National Strategy for Children and Youth Act

Overall, the bill is a process-oriented framework that could indirectly support long-term human capital but does not include concrete measures that advance productivity, competitiveness, or efficiency, and it likely adds administrative burden. It neither reforms taxes nor reduces regulatory barriers, and its economic impact is uncertain.

• Reason: Adds layers of consultation, reporting, and reviews without streamlining or consolidating existing programs.
• Reason: Lacks measurable economic targets (e.g., skills attainment, workforce readiness) or levers tied to productivity and growth.
• Reason: No provisions for efficiency, budget discipline, or performance-based funding; likely higher admin costs.
• Improve: Tie the strategy to clear prosperity metrics (literacy/numeracy proficiency, apprenticeship uptake, STEM completion, youth employment) with annual targets.
• Improve: Mandate program consolidation and cap administrative overhead; use outcome-based funding and sunset low-performing initiatives.
• Improve: Accelerate timelines (e.g., initial strategy in 6–12 months) with public dashboards and independent audits to enforce accountability.
• Improve: Embed a skills-and-jobs pillar (co-ops, trades, credentials, entrepreneurship) aligned with high-demand, export-facing and resource sectors, including targeted pathways for Indigenous youth.
• Improve: Use federal-provincial agreements to remove barriers to youth apprenticeships, mobility, and credential recognition.
• Improve: Require a fiscal neutrality plan that reallocates existing funds toward highest-ROI child and youth investments.