THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 10, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:17 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada; and, in camera, to consider the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 25, 36 and 44 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Senators, my name is Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, and I’m a senator from Manitoba and the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Before we begin, I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good afternoon. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Senior: Hello. Welcome. Paulette Senior, Ontario.
Senator Arnold: Hello. Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, from Ontario.
Senator Greenwood: Welcome. Margo Greenwood, British Columbia.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Today we are continuing our study on Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome, from the Assembly of Seven Generations, Gabrielle Fayant, Co-Founder; and from the National Association of Friendship Centres, Samantha Jack, National Youth Executive; and Kara Louttit, Acting Policy and Research Manager.
Thank you for joining us today. You will each have five minutes for your opening statement, to be followed by questions from committee members.
Gabrielle Fayant, Co-Founder, Assembly of Seven Generations: Tansi. Gabrielle Fayant. Nitsigason, [Indigenous language spoken].
Hi everyone. My name is Gabrielle Fayant. My family is from Fishing Lake Metis Settlement in Alberta, but I am a guest here on unceded, unsurrendered Algonquin territory.
I am a co-founder and helper of Assembly of Seven Generations, A7G. We are a grassroots, Indigenous youth organization that has been operating since 2015. We have offered a wide range of programming, special events, and projects as well as research and report writing. Programs have ranged from peer-to-peer drop-in spaces, crisis intervention from suicide to missing person searches to housing prevention loss, cultural revitalization programming from language classes to food sovereignty to land-based learning like hide tanning and medicine harvesting. We have organized elders and youth gatherings, summer camps and trips, a children’s and youth powwow, and we are currently planning for our ninth annual round dance.
We’ve worked on multiple reports on the status of Indigenous youth nationally, provincially and locally, focusing on youth programming, child welfare reform, ethical research and engagement, employment and gender discrimination, to name a few. We’ve advised federal ministers on how to improve their departments’ relationship with Indigenous youth. We’ve testified at federal committees and presented at the Senate multiple times. We’ve also intervened at the United Nations on Canada’s poor treatment of Indigenous children and youth. Canada’s response has been to rebut us at the UN, discredit our work and/or to completely ignore the voices of Indigenous youth.
We have done all of this on zero to little funding, from micro-grants to project dollars to donations, because, as Bill S-212 states, Canada has no strategy for children and youth, especially Indigenous children and youth. We have become extremely resourceful, not because we want to be but because if we do not find ways to make things happen, Indigenous youth lives are on the line. We have created a social enterprise called Adaawewigamig, which is a small Indigenous boutique that specializes in Indigenous art and crafts, often made by the very youth who benefit from our grassroots work. There is no doubt that we are resilient and find ways to thrive in the worst of times. However, we shouldn’t have to live our lives in this manner. Living in crisis comes at a cost from the past, present and to the future generations.
The current status of Indigenous children and youth in Canada is deplorable and continues to degrade. This is not a new trend but dates back to the early 1900s with the creation of residential schools. This is the most well-known national strategy Canada had for Indigenous children and youth. This policy then continued into the Sixties Scoop and today’s current crisis of children and youth in child welfare. Canada’s treatment of First Nations children in care is so poor that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has had to file over 20 non-compliance orders against Canada for its discriminatory practices since 2020. It is vital that Canada has a strategy to repair, address and honour the well-being of children and youth because so many strategies have created violence.
The crisis of child welfare is only one part of the current experience and systemic racism that Indigenous children and youth are faced with in Canada. Indigenous girls, young women and gender-diverse youth experience physical and sexual violence disproportionately to non-Indigenous children and youth and, in addition, are far more likely to become missing or to be murdered. Child welfare and poverty leave Indigenous children and youth more vulnerable to human trafficking and violence. Indigenous women in particular are overrepresented in prison. Indigenous youth are also subject to higher rates of police violence and experience targeted and increased aggression, which has led to death.
In general, the socio-economic well-being of Indigenous children and youth is well below par, from high rates of poverty and unemployment to housing crises, to suicide and the opioid epidemic. In addition, we should note that almost all, if not 90% at the least, of the youth we have worked with over the last 10 years have lived with a disability, and Indigenous youth have multiple layers of systemic disadvantages that must be considered in this bill. The list of fears that Indigenous children and youth have to face is long and interconnected.
In 2017, we worked on a special report to implement TRC Call to Action 66. This call to action was specifically developed by survivors of residential schools so the future generations could reclaim the cultures that were stolen from us. This call to action reads:
We call upon the federal government to establish multi-year funding for community-based youth organizations to deliver programs on reconciliation, and establish a national network to share information and best practices.
However, our report was shelved and multi-year funding turned into micro-grants.
In 2022, we followed up on this report by interviewing and meeting Indigenous youth groups who were living out this very call to action despite never receiving multi-year funding. In this report, leaders of these lifesaving groups were experiencing extreme burnout and fatigue. Often, youth leaders became a beacon of hope for the youth they were serving. However, they were set up for failure due to government inaction.
Currently, there is no multi-year, reliable funding for Indigenous children and youth programming. Oftentimes, micro‑grants do more harm than good, and there is no cohesion between funders, governments, non-profits and/or the children and youth in need of services.
We have a specific report on our website that we wrote with Senator Moodie for the first bill that she presented in the Senate. In that report, there are four strong recommendations. These recommendations talk about Call to Action 66. These recommendations also talk about the need for the Canadian government, including the Senate, to fully understand reports and recommendations that have already been passed, such as TRC, MMIWG, even RCAP. Another important recommendation is accountability and justice from harmful structures, so talking about building a children’s commission.
The last thing I would conclude with is that we fully support the creation and development of a national strategy, and we want to thank Senator Moodie and her staff for the labour that has gone into this bill, as well as the Standing Senate Committee of Social Affairs, Science and Technology for seeing the importance of such a bill.
It is critical that plans for the Indigenous youth and children strategy should not be subjected to a single minister leading the strategy and should be held to an ethical criteria and standard. Youth have told us they want to see accountability. We would recommend the development of a panel of experts and stakeholders to work on a national strategy, as well as a strategy that has milestones that can be analyzed and followed for adjustments.
We would also recommend periodic youth audits of the strategy as well as a process so the strategy can be youth- and peer-reviewed. The development of the strategy must include experts in the field of children and youth well-being. Experts should be identified based on merit and experience. Especially for Indigenous people, it must include a reliable vetting system, as well as a process for Indigenous children and youth to participate in development of the strategy. The well-being of children and youth must be prioritized, which we believe can only be done by creating an ethical screen that can be placed against all aspects of the strategy.
Thank you for having me.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Samantha Jack, National Youth Executive, National Association of Friendship Centres: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee, and thank you for inviting me to speak. My name is Samantha Jack, and I come from Nuu‑Chah-Nulth and Yale First Nation in B.C.
I support urban and away-from-home Indigenous youth in my role as National Youth Executive with the National Association of Friendship Centres. More than 70% of Indigenous people live in towns and cities, including the majority of Indigenous children and youth. I am here today to centre their voices and lived realities.
I also serve as a North American focal point for the Global Indigenous Youth Caucus at the United Nations where I support Indigenous youth across Turtle Island as they navigate these multilateral spaces. Through this work, I have seen how many countries have formal UN youth delegate programs and national youth strategies that ensure young people have a permanent seat in governance processes. Canada has strong youth leaders who already participate internationally and continue to strengthen youth participation at home. The commissioner for children and youth could bring Canada in line with these international standards and advocate for a national youth delegate program.
We are living in a moment where youth engagement in civic life is higher than ever before. Young people today have unprecedented access to information and online discourse. They are informed, politically aware and eager to engage. They are deeply invested in issues of human rights, climate, reconciliation and community well-being. Social media has amplified both their voices and their ability to mobilize. We are witnessing a generation and the generations coming after them who are enthusiastically engaging in civil society. Their engagement shows what becomes possible when youth are recognized as full participants in shaping the world around them.
Urban Indigenous youth often walk in two worlds, navigating both the impacts of colonization and the strength of their cultures and communities. Our intersectionality is our strength. Too often, the systems around us fail to reflect the real circumstances that urban Indigenous youth face.
A commissioner for children and youth must have the authority and resources to address gaps that leave youth disconnected from supports we need to thrive. The work must be grounded in the rights of Indigenous children and youth, including those identified in UNDRIP and in the Calls for Justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and our Two-Spirit relatives.
The principle of “nothing about us without us” must guide not only the creation of this office but also, ultimately, the way it functions. As you consider this bill before voting, I recommend that the execution of the commissioner’s mandate include a formal mechanism for youth involvement. This should include a youth implementation committee that provides ongoing oversight and guidance as the office operationalizes its mandate and develops policy frameworks. This committee should reflect lived experience and intersectional perspectives, including a designated urban Indigenous youth seat. A commissioner must make youth participation permanent, consistent and intentional.
Youth councils across the country, including the NAFC Indigenous Youth Council, are well positioned to support this once the office is established. The Friendship Centre Movement is a trusted and established network servicing over one million urban Indigenous people. We are ready for engagement. Friendship centres provide essential services, cultural programming, community care and service navigation for families and youth. Any commissioner should work closely with the friendship centre movement because our centres hear directly from youth about where these priorities may often fall short.
Youth want to help shape the decisions that impact our lives. Our lived experience offers insight that cannot be replaced by policy alone and will strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of this office. Youth know what meaningful accountability looks like. They deserve clear, accessible tools to ensure the commissioner’s mandate is being carried out with integrity and transparency.
My key recommendations are as follows: uphold the distinct rights of Indigenous children and youth and align all work with UNDRIP; have guaranteed dedicated engagement with urban Indigenous communities and programs such as friendship centres and other urban Indigenous youth hubs; establish a youth implementation committee with intersectional representation and a designated urban Indigenous youth seat to guide execution of the commissioner’s mandate; ensure youth are meaningfully involved in the co-creation of the commissioner’s operational design, implementation structures and accountability mechanisms; seek to address systemic racism across health, justice, education and child welfare, beginning with intentional and ongoing engagement with the youth who navigate these systems; and ensure federal data collection includes urban Indigenous children and youth who too often are invisible when it comes to reporting.
Urban Indigenous youth are leaders and the caretakers of future generations. We have seen this. For many years, I believed my age made me less capable, but I learned that lived experience is expertise. Young people are ready to contribute when they are given space, respect and real authority. By empowering children and youth to participate fully in civic society, we strengthen Canada as a whole. Our governments earn trust when our youth can see their realities reflected in national commitments. Urban Indigenous youth across this country are ready, willing and able to support the implementation and execution of this bill.
Thank you to those who have brought this forward, and we are happy to answer any questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both for those opening remarks.
We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators, we will only be able to do one round, and you will have three minutes for your question, which includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is addressed to a particular witness or all witnesses.
Senator Hay: I am personally grateful for the three of you being here today. You have so much courage just in general. I would like to extend a deep personal apology for the colonization and harm in our country. I do believe the system was built specifically for colonization, and that’s a system we live in right now, and it’s working quite well still, so this is the work at hand. Thank you for indulging me there.
First Nation, Métis and Inuit young people face disproportionately higher mental health challenges, rooted most definitely in generational trauma and system inequity. Indigenous youth, for example, are nine times more likely to consider and/or die by suicide, and Inuit young people more than that. My question is: What would meaningful mental health integration look like within this bill from your perspective?
Ms. Jack: Thank you for that question.
That’s ultimately at the core of a lot of the work that we do, especially in our urban spaces and many of our youth-led organizations. Mental health is a core component of all our program integration when we really reflect on what the priorities are when we’re servicing and supporting our youth.
The real identifier that we seek is that holistic, wraparound approach, ensuring that, for any programming that’s being offered, mental health is at the forefront of that programming. We need to ensure our youth are showing up in a good way to continue engaging in this work, and they can only do that when they’re in balance with themselves. That encompasses our mental, emotional, spiritual and physical health. It’s all‑encompassing. We know what it looks like when youth come together and how those good policies and protocols honour our mental health when we do engage. Whether that’s in service design or service delivery, those are always integrated through how we show up, and they are not interchangeable with other priorities. Those are inherently ingrained in the work we do. Part of our guiding principles as Indigenous people is always ensuring that representation is present before, during and after our programming when we come together.
Those were some of the thoughts that I had around that. I wasn’t sure if my colleague —
The Deputy Chair: I’m sorry, but that is Senator Hay’s time, and we have to keep moving on to the next question. Thank you for that.
Senator McPhedran: I give you my time to complete your answers.
The Deputy Chair: I’m going to have to ask, committee, for your consent to allow Ms. Ceci to speak at the microphone.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Please go ahead.
Celine “Ceci” Debassige: Thank you.
As a daughter of two residential school survivors and someone that lives with multiple diagnoses themselves, including ASD, also known as autism, a lot of the mental health statistics that we see with Indigenous youth are very sad but realistic in the circumstances that we live in under colonization. Having access to programs that help form a solid and strong sense of identity is a huge harm-reduction measure, and too often, we see grass‑roots organizations do the brunt of that heavy lifting while we’re navigating mental health issues and identity while living in post‑colonial times ourselves, so access to key resources without discriminatory barriers, simply because of our backgrounds, as well as funding through programs like the ACMG and the National Association of Friendship Centres, or NAFC, that continuously allow Indigenous youth to feel a sense of identity, and measures to break those stigmas that we too often deal with as statistics in our communities.
Senator Moodie: Thank you for being here today. It’s a pleasure to have you here and to hear your voice. We’re glad you were able to find time to come back.
Gabrielle, I will ask you my question. How would a national strategy help ensure that Indigenous youth voices are recognized in federal decision making on programs that directly affect them? What longstanding gaps in supports for Indigenous youth could be addressed through a coordinated national strategy?
Ms. Fayant: Thanks so much for all your hard work on this bill. I know you’ve dedicated so much time to this, and it is very important.
Right now, there hasn’t been a national youth strategy for Indigenous youth in particular since probably the sunsetting of the Urban Multipurpose Aboriginal Youth Centres, or UMAYC. That’s going way back. Only friendship centre folks know that, but that was a really beautiful funding program that existed from young people coming to these spaces and advocating and lobbying in the 1990s. Then there were about 10 years when there was UMAYC, and funding was given to the friendship centres for youth programming. However, about 10 years ago, it was sunsetted.
I always remember going to the friendship centre annual general meetings, and the youth have such a strong voice at the friendship centres. The youth saw the changes. They would say, “We will stop this funding unless the program actually reflects what we want as young people.” However, at the time, the government didn’t listen. All of the things that youth wanted in the programming, like potlatches, ceremonies, round dances and powwows, they were completely taken out of all of the funding, so then the funding actually turned into employment opportunities.
Of course, as Indigenous peoples, we need employment opportunities. We even produced a report on the status of employment with Indigenous youth, which is very, very low. Employment opportunities are always important; however, there is the legacy of residential schools and child welfare. That has to be addressed. We can’t pretend that we’re at the same starting point as other Canadians. That means that our ceremonies, feasts, identities and cultures need to be invested in, in order to be brought to a place where, as people, as young people and as children, we feel whole again. There are such big gaps when you look at it from that perspective.
There is another part, too. I often say that we jumped into reconciliation without actually seeing the full truth of the picture. We jumped into things like land acknowledgments. We jumped into things like, “Let’s have an Elder open,” or “Let’s have a drum song,” which are all beautiful, but those are just small parts of the puzzle. The real, deep systemic issues have not been addressed.
When you go back to the TRC Calls to Action, we have to do them actually in order. They’re not supposed to be done in little pieces here and there. To get to the children and youth part of it all is actually Call to Action 66. There are 65 steps to get there that we completely jumped over.
Many foundational things need to be addressed, many deeper understandings, and going back to the work that the Caring Society is doing, we have to support their work because they are really calling out the systemic issues.
Senator Senior: Thank you for your presentations. They were brilliant.
Thank you, Ms. Fayant, for giving us a second chance to hear your voice today. You said a couple of things. If you don’t mind me quoting you, you said, “Living in crisis comes at a cost.” You also said, “Sometimes micro-grants do more harm than good.” Could you expand on both of those statements, please?
Ms. Fayant: For sure.
Micro-grants, in theory, are a great idea. The theory would be that we have already existing youth programming, and we have good health care that supports Indigenous young people, and we don’t have young people who are in prison or concerned about going missing or being murdered. Those systemic issues need to be addressed first, and then micro-grants would be great. Micro‑grants take away the collective power of Indigenous people. It gives a small amount of money to one person. There is actually no support for that one person once they get the micro‑grant. It is like saying, “Here is $500; have fun,” and it is a one‑time thing. “Have fun. Do whatever you want.” They are not accountable, and the funders are not accountable to them either. It is like putting a Band-Aid on a very big wound and not actually getting to the root of the problem. Even as an organization, we find that organizations that get micro-grants don’t have the capacity to actually deliver all the micro-grants. Then they will come to us at the end of the year, saying, “We have all these micro-grants; can you help us deliver them?” It is already March 1.
What if we actually looked at this differently, rearranged things and had a strategy for how to spend this money in an ethical way that supports Indigenous children and youth and all children and youth? We wouldn’t have to be fixing things at the last minute or scrambling at the last minute. That’s how micro‑grants have operated for us for the last five years or so. There has been a lot of scrambling at the last minute and a lot of one‑time‑only scenarios. We have had a round dance for nine years, so we would never be able to rely on a micro-grant to do an annual round dance. Our ceremonies are seasonal and annual. They are not just a one-time thing that you do and bring all your culture back to life again. It is a year-long and lifelong commitment.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses for being here and helping us.
I have a question. Samantha, you mentioned this a little bit, but I want to hear your thoughts on consultation. There is consultation, and there is co-creation. This bill has a section on consultation, and it does explicitly say that the minister must consult with representatives of Indigenous governing bodies and organizations that serve and represent First Nations and with Métis children and youth. Co-creation, as you mentioned, has a little more involvement. The stakeholders, like yourself, have to be there at every step of the process. My simple question is this: What would you want to see? Fulsome consultation with co‑creation maybe? Gabrielle, of course, I would like to hear from you as well.
Ms. Jack: Yes. Absolutely. It is important for youth to not only see themselves represented within policy but to feel called in, supported and encouraged to carry out its mandate and its executive. In order to do that — I never like using this word — the buy-in is so important when it comes to this, because if youth don’t see themselves reflected or represented, and if they don’t see themselves within those policy frameworks, then it is not something youth are willing to actively engage in and carry out and be excited about. We want youth to be excited about the strategy. We want youth to mobilize at local levels, especially Indigenous youth. So if we don’t see ourselves represented within this policy, it becomes very difficult to move forward.
I will pass it off to a quick comment to my colleague.
Kara Louttit, Acting Policy and Research Manager, National Association of Friendship Centres: [Indigenous language spoken]. I am here to support Samantha.
I think the structure of the NAFC would lend really well to having that engagement piece through this co-creation. We have an amazing group of Indigenous youth who sit on our Indigenous youth council. We have six provincial-territorial associations, each with their own provincial youth councils, and they are all supported by youth at the local level across 100-plus members of our friendship centres nationwide. They are actively engaged.
One of the things the NAFC does really well, and has for 40 years, is to build capacity and strengthen the voices of our youth. I would put myself forth as an example of that. I used to sit on a youth council 20 years ago. During my younger days, I sat at the provincial level of a youth council. I worked at the front lines for several friendship centres as a youth, writing proposals that were funded for Kizhaay Anishinaabe Niin. It provided supports for Indigenous men and boys. This is the experience that the friendship centre movement gives Indigenous youth. Twenty years later, I’m now at the national office, supporting our amazing and wonderful youth council members.
The work we do is really important. The multi-year funding is hugely important to our capacity and ability to support our youth. Having opportunities like this provides our youth with further capacity-building opportunities to strengthen their lived experiences. As a child, grandchild and great-grandchild of multiple survivors of Indian residential schools, it is extremely important for our Indigenous youth to have that support, engagement and to be part of the process. Meegwetch.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being here. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us today. It has been incredibly helpful.
Samantha, I love the idea of “away from home youth.” I’ve never heard that before, but it really tells a story in that descriptor. We could really use a youth friendship centre in Moncton, New Brunswick.
Samantha, you talked about bringing Canada in line with international standards. I am a new senator, but one of the things I am learning in every meeting I am in is about a lack of data. You were talking about robust data. What specific data and outcome measures, beyond what is already being done — without putting too much pressure on grassroots — what is needed? What is missing from the picture?
Ms. Jack: I look at the census data. I can only speak for Surrey, B.C. That’s where I’m from and where my friendship centre is. I was co-chair of my coalition in Surrey through the national coalition council there. When we looked at our data and our youth’s needs to create a robust plan for our municipality to engage with urban Indigenous youth, we looked at how many urban Indigenous people we had in the city. That was 16,000. We are the youngest, most rapidly growing population across the country. In B.C., in Surrey, we are the largest growing Indigenous population. We are soon to surpass even Prince George for our young Indigenous people. When we took a hard look at our data, out of 16,000 urban Indigenous people in our city, the median age for our population is 27. We have a young population in Surrey. The supports needed for our youth strategy really need to look into — and it is one thing for training, employment and engagement, but it’s rapidly approaching. We are seeing how our urban Indigenous youth are falling between those employment and leadership gaps. Those amazing programs, like the UMAYC —
Ms. Louttit: The Urban Multipurpose Aboriginal Youth Centres, was it?
Ms. Jack: I think it might have been.
But we’ve seen the impact this has. We look at our former CEO, Jocelyn Formsma, who was a product of that — starting at the local grassroots level, working her way up to be CEO of our national association. We know what it looks like when policy is reflective and representative of those priorities in terms of those gaps we are witnessing and experiencing.
Consulting is definitely part of that, but when it comes to the co-creation — leaning into those priorities that we’re seeing — when it comes to leaning into what our evidence is showing us through our data, that’s where we are able to see those gaps and create or co-create those solutions moving forward.
Youth need to have that say in how we approach these policy gaps, because we are ultimately the ones who might have an idea or two about what some positive solutions might be. I have a lot of love and respect for the work moving forward, but youth need to be meaningful partners in this. We have seen how extractive consultations can be, especially when it comes to Indigenous communities and Indigenous youth. Often, there is an honorarium and a pizza party, and we never hear from them again. That’s where the accountability piece needs to come through, and that’s how you build truth with communities again.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for being here. I really appreciate it.
I have a question around substance use. How do you think a national framework can better support a better plan for youth and substance use? As you can appreciate and know, provinces are doing a lot of different things in this space. Some are forcing people into treatment, and some are forcing people into detox and releasing them with no plan or continuity of care. Accessibility — some provinces are expanding private-sector treatments. I am interested in your thoughts. How do you think a national framework can support youth better in that area of concern?
Ms. Fayant: One of the things we’ve always advocated for is prevention instead of reaction. All of the things you mentioned are all reactions. The problem has already started, and it’s, “Here is what we should do.” Prevention for us has always been something we’ve advocated for. Even when you look at child welfare reform, we can’t just look at children and youth as — they come from families. They are not just out there by themselves; they come from families. Where the problem starts is when the families aren’t supported.
I come from a really severe line of poverty. I was raised in poverty. Poverty makes you believe that there are no other options. I never thought I would ever get into university. I just thought I was too poor to do any of those kinds of things. My mother actually panhandled on Rideau Street. I never thought I could be anywhere after that certain point. I thought that was it for my life. I had several years of active addiction. I just didn’t have any hope. That addiction was also a part of suicidal ideations. I didn’t want to carry on, and so I just drank and drank.
I really believe that the traumas in our family should have been addressed sooner. It wasn’t until I was in my twenties that there was finally the apology of residential schools, but my family had experienced all of the trauma. It was only at that point that we could finally put our finger on this and where these things came from. The apologies and acknowledgments are a good step, but as we said earlier, the issues are still there with family and intergenerational trauma. Addressing the housing crisis, addressing even access to supports for disabilities, that’s something that Ceci advocates for as well.
At that point, we didn’t know what was going on, but now looking back on it, my mother probably had a series of bipolar, PTSD and perhaps some severe learning disabilities as well. So having access to live your life in a beautiful way despite having disabilities is something that a lot of Indigenous folks don’t have.
Those are a few from my lived experience.
Senator Muggli: Gabrielle, I think what you’re saying is the framework should be trying to look at root causes.
Ms. Fayant: Yes, 100%.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you for being here today and sharing your experiences with us.
I’m thinking about First Nations, Inuit and Métis specific indicators of success. When we do a project, we always ask ourselves, “Was I successful? What tells me I was successful?” I’d like to hear you talk a bit about that, what success would be. Also, this bill speaks to international standards. Are those international standards First Nation, Inuit and Métis specific? I wonder about that. Could you talk to me a bit about indicators that tell you, “Hey, we did it,” or international standards that would be specific to you?
By the way, I worked with Jocelyn Formsma when she was a youth on the AFN Council. We go back a long way.
Samantha, do you want to start?
Ms. Jack: I think especially when it comes to Indigenous youth, the way in which we lean into this work, realizing how intentional we are bringing and bridging this work to the realities of our youth, at the end of the day, youth want to know that leaders care about their perspective and that they can see themselves and their realities represented within those policy frameworks.
I really appreciate what you’ve brought forward about addressing intergenerational trauma. This is a real lived experience that our youth see, and so if we even align ourselves with the Sustainable Development Goals when we seek to address poverty, the instability of housing and rising food costs, all of this has a meaningful stew as we move forward.
We need to be allowed, and what this strategy needs to seek to address is youth don’t want to be in a state of survival, especially with where we are today. I know many Indigenous youth are even fearful of not ever being able to afford housing, to afford to buy a house. We’re worried about how much things cost when we go to the stores, when we’re looking at employment that is not either culturally safe or trauma informed and how many of these systems continue to perpetuate harm.
When we look at this and what our strategy is seeking to support for our Indigenous youth, what a national strategy could look into, is ensuring that the metrics ensure that it’s not just ensuring we have an equal playing field but ensuring that we’re able to be empowered and thrive as a result of this, which is why I always bring it back to that co-creation, because we have a couple of ideas. We know you have a couple ideas, but that collaboration really is what sends it home, and that’s what builds our trust in our government system.
The harm reduction, leaning into community care, the best way to address that intergenerational trauma is through intergenerational connection, and that comes from our culture. That comes from being with our old ones. That comes from spaces like A7G and NAFC, where we create that community care, where we come together. We want youth to be able to come together across all sectors, and we see what that looks like when youth feel empowered, seen and understand the policy and what guides this movement and guides this work.
When it comes down to it, I know the Sustainable Development Goals are always a great touchstone when seeking to support all people, but when we look at that and apply that lens specifically to this national strategy, I’m sure it will work wonders to guide our mandate and our structure.
The Deputy Chair: This brings us to the end of the first panel. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today and for sharing their testimony.
For our next panel, we welcome, by video conference, from Campaign 2000, Leila Sarangi, National Director; from Easter Seals, Karen Moores, Consultant, Government Relations; and from Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr, Chief Executive Officer.
Thank you all for joining us today. You will each have five minutes for your opening statement, to be followed by questions from committee members.
Leila Sarangi, National Director, Campaign 2000: Honourable senators, it’s a pleasure to be here, and what a privilege to be able to listen to the first panel.
I’m calling in from Treaty 13. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill S-212, of which we are in strong favour. We believe that this bill and the strategy it will deliver are long overdue.
In 1989, Parliament unanimously resolved to end child poverty by the year 2000, but this promise lacked a strategy, a plan and the necessary investments to make that vision a reality. Because of that, today, 25 years past the goal, we find ourselves in a very troubling place. Since 2020, the rates of poverty for children under 18 have more than doubled, according to Canada’s official poverty measure. According to our own research, 1.4 million children lived in poverty in 2023. That’s only 118,000 children fewer than in 1989, the year the promise was made. This is an unacceptable rate of progress.
In Canada, discrimination, systemic marginalization and regressive policies mean that children from diverse groups face disproportionately higher rates of poverty, including Indigenous, racialized, newly arrived and gender-diverse children and youth, those with disabilities, and those who live in lone mother-led families, among others. Childhood poverty is a serious violation of a child’s right to an adequate standard of living. It undermines all aspects of their well-being and sets them on a trajectory toward limited opportunities, chronic illness and intergenerational poverty.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child reviewed Canada’s progress in 2022 and expressed deep concern about the discrimination faced by children from marginalized communities. They called for a national strategy that sets clear priorities, ambitious targets, including elimination of poverty, and mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
This bill offers us a generational opportunity to do better. It mandates the development of a comprehensive national strategy to support the well-being, rights and development of children and youth across the country, elevating them on the federal agenda and recognizing children and youth as stakeholders in shaping their own futures.
We have several specific recommendations to strengthen the bill.
We would recommend adding to the sixth paragraph in the preamble the inclusion of family type. Children in lone mother‑led families face some of the highest poverty rates in the country, while those in kinship, customary or informal care arrangements — in foster care or young people without family or caregivers — face incredible barriers in accessing income and other supports.
In clause 4, we have a few recommendations.
In 4(2)(a), identifying objectives, we would recommend including the principle “to leave no child behind,” which is the principle that makes actionable the universal promise of human rights.
In 4(2)(c) and (d) regarding evidence-based assessments and planning to meet unmet objectives, these must be based on both robust disaggregated data and the ongoing input — and we earlier just heard about co-creation — of diverse young people themselves. It is imperative that they be a part of the ongoing implementation and monitoring of the strategy which would help to further embed child sensitive and rights-based governance processes.
Under 4(2)(f)(iv), we would recommend changing the language from “consideration of complaints” from children and youths to “investigating complaints” so that there is stronger accountability when rights are violated, similar to what we see in the National Housing Strategy Act.
Under 4(3) regarding consultations, we would like to add families and caregivers as relevant stakeholder groups to consult with as childhood poverty is a symptom of family poverty.
Lastly, accountability should not be to one minister but under the purview of an all-party committee. Under reporting requirements, we would like to see more frequent progress reporting, every one to two years, with reports made widely available and accessible to the public and, in particular, to young people.
We appreciate this committee’s thoughtful consideration of this bill and encourage its swift passing. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Karen Moores, Consultant, Government Relations, Easter Seals: Good evening, senators, staff and colleagues observing today. My name is Karen Moores. I am here on behalf of my long-time client Easter Seals Canada.
I want to take a moment and applaud Senator Moodie and her team, as well as each of you involved in the process and colleagues presenting here today, for this important dialogue and the ongoing actions.
Before I jump into my remarks, the wonderful part of these committees is we get to hear witnesses before us and realize how much with which we agree. So indeed, Leila, I agree with your comments just now and, of course, your modifications to the legislation.
Easter Seals is my client, but the work they do Canada-wide is near and dear to my heart and mind.
I join you today from my home in St. John’s in Newfoundland and Labrador where I work remotely with clients across the country, and I acknowledge with great respect the diverse histories and cultures of the Beothuk, the Mi’kmaq, the Innu and Inuit of this province and acknowledge the lands on which my home city is located are in the traditional territories of diverse Indigenous groups. We commit to doing more for reconciliation every year in every way that we can as a team.
A little bit about Easter Seals Canada: We are Canada’s largest charity for persons with disabilities in terms of scope and whom we serve. We are 100 years old. We operate in all parts of the country through our provincial partners but also through our Access 2 Card program. Many of you have heard about this if you’ve attended our events, and essentially it’s a card that gives access to a caregiver or a loved one to attend a recreational or cultural venue with you. We are talking about a child and youth strategy for the country. Access to off-device time, recreation and culture is so important, and our Access 2 Card program provides that. It’s been tremendously successful in community linkages.
The future of our country of children and youth is of particular importance to Easter Seals Canada and our provincial members from coast to coast to coast. As we know, our children and youth become adults who participate in our economy, our communities, our programs and also become the seniors that we advocate for. Smart, strong foundations matter in the type of advocacy we need to do later in life, to my very wise colleague’s earlier comments.
We support this legislation and have supported it from day one but want, like our colleagues, to encourage all of you to think about the unique landscape that Canadians living with a disability face, particularly children and youth. As you fine tune this legislation, as you move forward, and in the work that goes ahead when this does pass, we would like to point out the significant impact today’s economic and geopolitical climate has had and continues to have on all persons living with disabilities in our country: an economic crisis, a cost-of-living crisis, the state of our health care system, the inequities between different regions, and not just housing affordability but housing availability. Then we have tariffs and trade and what that does to medications and goods and what it ultimately could do in the longer term. As you consider your strategy, we strongly urge you to consider the geopolitics of the day, how it impacts all persons living with a disability — children, youth and their families — and we would argue that persons with disabilities are impacted in multiple ways at a time when they need support, smart policy, and rapid and safe decision making.
My statement today focuses on four key areas that we need to consider as we consider a national strategy for children and youth. What are the cornerstone positives? What moves us forward as a country?
I was encouraged as I heard one of the witnesses say they started their career participating in an organization and ultimately moved to work there. We see camp as an historic investment. Our province members operate some of the only fully accessible camps in their home regions, and in some provinces the only accessible camp in that province. As part of any strategy, we recommend —
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Moores, I’m very sorry. Your five minutes and a little bit more is up. You mentioned you have four recommendations. Are you able to list them off one, two, three, four?
Ms. Moores: Absolutely, and thank you.
Consider the builders, the importance of programs, community programming, initiatives like camps that provide positive experiences in a very rocky world, to ensure any refinements to this legislation and the work you do in the days and weeks ahead really thinks about the economic and social collision that we are facing. Lastly, as you work with your provincial colleagues on health care, given it’s a federal-provincial responsibility, we encourage you to consider the foundation that health comes into this equation. Last, just ensuring all consultations as part of reporting and data development are truly accessible in every sense of the word as you navigate rural, remote, urban and suburban Canada. Thank you so much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Krista Carr, Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada: Madam Chair and senators. I am joining you today from the ancestral and unceded territory of the Wolastoqiyik people.
Bill S-212 is very important legislation. A national strategy for children and youth is long overdue, and we are supportive of it. But I must be candid: As currently drafted, this bill risks leaving children with disabilities behind.
Inclusion Canada was founded over 60 years ago by parents who demanded their children with intellectual disabilities be educated in their neighbourhood schools. They were told no, and they organized. Today, we are a national federation of 13 provincial/territorial associations, supporting children and adults with intellectual disabilities and their families from coast to coast.
Bill S-212 references the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These are essential. But it is silent on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the CRPD, which Canada ratified in 2010. Over 800,000 children in Canada have a disability that affects their daily life. That includes children with intellectual, physical and sensory disabilities, and children with mental health conditions, which the CRPD recognizes as psychosocial disabilities. If this committee is concerned about children’s mental health, which we know it is, embedding the CRPD strengthens that commitment.
Earlier this year, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities completed its review on Canada. The committee found that Canada’s “ . . . legal and institutional frameworks for children do not mainstream disability.” The committee found that policies for children with disabilities do not adequately address the experiences of Indigenous children with disabilities or Black and racialized children with disabilities. You have heard from Indigenous youth organizations. These children with disabilities face even more compounded barriers.
The UN recommended that Canada, “Mainstream the rights of children with disabilities into all its laws, public policies, action plans and strategies . . .” They specifically named Bill C-35 as legislation requiring this. Bill S-212 is the same type of child‑focused federal strategy, and this is your opportunity to respond.
I know Senator Petitclerc has asked witnesses how we can ensure this strategy is inclusive of children with disabilities. That is the right question. The pattern is clear: When we fail to explicitly name disability rights, children with disabilities always fall through the cracks. Inclusion is only a slogan when it is not explicitly defined, when it is not funded and when it is not grounded in enforceable rights.
Inclusion Canada, together with the Canada Research Chair in Childhood Disability and BC Complex Kids Society and our other partners recommend four amendments.
One, add a reference to the CRPD in the preamble.
Two, add the CRPD to clause 4(2)(a)(iii), alongside the other international instruments.
Three, amend clause 4(3) to require consultation with organizations serving children with disabilities and their families.
Four, require the minister to consider the most recent UN committee recommendations.
We have provided the clerk with the specific wording of these amendments.
Children with disabilities experience disproportionate rates of poverty, abuse and neglect. They are more likely to be removed from their families and more likely to be excluded from their schools and communities. These are not accidents; they are the results of policy choices. Bill S-212 is your chance to make a different choice.
Sixty years ago, parents founded our organization because they believed their children deserved to belong. Our vision remains the same: Every child in Canada, including every child with a disability, deserves to be seen, supported and included.
Tomorrow, when this committee proceeds to clause-by-clause, you have an opportunity to ensure children with disabilities are not, yet again, left out. Today is Human Rights Day. Failing to enshrine the protections of the CRPD within Bill S-212 is not merely an administrative oversight; it is a critical human rights issue. Ensuring the rights of children with disabilities are explicitly protected and promoted in national strategies is a fundamental step toward achieving true equity and inclusion. Senators, I urge you, take that step and adopt these four amendments.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all for those opening remarks.
We will now proceed to question from committee members. For this panel, senators, you will have three minutes for your question, and we will only be able to do one round. The three minutes includes the question and the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or all witnesses.
Senator Hay: Thank you to our witnesses for your very compelling testimony.
Just as I’m thinking, there is no way we can categorize someone with disabilities, someone who is in poverty, someone who has mental health. It’s all interconnected. I agree with you around vetting disability support. I agree with you.
What measures for success would you propose that would secure filling the gaps in this particular bill? What would success look like for you five years out? We’ll start with Ms. Carr.
Ms. Carr: I’ll take a stab at it. Thank you very much for the question, senator.
I would say that, first of all, collecting data on disability and how they’re affected by this particular strategy, and then we know whether or not children with disabilities are being positively affected by the strategy as implemented going forward, would be something that’s really important. I really do believe that if you enshrine the CRPD, it does require governments as they implement these types of strategies to consider children with disabilities. Our experience has been that when it is not explicitly stated, when it just says “all children,” then children with disabilities are never considered. Those are two things. I would also say when you talk about consulting with organizations that talk about children and youth, my experience is those situations is that organizations representing children and youth with disabilities are often not called to the table in those scenarios. We’re talking about a particular group of children who are more vulnerable, and if they face intersecting forms of marginalization such as Indigeneity, they’re racialized, it’s just compounded. I’ll stop there.
Senator Hay: Anything to add from the other witnesses?
Ms. Sarangi: I will add the idea of co-creation. People’s voices, stories, the qualitative piece — that is as important as any kind of statistical data that we’re collecting, and that will ensure we are valuing their real lived experiences equal in any process.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome and thank you to all of our witnesses.
I am really intrigued by the reference that you made, Krista Carr, about the preamble and specific reference to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Can you say a little bit more to us about how you would see the insertion of that? I mean, we’re on the eve of going through this bill for the final time, so I’m going to assume, knowing your work, that you have a pretty clear idea of where you think this should go.
Ms. Carr: I think the insertion in the preamble, as we have the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it just helps to elevate the fact that this strategy also needs to include voices and experiences, and it needs to be intentional around what it does for children with disabilities.
If we look at what happened with Bill C-35, you will see that the Senate — which we much appreciate — did add an observation around the fact that the CRPD should be acknowledged, but it wasn’t actually in the bill. The Auditor General has just reported that the Canada Early Learning and Child Care program, which was that bill, failed to mainstream disability, and the AG found that provinces are not even required to report on how many children with disabilities are accessing childcare spaces and we don’t know if inclusion is happening, et cetera.
I think it is critically important. There are a lot of children with disabilities. Again, I want to repeat, our experience is that we are included in the “all” or in the “GBA Plus,” but we actually never are. Those voices and experiences and children with disabilities, if they are not intentionally included from the outset, they are forgotten about. I’m sure it isn’t intentional — I want to believe it isn’t intentional — but it does happen. Thank you for the question.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: My question is for Ms. Sarangi. When thinking about the area that you are passionate about, childhood poverty, this bill calls for the government to identify a series of outcomes and quantifiable indicators that would, if met, meet the government’s objectives. I know that in this space, many of us have concerns about the traditional measures of poverty. Can you help me understand what you feel would be the most appropriate measures of poverty that the government should consider using here?
Ms. Sarangi: Thank you very much for the question.
There is a value to some of the traditional measures.
I would just like to add on to Krista’s comments that, currently, we don’t collect data for the number of children with disabilities living in poverty, and that’s a serious gap in our data collection.
However, we did do a three-year, community-based project. We went to communities across the provinces and territories and spoke to people living in poverty, adults and young people, about their vision for a poverty-free community. The goal was to distill from their visions indicators to measure their vision of what their communities would look like if poverty didn’t exist — indicators like material deprivation, adequate housing, food security and access to childcare. Those were all there.
What we heard strongly, and it didn’t matter where we were or which communities, whether we were talking to people who don’t have immigration status, are working and don’t speak English in the Downtown Eastside, to youth who aged out of care in downtown Winnipeg, to people in very remote places in Nunavut, we were hearing very loudly that access to justice, being free from discrimination, the idea of community and community building, community spaces and experiencing joy are very important to them. We have developed an indicator framework based on measuring no poverty, which I can submit to this committee via the clerk. That is the framework we developed out of this project. Things like joy and freedom from discrimination are as important indicators as adequate housing, adequate shelter and adequate food security. It is really important to take those voices and translate them into these measurable indicators. We also have data to measure advancement toward those indicators in the framework.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses for your voices.
Ms. Carr, it feels like déja vu because we’ve had these conversations so many times. I want to put it on the record because we’ve had these questions and these answers before, and they are so important. The more we voice them, and sometimes amend them, at one point, it will become, I hope, automatic. We are not there yet, so thank you for maintaining your voices.
I want to ask a question of Ms. Moores. When I think about children and youth with disabilities — and thank you, Senator Moodie, for this legislation — we want to lift children out of poverty. I think we also want children not only to survive but to thrive. When it comes to children with disabilities, there are some very specific and unique barriers, and some of them are physical. We cannot have one recipe that will fit all. I am thinking about — because I know the work you do — access to recreation and access to camps. Those are important. How important is it that this strategy really has a lens on the very unique and specific needs and barriers — sometimes physical barriers — for children with disabilities and that we take that into consideration at every step?
Ms. Moores: I would say it is absolutely essential. I would also add that, as you said, that it varies from person to person, from family to family, and from health care need to health care need, in different parts of the country. I would say that’s a very important place to frame as you do this work. Some of the best people who answer those questions as you do this strategy are the people who lead Easter Seals Canada programs in different part of the country, such as front-line staff. One of the interesting data points for me as you do this work is what people share in terms of demand, not just from our programs at Easter Seals Canada but other community programs. Another witness spoke about joy and you spoke about the need to thrive. Those are really important metrics for us as well in watching this strategy. How do we help people thrive and how do we bring day-to-day joy as we go through the process? It is absolutely critical with all those layers.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator Senior: Thank you to all of our witnesses.
Ms. Sarangi, my question is for you. This week in the Senate, the Human Rights Committee that a couple of us sit on released a report about what happens to young people who age out of care, and there are a lot of parallels here. One of the recommendations I’m recalling now is about a national summit that will hopefully lead to a national action plan. Part of the problem is, of course, the jurisdictional issue, the provincial/territorial issue. How do you see that in any way dovetailing with concerns around poverty that you talked about so clearly? Do you see an opportunity there?
Ms. Sarangi: Thank you for that excellent question and for releasing that very important report because this is another group of people that are often forgotten and left behind. That they are being elevated as well is really important.
It does take all levels of government. When there is a will, or a crisis, it can be done. During COVID-19, we saw provinces, territories and the federal government moving in the same direction to support people for the most part.
I will speak specifically from a poverty perspective because that’s what I know, but we know that there is some power that the federal government has that could be leveraged better. For example, the Canada Social Transfer is a block transfer of funds that goes to the provinces and territories to pay for certain programs like social assistance, as well as some childcare and post-secondary education, but there are no conditions attached to it. It is money that the federal government gives to those provinces and territories, it increases by 3% each year, and there are no conditions. It is part of the reason why we have such inadequate income support programs, I think, at the level of the provinces and territories. If the federal government used their power to tie conditions to those kinds of agreements, we could get to a better place. We could negotiate better with the provinces and territories, looking at the goals that we want to collectively achieve. Some of our recommendations include specifically asking the provinces and territories to report back on how they use federal funding to advance human rights for people in the provinces and territories because it is a responsibility of all jurisdictions to advance our human rights.
Senator Senior: Thank you very much.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you to all the witnesses. I want to join my colleagues in thanking you all for your strong testimonies.
I have to call out my fellow New Brunswicker, Krista Carr, in particular. It’s always nice to see a New Brunswicker present in one of these committees, and it’s yet another example of a New Brunswicker who has gone on to take on a national role. You are doing a very good job at that, so congratulations and thank you.
I do want to go back to you, Krista. You talked about what happens when disability rights are implied rather than explicitly stated in federal legislation. You proposed four specific amendments that you said have been shared with the clerk. I would like you to maybe repeat them and speak to them a little more. I’m not 100% sure of the formal process here, but I am certainly prepared to put my name to those amendments to make sure that they do get due consideration or formal consideration tomorrow when we take the next step on this bill. Could you just speak to those amendments again, please?
Ms. Carr: Thank you very much, senator, and it is lovely to see you as well.
What we’re really trying to do with those amendments is to enshrine disability within this federal strategy. I’ve talked about all the reasons why I think that’s important. I also want to point out that these amendments will add about 75 words to the bill. They are not going to require new programs or funding, but they will fundamentally, I hope, ensure explicit recognition of existing obligations that we have to children with disabilities and all persons with disabilities under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I wanted to mention as well that when we talk about inclusion and ending child poverty, people with disabilities — as I said in my testimony — are disproportionately poor. Very often, people with disabilities come from single-income families because one parent stays out of the work force, or the family is not together and the child is being raised by a single mother. This impacts poverty levels for children with disabilities who have also increased costs. You have disproportionate costs and disproportionately less income. That is pervasive across the country. We think it is fundamentally important, and you may have other ideas as well because you are all bright and brilliant people around the table who may have other suggestions.
I would say to Senator Petitclerc’s question about accessibility that all children means all children. All children can play. All children deserve to thrive. All children means children need to be able to physically access any places, spaces or things that are available on an equal basis with others. That so often does not happen for children with disabilities.
We talk about making rights real. Unfortunately, we have to be really explicit about that. That’s where we are worried that this bill needs some additional language to ensure that children with disabilities benefit on the same basis as other children.
Senator Burey: I have to speak quickly because we don’t have enough time for all my questions. It is wonderful to hear you, and I wish we had more time.
I am going home in on the designation of the minister, because we heard about that in the last panel. One of the witnesses talked about needing to name a minister or more than one minister and not just leave it up in the air. I want to have your thoughts on that, especially because all the programs we talk about are usually under the ministry responsible for employment and social development in terms of data and how these programs are. That’s the first question. I don’t want to even ask for a written response.
The second one is for Ms. Sarangi regarding your recommendations. I couldn’t write fast enough to get all your ideas down. It is important about the family type. I am happy that you brought that up, as well as intersectionality. You can send that in writing or just expand on it now.
My questions are about the minister or ministers and the family type. You can just send in those recommendations.
Ms. Sarangi: Thank you very much for the question. I will send in my recommendations and the wording.
Regarding the minister, we would recommend an all-party reporting mechanism if that’s possible and to have it not be tied to one minister of the ruling government of the day. Each party has critics of Employment and Social Development Canada or the Minister of Jobs and Families. This is a nonpartisan issue, and it should have as broad accountability as is possible under the legislation.
Ms. Carr: To the question regarding the minister, it is interesting because we talk a lot about how we don’t have a designated minister for disability, and in the past we used to have one. Yes, it is important to have a designated responsible minister because you want somebody who will always bring that lens forward to the cabinet table and asks the question, “What about the children with disabilities?” or whatever the case may be. It is equally important to embed that throughout because one minister is not going to embed this across all departments. There has to be ways to embed the responsibility for children, in this particular case, throughout, since that’s a responsibility of many ministries, so we have to think about that as well.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Sarangi, Senator Burey had a question about wording for a possible amendment or observation. We are going into clause-by-clause consideration tomorrow morning. Are you able to state your wording slowly right now? I know the senators will diligently take it down. I don’t know how many you have. You have four, and we don’t have a written brief, correct? Colleagues, I believe Inclusion Canada did submit a written brief — Ms. Carr is nodding — and the wording for Inclusion Canada’s amendments are in the written brief. Ms. Sarangi, could I have you speak very slowly to get the wording of the amendments? I see senators ready to take it down. The microphone is yours.
Ms. Sarangi: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
We are recommending to add to the sixth paragraph of the preamble the inclusion of family type — so in that list, to include family type.
Under clause 4, in (2)(a) with regard to identifying the objectives, it says, “identify the objectives of the Government of Canada in relation to children and youth, which must include . . .,” and we are suggesting the addition of the principle “to leave no child behind” in the part there.
Following that, (2)(c) and (2)(d) regarding the evidence-based assessment and planning to meet unmet needs and objectives, we’re recommending that these must be based on both robust disaggregated data and the ongoing input of diverse young people themselves.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Sarangi: I have a couple more.
The Deputy Chair: Pardon me. Please continue.
Ms. Sarangi: Under (2)(f)(iv), we would recommend changing the language from “consideration of complaints” to “investigating complaints.”
Under the next one, clause 4(3), regarding consultations, we would add “families and caregivers” listed as relevant stakeholder groups, and that’s the last one in addition to the minister recommendation which I just previously mentioned.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Moores, I did see your comment. Do you have two or three amendments that you would suggest that you could read the wording out slowly to the committee?
Ms. Moores: I do not have the amendments here. I can send them to you. I would want to clear them with our national team tonight, based on discourse from Krista and Leila today. If that is okay, I am happy to send them in.
The Deputy Chair: That would be very helpful, but we would ask that they be sent in both official languages, so English and French, to the committee clerk.
Ms. Moores: Perfect. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today.
Colleagues, this concludes the witness testimony that we had on the work plan for this bill. The committee’s next meeting, which is tomorrow at 10:30 a.m., will be the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
At this point, we will go in camera. I ask any members of the public at this time to please leave the room.
(The committee continued in camera.)