer?
Senator Burey: A question that I will pose later, if that is okay, deputy chair.
The Deputy Chair: Okay.
Senator Burey: I wanted to say that. I am out of time.
The Deputy Chair: To our officials, are you amenable to that? Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you very much for being here. I want to go back to a point I brought forward with Senator Moodie. The poverty rate in Nova Scotia has been a tough nut to crack. I think back 20 years ago — the numbers were high in Nova Scotia. It was always attributed to having 13 First Nations communities that have always suffered under a disproportionate level of poverty.
Then in the wake of the Marshall decision, and all these communities because of the tremendous leadership in these communities, and the opportunity presented through Marshall, we started to see growth in opportunities, reinvestments in their communities.
The community of Membertou outside of Sydney is a role model for community development, whether it is First Nations or not. They have done a tremendous job. We are seeing that.
You would think that would bring down the child poverty numbers. Then we come along in 2018 with the Canada Child Benefit. You would think that would bring down the poverty numbers, as it did in the rest of the country. But we had an increase of 18%.
I know at that time I pushed hard to try to find out from the federal officials why this was happening. Is there a gap in the system? I was not able to get that answer.
Is there a gap in the system? You say you work closely with provinces and territories, and what have you. Why wouldn’t we be able to identify why there was an increase in one province while all the other provinces showed a decrease in poverty numbers? Is there a gap in the information sharing?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you for the question. I wouldn’t frame it in terms of a gap. I would frame it more in terms of the limitation of what the data can tell us.
If you look at the poverty trend, the poverty trend across the country, first, between, let’s say 2015, which is where we measure progress toward the legislative target, and 2023, you will see a very similar trend in each province and territory, just like you have at the Canada level. Are there variances between them? Are they perfectly lining up? No. Are the trends very similar? Very much so. For example, from 2015 to 2020 the trend was downward, and then since 2020 we have seen an uptick in the poverty rate. That trend is similar across the country.
Where it becomes trickier to interpret the statistics, if you drill down on subpopulations in particular, namely here children, and look at the provincial level, this is where you have the very unsatisfying answer that you will hear from economists around the sample size and the confidence interval of the statistics.
So there may be a lot of variation, it feels like, from one year to another, but statistically speaking these numbers, if you compare two data points, two years, they are often not that different. That is why you generally have to look at a longer trend to see —
Senator Cuzner: Do you see benefit in consistency in what we measure and how we measure it across the country? Would that be of benefit if that were prompted by this initiative?
Mr. Vaillancourt: If I continue with the poverty as how we measure it, there are differences that are captured through how we measure poverty across the country that reflects the different cost of living, but by and large, it is the same methodology that is used across the provinces. There are different methodical changes in the North that reflect the different realities of living in the North and the territories, but the methodology about how we measure poverty in this instance is the same methodology.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: My question is for all witnesses. Obviously, the bill seeks to push the Government of Canada to develop a national strategy. In developing this strategy, the federal government will have to establish standards, targets, parameters, and so on. However, I find that a lot of the issues or themes regarding this strategy seem to fall under provincial or territorial jurisdiction.
Could you talk about the obstacles that could arise so that the Government of Canada can not only implement a strategy, but also work with the provinces and territories to ensure that the targets and standards are met? Maybe it is different if there is money attached to those negotiations. What obstacles may exist right now that the government could try to address in a different way?
[English]
Matthew Lynch, Director General, Policy Coordination and Planning Directorate, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada: Speaking of the health space, provincial jurisdiction for health care delivery I would not call an obstacle but a reality in terms of developing data indicators on progress.
In the case of health, there has been a fair amount of work coming out of the Working Together agreements that the government negotiated with the provinces and territories coming out of Budget 2023.
It included funding for the Statistics Canada and the Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth, which will extend that survey out to 2027 with data indicators for children and youth, including on measures of access to primary care, mental health and so on.
We also work closely through the Canadian Institute for Health Information with the provinces and territories. That is a pan-Canadian health organization where there is a shared priority with the federal government and provinces and territories to collect data on the quality of the health system, and it is coming out of the Working Together agreements. There is the new reporting on performance indicators. About two weeks ago, they released a report Taking the Pulse, which included information on children and youth health.
That is an example of how we have been working with the provinces and territories to collect data.
Senator Boudreau: My question was not necessarily what is working. What obstacles could an initiative like this hit when you have the federal government trying to tell provinces and territories how to offer certain services or provide certain supports? Are there obvious obstacles that we need to be aware of as we consider this bill?
Mr. Lynch: I would only say that federal-provincial-territorial collaboration is essential for any work like this. I don’t know if I would call it an obstacle, as that has a negative connotation, but it is something that would be essential in any kind of framework for data on the health system.
[Translation]
Ms. Novak: I would like to add a brief comment.
When we look at funding for Indigenous communities, for example, our funding goes to an organization that delivers services. When we provide the funding, we check the availability, accessibility, quality and effectiveness of the service.
However, the detail you want to know is whether that has made a difference for the child. For our part, we evaluate the service delivery. For your part, you want to know whether it has made a difference for the individual. When it comes to the individual, there will be research, and Statistics Canada has a mandate to conduct surveys. The survey has to do with the individual, while the results have to do with the service. For that reason, it is important to know what question the government is trying to answer. Is it about the individual or the service?
Senator Boudreau: I think the important thing here is the impact on the child. If money is given, if the federal government invests money, then it can require that certain data be verified and reported to the federal government. It is not a blank cheque.
Ms. Novak: However, that requires —
[English]
The Deputy Chair: That is the time.
Senator Muggli: My question is about this draft. It talks about identifying the objectives of the Government of Canada in relation to children and youth which must include a high and consistent standard of living for children and youth across Canada.
One of my questions is for Mr. Vaillancourt. Do some of the programs you referenced earlier have outcomes that specify a particular standard of living? I know we talked about cost of living. Are there any referencing a standard of living for an outcome? Curious to hear your feedback if you think that language might be a barrier to implement?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you for the question, Senator. I am not avoiding the question.
I will point out, for example, that in the bill they talk about child poverty. There are some programs that track poverty as a goal and reduction. That would be —
Senator Muggli: Poverty line expectations, perhaps?
Mr. Vaillancourt: For example, for seniors there are goals associated with Old Age Security and guaranteed income supplement that track and target certain poverty reduction goals.
For child poverty, or poverty more broadly it is easier — it is a defined term that is measured.
Going to your question about high or consistent standard of living, I would say that is perhaps a term that is less — it’s a bit like the middle-class definition which is not so specifically defined. There is less clarity or definitive definition about what that means. It can be understood differently by different people.
Senator Muggli: Do you think it would help to provide a definition?
Mr. Vaillancourt: I don’t know. The fact that there is no definition of it speaks to the challenge of coming with a prescriptive definition of what a high standard of living is.
Senator Muggli: Does anyone else want to add?
Ms. Novak: I can take a stab at this.
Through some of the funding through my organization, we fund youth treatment centres. And because our system is organized against the First Nations Mental Wellness Continuum Framework I was referencing earlier, when a child comes into the treatment centre they are assessed against markers of wellness toward hope, meaning belonging and purpose at the core of that framework.
Once they go through the treatment centre program and come out the other side, there is another assessment. Have they improved their hope, meaning, belonging and purpose? Their definition to a higher standard of living would be how did we improve against those four markers of overall wellness?
To the point of Mr. Vaillancourt, we are using different words because people will have different definitions of what well-being or high standard of living may be.
In a First Nation context, it still comes back to those fundamental elements.
Senator Muggli: I want the bill to be successful. I don’t want language to be a barrier.
The Deputy Chair: Witnesses, senators, thank you.
We will move now to second round. Senators, witnesses, again for second round you have four minutes.
Senator McPhedran had to leave. She has asked me to ask her question on her behalf. It is in regard to Jordan’s Principle.
Senator McPhedran asks: What is the dollar amount of cuts already made or announced in the past year denying funding under Jordan’s Principle — denying funding to Jordan’s Principle?
Ms. Stefanis: Since 2016 Canada has committed $10 billion to Jordan’s Principle. In this current fiscal year Canada has allocated $1.81 billion, which does not represent — we have not received a funding reduction. We received an allocation last March for funding for this fiscal year.
The Deputy Chair: Could you repeat that first part?
Ms. Stefanis: Yes. Since 2016, Canada has committed $10 billion to Jordan’s Principle. In this current fiscal year, 2025-26, Jordan’s Principle is allocated $1.81 billion in funding.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I will leave Senator McPhedran’s question there.
Senator Hay: I might get into a data geek moment here so I will probably look to you. It has been a theme or thread I will pull from a few people, and I will start with a phrase, “clearing house.” It makes me think of a data house, a data hub or lake, whatever they’re called these days. I think about data and young people.
A lot of that data, first of all, you cannot collect without consent. Again, you go into equity-seeking deserving populations and their data.
Data being the complex nature that it is, it is not one data set is equal to the other set. You cannot share it. You cannot just, okay, give me all of your data. It has to be aggregate, non-identifiable, which makes those sets apples, oranges, mangos and whatnot. Even the time frame of it CIHI would be totally different than Statistics Canada, for sure.
We’re talking about poverty, mental health, food insecurity, disease, pediatric data. I’m curious, there is AI and machine learning so that should overcome it all — and I say that quite sarcastically.
You need that data to be able to build the strategy to pull in what you’re going to measure. How would you go about doing that, building that data from all of these places? Is it possible? What is the cost? It has to be a few dollars.
Ms. Stefanis: I will ask my colleague, Mr. Senecal, to join us.
Sacha Senecal, Director General and Chief Data Officer, Indigenous Services Canada: Good evening, senators, Sacha Senecal, Chief Data Officer for Indigenous Services Canada. You have summarized the complexity of my job. This is one department for one set of a population. If you run this across a subpopulation across the country — and we spoke earlier about jurisdictions and how various provinces and territories or Indigenous governments might be recording or collecting their own data —you are absolutely right.
What it is going to cost I cannot give you a clear estimate. What I can say is over the last number of years — and some of my colleagues on the panel alluded to this — there have been improvements in how the data is structured across the country. I think there is a widespread recognition of those exact factors you were pointing out — the complexity of it with the necessity to have sound data for any strategy. Obviously, this bill is about one type of strategy, but anything the federal government or any government tries to do these days needs to be founded upon quality data.
I totally take your point on AI as well. As Chief Data Officer, part of my role is interacting with my program colleagues and trying to help them improve their data collection and data sets. Some of them are very attuned to the challenges. Others will sometimes say, “AI will solve our problems,” and my answer is always, “No.” It runs on data. Its fuel is data. So if you don’t have good data, any AI solution is not going to work. Within ISC we have a lot of particular challenges around AI. I think any federal department or organization has issues with data when it comes to AI. Some of these challenges are reflected within ISC, but we have additional challenges, things like Indigenous data sovereignty, for example, things like do the data really represent the aspirations and desire of communities and not those of the federal government. It is not for us to always dictate what data you should be connecting with to reflect your specific issues.
I understand that is probably not answering your question directly but —
Senator Hay: Well, it’s a tough —
The Deputy Chair: Senator, I’m afraid we are out of time. The next question is from Senator Senior and then Senator Moodie.
Senator Senior: There may be some more musical chairs here because I would like to speak to Ms. Novak as well. I really appreciated your previous response. That’s an example that gets to what it is that I think aspects of this bill are trying to accomplish, because without your input I would be left in a situation of feeling as if we have to continue within the silos that we currently have, and that worries me. I wonder whether or not as a country we have the ambition to actually be able to pull on reliable data that we can understand the situation for children in Canada. So I appreciate that very much.
Another bit of discomfort is that I feel as if in order to accomplish that for, let’s say, Black children and youth, that would have to take a similar approach. But we don’t necessarily want to continue with the silos. We would like to be able to pull on data that is disaggregated but still compiled so that we can get that full picture.
I also wanted to ask. Is there a Gender-based Analysis Plus lens on the work you are doing and the funding you are providing?
Ms. Novak: Thank you for the question. If I can use a concrete example, the government announced the Youth Mental Health Fund in Budget 2024. I have been working closely with colleagues at Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and what we were looking at is what we were talking about previously: What we are looking to measure is the improvements in the availability of, the accessibility of, the quality of and the effectiveness of services. But that assumes that if you have all four that you are reaching children and that if they do have effective, high-quality accessible and available services that this will ultimately result in well-being.
So you are doing that dotted line between if you have access to all these supports and services — and they could be food insecurity or they could be in nutrition — that this automatically will result in a survey response at the end that says, “I feel like I am well.”
When we work together on our supports, we are looking at our First Nations partners that are developing their own indicators. We also have the Canadian Institute for Health Information that is also doing their indicators working with provinces and territories. As my colleague noted, data sovereignty becomes a challenge.
To give you an even clearer example, when we were mapping out the definition of “youth” for the Youth Mental Health Fund, in the Indigenous context youth are from the ages of 10 to 30. But in other considerations it was 12 to 25. Our colleagues at Health Canada were going, “We will not be collecting the same data because we won’t even have the same data range, because our Indigenous partners are collecting from 10 to 30. So we will have a bigger pool of data than you will.” So how do we disaggregate that data to remove the 10 to 12 and the 25 to 30? Maybe that’s where AI can come in. But it speaks to your point about the disaggregation of data. If you are not inputting the same elements at the source, how can you compare these apples to oranges?
These are just basic simple elements. We thought this is going to be simple — Youth Mental Health Fund. But you apply to that food security and education and all these contexts, and they have their own particularities and definitions when you look at the data.
What’s important is the conversation and having all the players at the table so that we can find those pathways early so we can adjust that data collection to ensure that we can account for it in the collection and account for it in the assessment that comes after.
Senator Moodie: I would really like to offer you the job. But I can’t. Because your thinking is exactly the thinking on the micro level of what we need to be doing at the macro level. You talked to us about the system of care, which is where I want to zero in. You talked about the very well-defined system of care that you work with. My sense is that you would be concerned perhaps that this could be lost in an overall strategy.
Part of the requirement of the bill is that the minister would be talking to representatives of Indigenous governing bodies, organizations that serve — so you folks. And it would be possible — no? — in a strategy to take into account what Indigenous people have in place already and the path that they would want to pursue as an element of a strategy. That’s a discussion that could happen should this bill become law.
Using your principles around how to collect data and how to understand data across systems, are you seeing this as an insurmountable challenge? If you got the recognition within a strategy that could come after consultation.
Ms. Novak: The one point I will correct is that I would never want to represent the interests of First Nations partners, Métis partners or Inuit partners. I don’t think anybody needs the federal government to speak on their behalf.
What I would say is for this to be successful I think you need to bring perhaps to committee here the First Nations Information Governance Centre, or FNIGC, who sit at our data clearing table and coordinate our efforts on behalf of First Nations when it comes to our health data clearing house. I would recommend you invite the Thunderbird Partnership Foundation who can speak to some of the metrics they use for achieving wellness against the First Nations Mental Wellness Continuum Framework.
I think it is important that you bring the voices of our distinction-based partners to the table. I would never want the federal government to be the one speaking on their behalf. I use this as a place of privilege to be able to do so.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, but you are talking about a process of defining a strategy. That’s not what we are doing here, just to be clear. But I understand what you are saying and I would fully agree with you and support that all of those people needed to be consulted.
The second part of my question is around the fact that we have heard in spades today that there is a lot of data being collected. There is an existing collection process. It is specific to need and in small communities and in small pockets.
There are existing systems and structures that are already in place to do communication and sorting out within government, between provinces and the federal government. There are existing health care systems that have been advanced in their development around how to provide health care.
We have in place important systems we could corral into the use of a strategy, the mechanisms by which we could achieve and play out a strategy. However, what we need are the common goals, indicators and the common way we collect data. We need to order ourselves. Would you agree with me?
Ms. Novak: I would. Mr. Lynch can speak to it. That is what we have been trying to do through the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Each province has their own way. Indigenous partners have their own way. The Canadian Institute for Health Information has been putting in a lot of time and effort into being that connective tissue you are speaking about so a strategy, whether it is this one or any other, can speak with one voice.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Moodie, that is the end of your time. We are at the end of the speakers’ list.
Senators, can we allow the witness to answer? Is there a senator with another short question?
Please go ahead.
Mr. Lynch: Building on Ms. Novak’s comments, yes, as I was saying earlier, the government of Canada works closely with the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the provinces and territories, because it is a pan-Canadian health organization. The governance and oversight are done jointly with the provinces and territories.
Through the Working Together plan, which is the series of bilateral agreements of $25 million over 10 years, the provinces have agreed to modernize health systems and report on common performance indicators.
Some of the performance indicators have been disaggregated to children and youth, including some that were released a couple of weeks ago on mental health and substance use, community mental health services and primary care access. In the health sector, that’s an example of how we work with the provinces and territories.
To the senator’s question, your question was about how does Health Canada and ESDC work together to have shared objectives?
Senator Moodie: My question is can we do it? Do we have the pathways? Your answer is yes. What we need is the working together.
Do you have an example where need has forced us to share and to work together? I have one. Do you have one?
Mr. Lynch: The example is general need, shared interest across governments as Canadians of the need to improve Canada’s health care.
Senator Moodie: COVID.
Mr. Lynch: Yes. COVID would be a good example.
Senator Moodie: When needed, we have done it.
Mr. Lynch: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony today.
(The committee adjourned.)