HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 15, 2000

• 1105

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we'll begin. I would ask the cameras to leave. This meeting will of course be televised by CPAC through the pool arrangements we have, but I have to ask the cameras to leave now that the meeting has begun. Thank you very much.

The order of the day, which you have before you, is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on matters relating to the mandate, management, and operation of the department, and assessing initiatives aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian society. This is the meeting that was postponed because of the filibuster in the House of Commons before Christmas.

We have invited all the members of our Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and we welcome them here.

We also apologize to the various groups of people involved with the status of persons with disabilities who are here and those who will be watching the rebroadcast of this meeting. We apologize for the delay in having it. I know many of those groups were anticipating this meeting before Christmas, but it was not possible then.

We do have translation in sign and we're very grateful for the provision of that. I want to apologize that we do not have closed captioning for this meeting. Our Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities normally does not appear on television, so sadly we have not yet made arrangements for that. But I assure you that in future meetings of this committee dealing with this topic or related topics and in future meetings on television of our subcommittee, which is a very important subcommittee chaired by Carolyn Bennett, we will do everything we can to have closed captioning.

As you see from the agenda, our principal witness today is the Honourable Jane Stewart.

Minister, we welcome you here and we're most grateful to you for agreeing to conduct this postponed meeting at this time.

With the minister we have Susan Scotti, who is associate assistant deputy minister, human resources investment branch. Susan, we welcome you. We have Claire Morris, deputy minister. We welcome you here again. We have David Cogliati, director general, central operations, income security programs. David, we welcome you too.

I have a point of order from Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): I think this has great relevance to the entire meeting that proceeds now, and it's referenced back to the last meeting as well. Mr. Chair, I call in question or challenge a statement you made last time, when you led us to believe the committee cannot call for papers. I could go through the Hansard record of that. I would like to remind the chair that Standing Order 108 clearly empowers committees to send for a person's papers and records.

To quote no less a colleague than our Mr. Derek Lee, a colleague of yours, in his recent book entitled The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers and Records:

Committees generally request documents from persons or organizations by “informal invitation”. If refused, the committee may adopt a motion ordering the person or organization to produce the document.

Beauchesne as well states the very same, and I could at length corroborate that.

The Chair: Maurice, I don't want to interrupt you, but I have since looked up at least some of those references myself and I agree with you. I would be most delighted, when we get to that part of the agenda, to reconsider the motion you put.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

The Chair: I would be glad to do so. I would urge you, though, at the moment to proceed with this matter. You can see we have a room full of interested people, and if we deal with this quickly, I would be glad today to continue on to the remainder of the—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My second point of order definitely has reference to the witnesses we have called before us now.

In respect to last time, you made the comment that they've taken an oath and therefore cannot respond as witnesses because of an oath of confidentiality to the minister. Again, I'm sure you could pull up the references as well.

Our general legal counsel for the House of Commons, in the Canadian Parliamentary Review, says that:

...a witness cannot refuse to answer a question on the grounds that in doing so he or she risks legal action or because an oath has been taken not to disclose the matter under consideration...

Anyhow, the sum of this is that there are legally no grounds upon which a witness can refuse to answer a question.

• 1110

The Chair: Maurice, if I could make the same point, I have not in fact looked up the references, but I would be glad to discuss this point of order with you at the appropriate part—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Am I to understand then, Mr. Chair, that the questions put to the witnesses today would be answered in view of that?

The Chair: If you're dealing with this meeting, I would point out to you that public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. Let's wait and see, if we can, Maurice, what the questions are. I understand the point you're making.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

The Chair: Again, I would prefer to deal with the technicalities of it, but if the technicalities arise as a result of questioning here today—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Certainly.

The Chair: —on the matter of disabilities, I would be glad to engage with you again.

Rey Pagtakhan, on a point of order.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): On this matter, Mr. Chair, when somebody raises a point of order, let us cite the point being ordered and being questioned; let us cite the reference, go to the point, and not debate the issue and not use it as an excuse to detract from the order of the day. I call for the order of the day, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Rey.

Colleagues, Maurice, I appreciate those interventions.

Minister, we're at your disposal. We would be most grateful...I think you have a statement. Perhaps your colleagues do. The normal way we proceed is that the witnesses have their say and then we'll go to questions and answers from members of all parties in the House.

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. It's a pleasure to be here with you today. As the chair mentioned, this is a deferred meeting from December 9, I believe, but the subject matter is extraordinarily important to the work of my department and indeed to that of the government, and it deals with issues focused on Canadians with disabilities.

I do have a prepared text that I'd like to share with you, if I may, and to begin with, I want to tell you that I appreciate the strong commitment that this committee has shown to disability issues over time. That commitment was clearly evident in the work of your subcommittee. I understand that your continued attention to disability issues came through very clearly in the questions you asked of my officials early in December. I want to assure you that I've heard your message as well and that the government has heard the message. We recognize, as you do, that we need to get on with it. We must move forward on issues of concern to Canadians with disabilities.

But I want to go a step further. This is not just our task as a government, but I believe the members of this committee can and should continue to play a leadership role in engaging with members of the disability community and citizens to make progress on the disability agenda.

Mr. Chair, I want to start by making some fundamental points that go beyond disability issues, although they most certainly guide our approach to these issues as well. My approach to disability issues, indeed to all issues, exists in the context of my larger vision of policies and priorities as Minister of Human Resources Development. That vision is anchored in the context of the government's overall policy and program agenda. At the heart of what we believe this government should be doing is investing in a higher quality of life for all Canadians.

The Speech from the Throne was anchored on this priority because investing in the quality of life of all Canadians, and especially those who are most vulnerable, is at the core of Canadians' expectations and concerns for the future.

The economic numbers are very good in this country today, but I believe this impressive growth and the opportunities of the new economy must be linked to social progress for all Canadians. They must be at work for those who are not sharing fully in the benefits of our current good times. They must be at work for all citizens, because we all must play a productive role in the economy and society now and in the future. For me, that means investing in Canadians at all stages of the life cycle. That means investing in Canadians so they have the support and resources they need to make the most of emerging possibilities and so they can overcome the barriers that exclude far too many of them far too often.

Mr. Chair, given that vision and our commitment to improved quality of life, our priorities include helping children get the best possible start in life, and that has to include children with disabilities. Mr. Chair, it means opening doors for young people, including youth with disabilities, and it means ensuring that everyone, regardless of their disabilities, can get the skills and knowledge demanded by our 21st century economy.

• 1115

I firmly believe that to meet these priorities we have to start from a belief in a comprehensive approach. And when I say “comprehensive”, I mean that if the goal of our disability agenda is inclusion—and it is—we have to build disability issues into all the work we do.

That's why, Mr. Chair, access and inclusion lenses are important means of ensuring that inclusion becomes a reality for people with disabilities throughout Canadian life. And they also ensure that our work as the Government of Canada on disability issues is linked to our larger agenda. Within my own department, for example, I am working to ensure that disability issues are fully integrated into the national children's agenda and into our skills agenda.

[Translation]

I want to stress that I don't believe in a made-in-Ottawa approach to achieving this policy vision. We have to build an inclusive agenda. We have to create new decision-making structures that may cross traditional boundaries. Along those lines, I think that parliamentarians, specifically members of your Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, have a role here. You can play an active role in building stronger relations between all sectors, the disability community and citizens.

I also know that provinces and territories are critical partners in making progress for Canadians with disabilities because of their own responsibilities. More generally, Canada's disability agenda has to be a forward-looking marriage of public policy and private action. Quite simply, much of what must take place will do so through the action of the private and voluntary sector, as well as communities and individuals.

At every step of the way, this agenda will be based on creating the kind of country Canadians want to live in, the country they want to build.

[English]

Mr. Chair, the government's approach to disability issues is a good example of how we intend to move forward on our quality of life agenda. As I mentioned in my introduction, I was impressed by the work of your Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, as reflected in your June report. It showed a clear focus on the mechanisms and vehicles that we can use to get more and better results on disability issues. It recognized that all partners have done a lot to set an agenda. We've done a lot to identify objectives, but concerns do exist about whether the right mechanisms are in place to follow through toward those objectives.

I'm pleased to see that there is a high degree of congruence between the objectives of the committee and the objectives that our government has identified.

Clearly we have many shared priorities. We need to improve accountability and reporting on disability. We need to build a comprehensive base of knowledge to inform our policy choices. Mr. Chair, we need to improve access to income and disability supports to increase employment of people with disabilities and to address the needs of aboriginal people with disabilities.

By now, I know the committee has taken a substantial opportunity to consider the government's response to your report. The response reflects our approach to disability issues. First, we believe that expanded inclusion of Canadians with disabilities in the life of their communities and the life of this country is vital. Second, we see disability issues as a shared responsibility. Third, we know this shared responsibility has to involve accountability.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to comment on each of these three priorities. As I said, the first element in our approach is inclusion. Last year's Speech from the Throne noted our commitment to work with, and I'm quoting here, “other governments, the private and voluntary sectors, and all citizens to build communities in which Canadians with disabilities are fully included”.

• 1120

But we're hardly starting from square one. What we will do in the future will build on a solid record up to now. I'd remind the committee that we have made improvements to the legislative framework for Canadians with disabilities, and that the review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, launched by the Minister of Justice, is a vital step in any broader review of legal protections for people with disabilities. We have a range of programs and services that provide support to people with disabilities, and there are specific tax measures already in place. Finally, we're working closely with the disability community and others through a number of reference groups and other fora.

Every one of these measures and many more besides point to our proven commitment on these issues. Still, at the same time, we know we can do more to help Canadians with disabilities so they can participate as full citizens in our country's social and economic life. One of the most fundamental ways we can do so is by developing the access and inclusion lenses that we said we would in our response. The lenses will help by ensuring that the interests and realities of Canadians with disabilities are consistently and appropriately taken into account in all policy and program planning across the government, not just in what we are traditionally seeing as disability issues. After all, and I think the committee agrees, inclusion has to start here in the Government of Canada for us to expect it elsewhere in Canadian life.

The second element of our response is a sense of shared responsibility for inclusion. I say that because it is up to all of us—all sectors, all citizens—to make inclusion increasingly real. The Government of Canada recognizes this, and that's why we're working closely with the provinces and the territories.

In 1996 first ministers agreed that persons with disabilities were a collective priority for social policy renewal. Last year federal, provincial, and territorial ministers released In Unison, a vision and policy framework for a common approach to the issues of concern to the disability community. Now our governments are working together on a joint accountability framework and on an Internet resource called “Disability Links”.

Our government has signed agreements with all provinces on the employability assistance for people with disabilities initiative. We are supporting initiatives in the private sector and voluntary sector for action on employment, on design, on tourism, and on entrepreneurism.

We're engaging disability organizations on a wide range of initiatives. For example, we're working with the Government of Alberta and the Canadian Association for Community Living to host an international congress on the inclusion of children with disabilities in the community. That congress will take place in Edmonton next fall.

As you can see, our work is very much based on a sense of shared responsibility.

Finally, I want to focus on the importance of accountability as we move ahead, but I want to focus on it from the standpoint of the Canadians we're talking about, Canadians with disabilities. Back in December I met with representatives from the disability community. During that meeting they all agreed that we're working toward the same goals. But they were equally clear, as am I, that we need to move from rhetoric to the right kinds of actions.

Canadians expect us to be clear about our goals and to measure and report on outcomes. We agree, and we intend to measure and report on outcomes for persons with disabilities. We intend to do it in an open and transparent way. However, first we need a process to help us define those outcomes clearly so we can agree on what we should be trying to achieve and therefore the steps that are most likely to get us there.

Your committee has shown leadership in this area. I welcome that leadership and look forward to working collaboratively with you as we develop our accountability framework. Your work would complement the activity that is taking place in the federal-provincial-territorial context.

My colleagues in other governments and I have agreed to an accountability framework that includes reporting on societal indicators and effective practices. In fact, our officials held a round table in September with experts and representatives from the community to discuss the kinds of indicators and measures that should be reflected in such a framework. It built on the results of the roundtable session the parliamentary committee held last spring on reporting on outcomes in the social union context.

Let me reiterate a point I've made before on accountability within our own government. That is, responsibility for disability issues touches all ministers, departments, and agencies. That's part of the point in applying access and inclusion lenses in policy and program work across the board. As part of that, the government is committed to developing mechanisms to report to Canadians on our progress on disability issues. These will help to propel us forward on our commitments to inclusion and full participation for Canadians with disabilities.

• 1125

As I've suggested, your committee can play an important role in this work on identifying and measuring outcomes. You can actively engage the disability community and others to help identify the right outcomes, measures, and indicators to help us assess how we're doing. You can offer advice to us on how we can better integrate disability considerations across the government's agenda. My department will work with the committee to ensure that we get this right.

In conclusion, there are some final points on where we go from here. Most importantly, I'm determined to push for progress on disability issues. I see a few short-term priorities that will help us achieve this progress. One priority must be to improve accountability and reporting on disability.

I mentioned the federal-provincial-territorial In Unison report a few minutes ago. The first report on our progress under that framework will be released this fall. Within the Government of Canada, my department is working with other government departments to develop a federal accountability framework. This will include enhanced reporting and access and inclusion lenses.

Another priority will be to improve our knowledge base of disability in Canada. To do that we will continue developmental work on the health and activity limitation survey. I intend to seek renewal of the Opportunities Fund, which has been doing a great job to address employability issues for Canadians with disabilities. That will be part of a broader approach to improving employment of people with disabilities.

Consistent with that goal, I've invited the provinces and territories to sit down with us to develop a labour market strategy that will give Canada a comprehensive and coherent approach to employment for people with disabilities.

Another priority speaks to an issue of key concern to people with disabilities; that is, to undertake research and demonstration projects with the provinces and territories to improve access to and portability of disability supports.

Within Human Resources Development Canada, we intend to introduce a more client-centred approach to the Canada Pension Plan disability program. That approach will mean more personal contact with clients throughout the application process and during their time on benefits. It will extend more support to clients who are preparing to return to work.

More generally, across the Government of Canada we are also working in partnership with other departments to address gaps in federal programs and services for aboriginal persons with disabilities.

Mr. Chair, in all these priorities we will be making our plans and taking action in ways that fully engage the community of people with disabilities. We are pursuing our strategy with them as partners and as citizens who can and should participate in the decisions that affect them and their interests.

I also hope that we will pursue our strategy with this committee. I'm looking forward to your support and ideas as we moved forward together. The collaboration that I foresee will fit with my commitment to explore new mechanisms of building good public policy and revitalizing our social contract for the 21st century. It will fit with my belief that we can create new forms of engagement with all sectors and with all Canadians.

Let me clear here: I want to involve parliamentarians as key partners in this entire agenda and in all our priorities. We all share a concern and a commitment here. We all know that progress and innovation in this area is necessary and is possible. But for us to achieve all we can, we must work together. I want to move forward on the federal disability agenda with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I assume, Minister, that your colleagues will be participating in the questions and the answers. I would remind you and your colleagues, Minister, and I would remind my colleagues, as I always do, that this committee has two more members than the usual committee. I will struggle to allow all members to participate, but I can only do that if the questions are reasonably short and if the answers are reasonably short. So I'm going to continue to try to get a good exchange, even though the questions and the responses may sometimes have to be short.

I have a long list. It begins with Diane Ablonczy, Rey Pagtakhan, Paul Crête, Yvon Godin, Raymonde Folco, and Jean Dubé.

Diane, you have the floor.

• 1130

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Thank you.

Minister, I refer to the government response to the subcommittee report. The response is dated November 1999. On page 3 of the report is the line: “Each year, the Government of Canada spends approximately $7 billion on disability”—

The Chair: Diane, there's something wrong with the sound.

[Translation]

Christiane.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I'd like to make a point, Mr. Chairman. There are hearing-impaired people here, who have access to sign interpretation, but you're going to have to talk slowly. You talk too fast. If we want to show that we are sensitive to their—

The Chair: Do I talk too fast?

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Generally speaking, we speak too fast.

The Chair: Oh, no, not me.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, you talk too fast, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: We have to be sensitive to this reality.

The Chair: I understand and apologize.

Diane.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I refer again to the government response to the subcommittee's report dated November 1999, page 3, where it says “Each year, the Government of Canada spends approximately $7 billion on disability-related programs, services and initiatives”.

Of course, one of the things we need to know in making sure that the needs of disabled Canadians are properly addressed are the resources we have available to us. I wonder if you could give two quick answers so that we set the stage here for what we're talking about. How many disabled Canadians does this $7 billion serve, and can you give me a breakdown of how this money is spent?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, specifically, the $7 billion comes from a number of departments: 63% goes in income supports—that's CCP disability, CCP child, employment insurance sickness, veterans, and worker's compensation; 4% is through departmental initiatives, some of which we will be talking about, I'm sure; 22% comes from transfers to the provinces through the Canada health and social transfer; 7% is in tax measures, such as the disability tax credit, which we've talked about before; and 4% is through employment measures.

In terms of numbers of people we service, to date about 16% of Canadians, or 4.2 million, report some level of disability. As I mentioned in my opening comments, one of the areas that we do have to make improvements in is improving our research and our understanding of those figures and the circumstances faced by Canadians with disabilities.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: One of the things that rather shocked me in your presentation, quite frankly, was this paragraph on page 4:

Canadians expect us to be clear about our goals and to measure and report on outcomes. We agree and we intend to measure and report on outcomes for persons with disabilities. We intend to do it in an open and transparent way.

You have just said you've been spending $7 billion a year on disability measures. Are you telling us today that you have to date had no mechanism to measure and report on outcomes of this spending?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Not at all, Mr. Chair. In fact every year in our performance reports—and I think this is something the government has included in its estimates, and it is a very positive development—we do report on the outcomes of our investments. It has been made clear to me, having been before the subcommittee particularly and having worked with those members of the subcommittee in the recent past, that we can do a better job at outlining specific measures and accountabilities, that we can work together to identify even better ways of providing reporting to Parliament, and that's what I intend by that comment in the report.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: As you know, we are all dealing with the rather shocking revelations of uncontrolled spending in programs supposedly being supervised by your department. So my question is simple: How was the administration of the programs for the disabled, this $7 billion in spending, done any differently from that of the programs that were audited in the audit we spoke about when you appeared here last week?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: In fact programs like the Opportunities Fund were part and parcel of that audit, and, Mr. Chair, the six-point plan that we have implemented will include all of these grants and contributions.

• 1135

I would say, however, that again we know where the moneys are being used. We hear from a number of organizations that are using that money very effectively that they want it to continue. I've received comments from colleagues here as well as from disability groups in support of the continuation of the Opportunities Fund.

Mr. Chair, as we've said, the application of our 6-point plan will apply to these programs. But let's be clear that in our performance approach, we see that our investments are wise ones and that they're making a difference in the lives of Canadians with disabilities.

The Chair: Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But the fact of the matter is, Minister, that as the audit so shockingly showed, you really have no objective way of measuring whether your assertions are in fact true. The audit showed that in 80% of these files there was no financial supervision and in 87% there was no supervision of the way the money was spent. There were not even background checks on the groups to whom it was given.

There is a real question here as to whether disabled Canadians have received anywhere near the value they ought to have received for the $7 billion in spending a year. Is that not correct?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: No, it's not correct, Mr. Chair. Indeed, the honourable member is confusing administrative deficiencies with performance reports. I would suggest again that one of the things we do very well—and that I think the government as a whole is increasingly doing a better job at—is providing performance reports on the overall outcomes of our programs and contributions.

In the context of the audit, Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Chair—I'm sorry, I'm elevating you—

The Chair: I'd be glad to take it.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: —of course we were talking about administrative deficiencies. Our deficiencies and the work we're going to do to improve our administrative practices should not suggest that those groups that are sponsors of moneys through, for example, the Opportunities Fund are not using the money wisely.

I'd also point out and repeat that 63% of these moneys are moneys that are used through the Canada Pension Plan disability fund and supports for children, and that, of course, was not part of the audit.

The Chair: Diane, could you wind it up, please.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Once again, Minister, if you have not done on an objective basis evaluations of how these moneys have been spent and the results that have been obtained, then it is clear that there is going to be real difficulty judging whether there has been value for money in this rather enormous amount of spending. So I ask you, have there been any audits done, either internal or external, since your government took office to determine how effectively this money has been spent or to ensure that appropriate controls and administrative procedures were in place?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, Mr. Chair, I want to clarify for those at the table and for the honourable member that the audit to which she's referring was not a value-for-money audit. We do that in the context of performance reports, and indeed there have been several evaluations of the Opportunities Fund and other parts of our work that feed our performance reports, which are part of our estimates.

In the context again of this audit, I want to make clear—and this seems to be a difficulty—that audit was strictly focused on the administrative practices of the department and the documentation in our files. It was not an audit that talked about the efficacy or the outcomes of these important grants and contributions.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Finally, then, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Make it very short, please.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: —I would ask that these evaluations be tabled for the committee's review and that the minister do so this week.

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The evaluation of the opportunities fund will be completed in June, and of course at that time we'll be glad to make it available.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Do you mean that they're not complete but you're drawing conclusions already that you've made certain—

The Chair: Through the chair, Mrs. Ablonczy. Just a minute.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: We do have results in terms of the Opportunities Fund and the numbers served.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Then I'd like those tabled, please.

The Chair: Next is Rey Pagtakhan. Rey, I apologize because my wife said I cut you off very abruptly the last time. I want to point out to you that you had longer than any other Liberal member. Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. No apology is necessary.

Minister, on the Social Union Agreement, which was signed on February 4, 1999, certainly the disability committee played a crucial role in that Social Union Agreement. Do you agree with the proposition that for the agreement to have an impact on the disability community, there ought to be an identifiable sum of money earmarked for the people with disabilities transferred to the provinces to effect that change?

• 1140

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The question the honourable member raises, Mr. Chair, goes directly to the heart of the issue of transfers and how transfers should be identified. I know that in conversations with members of this committee earlier on, actually at the subcommittee, there were suggestions from members that it may be effective to have amounts of money particularly identified for use by Canadians with disabilities. I think that's a broader policy issue.

I think in terms of the context of my statements today, one of the key messages I want to reiterate is that we do have a shared responsibility among the federal, territorial, and provincial governments. One of the opportunities the social union framework gives us is clarity in terms of how we can sit down together and focus on the broad national challenges and find ways and means of addressing them.

There are specific identifiers through the employability of Canadians with disabilities program and other agreements we have with provinces now that strictly identify moneys for Canadians with disabilities. Work is being undertaken now between me and social services ministers that focuses on how we can improve, for example, disability supports and information exchange, and that's specific money that in some cases we've reprofiled from my department for use in this regard.

But fundamental, I think, in all of this is recognizing that in order for us to make progress, we really do have to accept and believe that for all our public policy developments, we have to write them so that all Canadians see themselves in that policy, that they are inclusive, and that we don't set and create public policy for most Canadians and then subsequently have add-ons for Canadians with disabilities or aboriginal people with disabilities, that really we have to contemplate this in its entirety, and I think we're coming to that point.

The Chair: Rey, the answers are included in your time.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In the hierarchy of government there is a spokesperson for youth, for science and technology, and for sports, among others, on the secretary of state level. Two reports passed. This committee, which I happened to chair, made a recommendation to the government that there ought to be a secretary of state for people with disabilities. What is the sentiment of the minister with regard to that specific recommendation?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: There are a couple of things I would say there. First and foremost, it's my belief that building public policy, programs, and strategies that will reflect and support Canadians with disabilities is the responsibility of everyone. I don't want to create a circumstance where someone can point to a particular area and say “It's their responsibility, so I don't have to worry about it.” To me, that's not the way to build inclusion and to ensure that all our programs and policies are inclusive.

I will say, however, that in my department we have a secretariat of assistant deputy ministers from 25 different departments, which held their first meeting on January 20, if I'm not mistaken, whose job is to focus and bring commonality to the undertakings of the Government of Canada in support of Canadians with disabilities.

The Chair: On my list is Paul Crête, Yvon Godin, Raymonde Folco, Jean Dubé, and Judy Sgro. Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This morning, we are hearing bafflegab once again. I think that this is the first time in my life that I have heard someone say that administrative effectiveness and overall effectiveness are not related. I've never heard that in my life. I can scarcely believe that we have just been told that poor government administrative operations have no impact on results. Sadly, this scandal is also taking a toll on disabled people.

I have with me one of the files that was part of the internal audit. This file pertains to a project undertaken by the Canadian Paraplegic Association referred to as Sharing Best Practices, which means sharing the best conduct practices. The audit revealed that the promoters of this project had received $256,729 over and above the costs incurred. The Department of Human Resources Development, in explaining this amount, said that it was an advance for a new project currently being negotiated with respect to the Canada Job Fund. In other words, $256,729 was given, in advance, to a group of disabled people, and this amount was justified by saying that a second instalment would follow once the project had been approved as part of the Canada Job Fund. Does the Minister feel that this conduct is acceptable? Does she feel that it is appropriate to justify the situation in that manner?

• 1145

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, I believe the honourable member is making reference to a particular Transitional Jobs Fund program that was part of the audit. Reflecting the comments that the auditors made about this particular program with the Canadian Paraplegic Association, I would like to say that it is indeed one of the projects that is being reviewed. That file has not yet been closed, although I believe we have completed 14 of the 37 now, and we have commitments to have these completed in the very near future.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Does the Minister feel it was appropriate for the department to respond by saying that the $250,000 overpayment was merely an advance for a project that was to be approved? Does she support the pre-authorization of an expenditure, not to the tune of $2 or $251.50, but to the tune of $256,729? Does she agree with this comment made in the internal audit?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I would like to make a comment, and then I'll ask my deputy to comment. Only to say that we are looking at this, the comments the honourable member is referring to are those that are in the file, and those are what we are checking. That's part of what's going on with the review of that particular file. But if I could ask the deputy to comment—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I was asking the Minister this question. The answer doesn't require any expertise. And this $256,729 overpayment which was erased and explained away as an advance for a still unapproved project, is this a matter of any relevance? Does she find that this is relevant? Yes or no?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: What I'd like to say is that the results have not been confirmed yet. These are comments that we're now exploring with the organization. I'd be glad to respond to the honourable member when the review of that particular file is complete.

The Chair: If I can point it out, though, Paul, it is up to the minister to decide who responds. If she wishes the deputy to respond, the deputy can.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I accept the Minister's response. I will understand if she does not want to answer the question.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Not at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: But that's what you said: you don't want to answer the question then.

Does the Minister not feel that the affirmation that this $256,729 advance will be charged against a future project which has still not gone through the approval process and will be used to cover previous expenses flies in the face of the statement by the Prime Minister, who repeated yesterday that only $251.50 had yet to be accounted for? In one file alone, we can see that $256,729 was paid incorrectly. Does she not feel that this denotes a clear contradiction with respect to the Prime Minister's position? In addition, we are dealing with money earmarked for programs designed to help the disabled.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I would just repeat again that the inquiry into this particular file is not complete. I would prefer to deal with the facts. This is a comment made from the file, and it is the reason why we are working with the organization particularly mentioned to clarify it.

If I could just make it clear, it's not that I'm not prepared to respond, it's that I don't have the facts yet. When I do, I'll be glad to present them, as I've said I will do.

The Chair: Minister, the committee would be glad to receive that information.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I am very surprised that we don't have information today about this project, which is one of the rare projects dealing with the disabled and which is part of those sectors covered by the internal audit, especially since we know that this has been the most important topic over the past two weeks.

Check the number of cases detected in the internal audit and count how many deal with disabled people. You will note that only one case deals with the disabled, and a payment of $256,729 was made. The Minister does not appear to be able to tell me whether or not she finds it acceptable that such an amount was agreed to as an advance for a project to be approved in the future. Does she not find that it bears a strange resemblance to the many cases that have been publicized and for which authorization was received only six months, one year or two years after the costs were incurred?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, I wish I could report on all 37 of these files. What I'm telling you today is that we've closed 14 of them. We have a commitment to have the rest of them completed as quickly as possible, and that final completion will indeed include this file with the Canadian Paraplegic Association as the sponsor.

The Chair: Paul, if I might, I think I have a point of order from Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, I just wanted to get the list.

The Chair: I'm sorry.

• 1150

Can I then say that there is a point about courtesy toward witnesses—it's in the Standing Orders—and I think we're getting very close to harassment. Do you want to move on, or...?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to ask one final question. I do not intend to harass anyone. Can the Minister tell me if she knows how many cases concerning disabled people were covered in the internal audit? Of the 459 cases detected, how many concern the disabled?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Seventeen.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, 17 cases involve programs for disabled people. This particular case involves $256,729. Does she feel that it is acceptable for the Department of Human Resources Development to view this amount of money as an advance for a future project?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, the point of the review of this particular file is to determine what actually happened. I will wait until I get the results of the inquiry.

The Chair: Paul, one very short question, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have to repeat the question I asked earlier because the Minister has not answered it.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): I have a point of order.

An hon. member: We're bored.

Mr. Stan Keyes: He's going to repeat the same question again. He's received his answer four times from the minister, Mr. Chairman. Please get a handle on this.

The Chair: Okay, Paul, you have one short question.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the member's gift of guessing in advance what question is going to be asked. I'm not capable of reading his thoughts, nor do I think that he can read mine.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, would you proceed, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I will, therefore, repeat my question. Does she feel that this $256,729...

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: ...contradicts...

[English]

The Chair: We have a point of order.

Stan Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: He just raised it again. He just said he wants to repeat the question. You're the chairman. He's repeating a question he's received an answer to four times.

The Chair: I see no reason why he shouldn't repeat the question if that's how he wants to use his time. I see no reason, Stan, why he should not use his time as he sees fit.

Briefly, Paul.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Does the affirmation with respect to the $256,729 that has not been explained not contradict the statement made by the Prime Minister, who affirmed yesterday that only $251.50 had to be recovered? Does this $256,729 not have to be recovered because it was spent, as a surplus, for a given project?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, Mr. Chair, again, I just want to repeat that the whole purpose of the review of this file is to determine what has been going on. I will say again that 14 of the 37 files have been closed, and in those 14, $251.50 has been identified as overpayment. We have not completed the remainder of the files. We anticipate to have them completed in the very near future, and we will continue to make the results of those files, including the results of this one, public.

The Chair: I have Yvon Godin, Raymonde Folco, Judy Sgro, and Maurice Vellacott.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for meeting with us today. Today you are appearing before this committee. I'm wondering why you opted to appear before this committee and not before the members of the subcommittee, since these are the people who drafted the report.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, I would remind you that all members of the subcommittee were invited. It was my impression—I met with some representatives of that committee—that they wanted this meeting, which was postponed because of the filibuster from December.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Very well, Mr. Chairman. The Scott Report includes 52 recommendations and, as far as I know, you have only implemented eight. When will your department implement the other 44 recommendations?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the honourable member for recognizing the Scott report, which really, from my point of view, has been a fundamental undertaking that has galvanized the Government of Canada in regard to issues facing Canadians with disabilities. There's no doubt that work has been significant, certainly in the attention that ministers across our government are now putting to the challenges and opportunities that face Canadians with disabilities. As a result of that report, Mr. Chair, as a result of the report of the subcommittee, as I've mentioned, which is very positive, and in the context of our response here to the subcommittee, we will continue to work toward meeting the challenges that Canadians with disabilities face.

As I say in my opening comments, we have identified a number of short-term opportunities that I think will help us push the agenda forward. But for me, this is truly an issue of priority in the department and something that fundamentally will become part of a whole new way of focusing on issues facing Canadians with disabilities, from the point of view of inclusion, shared responsibility, and accountability.

• 1155

The Chair: Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: When I listened to the report you gave us a little while ago, I had difficulty agreeing with you, and I want to raise the question of what you will do in the future.

You said your department wants to work with handicapped persons and be very close to them. How could you honestly say that when in the last few years your department has cut people on Canada Pension day after day? My office in Acadie—Bathurst has been unbelievably busy.

At one time, they could go see their own doctor and he could qualify them for the Canada Pension Plan for disability. Now they are pushed to go to see specialists, and even if they see the specialist, they get cut off anyway for months and months.

You're saying you're close to handicapped persons and your department is going to be close to them, and every day you're attacking them the same way your department has attacked the people on unemployment insurance. Is your department on quota for the Canada Pension Plan too? The way it's going is totally unacceptable.

I'll tell you, many members—

[Translation]

The Chair: I would remind you that the Chair is still here.

[English]

To the minister, I say the same. The chair is here,

[Translation]

please.

[English]

Mr. Yvon Godin: No problem.

But surely handicapped people have a real problem with the Canada Pension Plan in our country now, and I have hard time accepting the minister saying they want to get closer to them. Do you know how close they want to get? It's to cut them off, all of them. And I want an answer on this, because it's a major problem in our country.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, there are several things. First and foremost, the honourable member is right, there have been changes made to the Canada Pension Plan for disability, as there have been to the Canada Pension Plan in totality. I'd remind the table that this program is managed and is the responsibility of not only the federal government but the provincial government, and so those decisions were made by all partners.

With respect to involvement with Canadians with disabilities, there are a couple of things I would like to say.

First, with regard to Canada Pension Plan for disability, within the context of my department, we, as administrators, are working to look at the way in which the system is applied and how it works. I know the committee received testimony from the associate deputy minister in charge of income security about ways and means of improving the process, shortening the timeframes that citizens have to undertake, being more proactive in terms of face-to-face dialogue with individuals when they're applying for CPP.

But also note that in the context of the go-forward and the context of policies and practices and services that we will continue to develop, I firmly believe Canadians with disabilities have to be part of those developments. Whether they're part of the undertaking by virtue of the engagement you provide to them here at this committee or by virtue of the roundtables and the work the department will do, fundamental in all this is making sure we build public policy with the support of the citizens who will be affected.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: As a result of the amendments made to employment insurance, workers have to work at least 700 hours before being eligible for employment insurance benefits. Throughout the country, in all ridings, we see how very difficult it is to find work. Would the government be prepared to reduce the number of hours which disabled people must work in order to make it easier for them to be eligible for employment insurance benefits paid by the Minister's department?

[English]

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, I would point to the fact that we probably have the lowest unemployment levels in Canada that we've had in two decades, and as a result of that, we are encouraged.

However, one of the points I made in my opening comments is that we have to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the economic improvements we have seen. I take from the honourable member's comment that means he is supportive of the Opportunities Fund and would like to see that continued, that he's supportive of the agreements we have with the province in terms of employability strategies and he would want us to work with those, that he is supportive of the work we are doing with the provinces and territories in terms of bringing focus to issues facing Canadians with disabilities by improving the information-gathering system and the accountability structures.

• 1200

The Chair: Yvon Godin, a very short question and a very short answer.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, one thing they're getting at in that department is that when they say fewer people are on unemployment insurance, it's because they don't qualify any more with all the changes they have made. The 700 hours is really a handicap to handicapped people. Will your department look into it and take that into consideration, and not come out with the excuse they've been coming out with since 1996?

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I would just say again, as I have said on a number of occasions, employment insurance is but one program. We have made significant changes to that to restore it to being an insurance program, and those changes are making a difference.

I would say as well, however, we have programs specifically directed at individual Canadians. The Opportunities Fund is one of those that we know is providing new opportunities and entrance points for Canadians with disabilities into the Canadian economy.

The Chair: I have Raymonde Folco, and then Jean Dubé, Judy Sgro, Maurice Vellacott, and John Godfrey.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague referred to the shared federal- provincial responsibilities for disabled people. In its response to the subcommittee report, the Department of Human Resources Development stated that the largest portion of the 7 -million dollar federal budget consisted of legislative transfers to governments and individuals, and that only a very small portion of this budget was earmarked for federal policies and programs.

I would imagine that this decision would have a significant impact on the Framework Agreement for the Social Union, on the relationship between federal and provincial government responsibilities. In particular, because this department participated actively in the agreement negotiations process, I'm wondering what impact this type of budget, this division with respect to federal and government responsibilities will have on relations and on the framework agreement.

I would even go further. Are we to see this as the first step which may signal that the federal government is stepping back from its responsibilities towards disabled Canadians? That is my first question, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: There are several things, and thank you, colleague.

First of all, I think we can take heart that it is the first ministers themselves who identified, in the context of social policy and Canada and the priorities we should address together as different levels of government, that we do need to work better and more effectively in support of Canadians with disabilities.

That is a recent development that I think gives us focus. That itself ensures that as we discuss social policy priorities and undertakings with my colleagues at the provincial and territorial level, ministers of social services and ministers of the labour market across Canada, Canadians with disabilities are part of our conversations. I can confirm to the honourable member that in the meetings I have had, the issues facing Canadians with disabilities have been raised at each of those federal-provincial-territorial meetings.

From that, I don't anticipate that we will see a smaller role from the point of view of the federal government. Rather, I think what we're seeing is a significantly increased awareness by ministers of this government of the importance each of them can play in looking at undertakings in their departments and ensuring there is an inclusive strategy to all their undertakings, that, as I say, all Canadians can see themselves in that work.

I think that is extraordinarily important. Again, it comes back to an earlier question that rather than trying to hive things off and continue to have separate strategies, in the context of all our policy development we ensure that we are thinking of and reflecting the needs of all Canadians.

Again—

The Chair: If we could keep it fairly short I'd be grateful.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: —with specific reference to the budget, I know one of the areas of concern that has been raised by members and by Canadians and organizations supporting Canadians with disabilities is the importance of the Opportunities Fund. I am certainly hopeful that we'll see some positive results from those undertakings in the budget.

• 1205

The Chair: Raymonde Folco, but very briefly, if you would, Raymonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

My second question deals with a more specific topic. In the department's response, it talked about its priorities with respect to employment, the quality of life of Aboriginal people and the prevention of injuries. But when you take a look at the amount of money that was earmarked for these priorities, we see that most of it went to employment.

Obviously, we realize how important employment is for disabled people, since this enables them to be able to lead an independent and normal life, but I would like to know how the department intends to fund the other initiatives and priorities that were identified, including the quality of life for Aboriginal people and capacity building for the disabled.

[English]

The Chair: I have to say that it has to be a very short response. Perhaps some of the information could be provided in some other way.

Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes. I would just point out that in the department we have reallocated funds to certain priorities in terms of our partnership with the provinces to support Canadians with disabilities. We will continue, as we build the strategy and the accountability structures, to identify financial requirements to support these undertakings.

But again, fundamental in all this, I think, is accepting the premise that in all our programs and policies we have to ensure that Canadians see themselves and that this means using money effectively so that everyone comes along at the same pace.

The Chair: Jean Dubé, then Judy Sgro, Maurice Vellacott, John Godfrey, and Christiane Gagnon.

Jean Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Although you may well find me too persistent, Madam Minister, I would like to go back to the question of the final report, which you published on January 19, and where you deal with programs for the disabled, among other things.

I would like to know when you were informed of the program management problems in your department. I'm not referring to the audit report. This week, I read in the National Post that you were aware of these problems in July, whereas other newspapers are reporting different dates, namely, August, October 5, and November 17 and January 19.

I'd like to know when the Minister was informed that there were problems within the department.

[English]

The Chair: Jean Dubé, can I...?

Minister, I'd like to keep this to the topic at hand.

Mr. Jean Dubé: That's where it is.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Two things: With respect to the article that the honourable member references in the National Post, I just remind the table that I wasn't the minister in July, and secondly, as I've said time and again, in the context of the internal audit, the audit that included the numerous different programs, I was made aware on November 17.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Well, I have a hard time with that. I seriously do.

But we have Mrs. Morris here as well, who is the deputy minister of HRDC. I would like to know from Mrs. Morris if she was aware of problems with HRDC management of these programs, including disability programs, through you, Mr. Chair, during the transition period of the then minister, Pierre Pettigrew, and the new minister.

The Chair: Minister, I reminded the committee already that you are perfectly entitled to have people answer questions. You are the principal witness, though.

Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris (Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clearly, when the minister joined the department and the briefings were prepared as they always are, there was a wide range of policy issues covered with the minister. As she has repeated on several occasions, it included discussions of the Transitional Jobs Fund, in particular, and its conversion to the Canada Jobs Fund. The department, from the time of the Auditor General's report on TAGS, had identified some internal difficulties with that program in particular and had moved to implement a number of measures to deal with that.

• 1210

Looking at our internal management practices in the department is an ongoing feature of our work and it continues to this day. The minister has clearly stated, and is absolutely correct, that she was briefed on the findings of the audit on November 17. It was not signed off from the auditors until October 5, it was not presented until later that month, and the minister was not briefed until November 17.

The Chair: Jean Dubé. Bear in mind the subject matter of our meeting.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Yes. There's a component in there for disabilities, and this is where I am, but not on the audit.

So you're confirming that there were problems this summer when the minister took over the department. If it's not that, clear me up, because that's what I'm hearing. For once I'd like a straight answer.

I want to know if the minister was aware of the problems with these types of programs we're talking about today, programs to help the disabled. Was she aware this summer, in August, that there were problems with the administration of these programs?

The Chair: Minister, it's getting very close to being off topic, but if you would....

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I don't know what to say. In terms of the issues identified in the audit with regard to administrative deficiencies in programs, they were presented to me in the briefing on November 17.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Nice skating. You know, Mr. Chairman, I saw Wayne Gretzky skate.

The Chair: Jean, you have a very small amount of time left.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Okay.

My colleague mentioned CPP disability. I'm going to go into this because I've brought this up many times with this committee. This department has certainly slashed how people qualify for CPP. As my honourable colleague from New Brunswick states, it has become very difficult for these people who are disabled to qualify for CPP disability. The waiting period for people with disabilities has grown and grown over the years and the demand has dropped.

The Chair: The clock is ticking. It's a long question.

Mr. Jean Dubé: It's a long question.

The Chair: And you need an answer.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Well, yes. How much time do I have?

The Chair: There's no official time, but you have a maximum of a minute and a half.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Well, you're interrupting me. So how much time do I have?

The Chair: A minute and 35 seconds.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you very much. You're taking away from my time as well.

I'd like to know what the minister has done and what the department has done. We have people who have doctors' reports. We have people who have specialists' reports that state that these people are disabled.

In December, at the last meeting on this issue, one of your people at the department told me this is not the only factor if they're disabled medically. There are employability factors as well. How can you determine that? When a specialist states that a person is disabled and is no longer able to work and the department receives that application with the proper documentation, the department then says “Well, under our guidelines, this person can work.”

The Chair: I have to ask you to—

Mr. Jean Dubé: Is that correct?

The Chair: I want to remind you that five minutes extra by each member at this committee represents an hour and a half. I'm not denying that it's a very important topic.

Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: A couple of things, Chair.

First of all, I want to remind the honourable member that it's my department that administers the Canada Pension Plan; it is the provinces and the federal government that determine their requirements. So I would suggest to the honourable member that he make his views known not only here; the provinces have a view as to how the Canada Pension Plan operates and he should talk to his provincial government as well.

Specifically with administration, as I mentioned, I know the committee has received testimony from the associate deputy minister on this. We are looking at how we can better work with potential recipients of CPP disability.

The honourable member makes a point, though. Remember that this disability program is in the context of the Canada Pension Plan, the retirement plan. It is essentially the program of last resort. It means, at least in the context of its undertaking, that the individual who would receive CPP disability would really have no opportunity or chance for employment ever. It's like retirement.

• 1215

There may be broader issues that the table might like to talk about in the context of things like sickness benefits, CPP disability, what the safety net of supports for Canadians who find themselves ill or handicapped is, or recognizing the provincial involvement with workers' compensation. If you'd like to study those, they're another area.

The Chair: Judy Sgro, and then Maurice Vellacott.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): To continue on with the same topic, I have many constituents who are 55 and over, who have been in the construction industry all their lives, and who don't qualify under the definition any longer as being fully disabled. Is there any plan to seriously look at changing the definition of “disabled” in order to qualify, or one to produce an alternative program for the adult aged 55 years or older who is disabled but does not meet the category that we currently have as a definition?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: There are a couple of things.

First, I'd just reiterate some of the comments that I made to Mr. Dubé. This might be something the committee would like to look at. One of the areas that we are attending to with the provinces, though, is a focus on older workers and what their reality is in the context of the economy and employment opportunities. That may reflect on the honourable member's question. But again, when it comes to the Canada Pension Plan, that program is under review on an ongoing basis between the federal government and the provinces.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Who determines the eligibility of the people applying for CPP disability?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The department does. Human Resources Development measures them against the qualifications given in the program.

Ms. Judy Sgro: So we are the ones who ultimately make the decision, as the federal government.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Against the backdrop of the CPP, yes.

Ms. Judy Sgro: What plans do you have in your department to reduce some of the barriers that are out there? Do you have control on the amount of money that is put into transportation from the provinces for the disabled? There are two questions there, because I don't want to get cut off.

The Chair: You won't be cut off.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, we are focusing on CPP, the process of CPP disability and the appeals process. You've had testimony on that, and we will continue to work in that regard.

On the other aspect, we are working with the provinces on access questions and on portability of support. That is part of the discussion at the table with the provinces and the territories.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Do you see any headway being made in the next two or three years, or are we going to continue to have reports?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes, I do.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you.

The Chair: Maurice Vellacott, John Godfrey, Christiane Gagnon, Larry McCormick, Judi Longfield, and Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Chairman, based on a previous question by a colleague here, the minister seems to expect that this committee will accept that the programs are achieving their purpose, when she knows proper financial administration is not in place in her department.

Madam Minister, it seems you have tried to uncouple some badly fundamentally flawed fiscal administration from this matter of results. I have a bit of a problem with that when it seems to me to be so inherent in terms of knowing whether there is effectiveness in the use of these dollars or not, dollars shovelled out the door. How do we know they're actually helping disabled people to the degree that you purport? Doesn't that fundamentally flawed fiscal administration in HRD call into question whether or not those dollars are used effectively and are being used to the degree that you think they are in helping disabled people?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: There are several things there. First of all, I want to remind the honourable member, through you, Mr. Chair, that when we're talking about the $7 billion, the vast majority, 63%, is transferred to individuals through income supports like CPP disability, so let's set that aside.

When we're talking about particular programs like the Opportunities Fund, which was part of the review, we do outside reviews and value-for-money undertakings, but those are not what this internal audit was about.

The other thing that I have—and I've just asked my deputy to pull them—are countless letters from organizations, including the Persons with Disabilities Partnership Committees, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres, Chrysalis, the Garth Homer Society, and CAMO. All of them encourage us to continue to provide Opportunities Fund moneys to help Canadians with disabilities find and maintain employment.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That would suggest, then, that the accountability is happening. Are you suggesting it's not amenable or is not subject to the same kinds of problems or fundamental flaws in the rest of the HRD department because they're going directly to individual agencies? Is that what I'm understanding you to be saying?

The Chair: Minister, I have to remind you and Maurice that the chair is here.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Sorry.

I guess there are a number of things the honourable member needs to appreciate. First of all, when we're talking about the $7 billion, only 4% of that is in the context of grants and contributions. The vast majority is in direct transfers to individuals through the Canada Pension Plan.

• 1220

In the context of the internal audit, it is those programs, those grants and contributions like the Opportunities Fund, that were covered by the audit, and indeed which will be subject to our six-point plan for improvement on administrative deficiencies. But when the honourable member makes reference to what I call value-for-money audit and looking at the overall programs and their outcomes, those are part and parcel of outside reviews. We've said we will make the results of the June study public. I offered to him the performance reports that are part and parcel of our annual estimates to Parliament and also the letters from those who are involved to say that these programs really are making a difference in their lives.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I'm somewhat reassured that the bulk of this money is not out of the purview, I guess, directly. But I'm also wondering if some of the anecdotal evidence necessarily in and of itself constitutes evidence of proper administration. I guess I'm struggling with the fact that letters solicited or just coming voluntarily means that.

Could we get a list, as this committee has the latitude to call for, of all the grants that for example have gone to disability groups and so on? Would it be possible to have that come forward to this committee?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Sure. But the other thing.... He talks about the administration. As I say, I'm the first to admit, as a result of our internal audit, that we need to make and that we will make improvements to our administrative processes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And you'd use more than anecdotal evidence in terms of the evaluation, the vigorous assessment of the programs?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes.

The Chair: I'm going to move on, Maurice.

Colleagues, I have eight people on the list already. I would like to include some members of the subcommittee who are here, so I'm going to keep trying to move it on. I don't want to break the flow of it, but we have to move it. So it's John Godfrey, Christiane Gagnon, Larry McCormick, Judi Longfield.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I just want to pursue the line my honourable colleague just began.

It seems to me that accountability comes in two forms. One is the administrative correctness, which has been the subject of much discussion. The second would be effectiveness or outcomes, which is not the same issue.

I want to start with the $7 billion. You strip out the 63% of that money that goes to individuals. If I heard anything from my colleagues over here, it's that the administrative requirements were too stringent, that the barrier was too high, not too low. I then move to the subject of the transfers to the provinces. I guess the problem here is how one would measure both.... I guess it's not an administrative issue; it's just turning money over to the provinces. There may be some question of how you can get at how effective the use of the money is by the provinces in terms of their outcomes.

I guess what I want to know is of the $7 billion, how much are we both directly administratively responsible for in terms of paperwork, and how much can we really be accountable for in terms of measuring outcomes, including the part we turn over to the provinces?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: With regard to the provinces, one of the advancements we've made there is that there is an agreement that we have to have an accountability framework with them as well. As a result of the social union framework, being accountable and transparent to citizens is a priority. And in the context of the moneys that are available for Canadians with disabilities, that will be part of the developments that will be important to us.

In terms of the amount that is equated to the 4%—and I'll ask my officials here to correct me if I'm wrong—in the Opportunities Fund we're talking about $30 million a year for three years, which was $90 million. That of course sunsets in March. The debate that's ongoing now is whether that money will continue to be available.

The Chair: Susan Scotti, very briefly, please. It's okay?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I said it right, I guess.

The Chair: I'm going to carry on: Christiane Gagnon, Larry McCormick, Judi Longfield, Bryon Wilfert.

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, there is also the whole issue of assessing a person's disability. I know some of these people, and I know that it is very difficult, when someone wants to obtain support, to be assessed as a person with a disability, because a disability may be partial, or total. In the case of people who are diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, for example, it is often difficult to evaluate the degree of their disability, because they would have to be in a wheelchair all the time. And we know full well the impact of this disease on daily life. It can completely ruin the quality of their lives and cost them dearly because they need support day to day, even if they only have 20%, 40% or 50% impairment, depending on the degree of their disability.

• 1225

I would ask the government to be sensitive to these people regarding the support that can be provided, as well as when it comes to assessing their disability. Otherwise, there will be persons with disabilities who will not be recognized as such, who will not have access to support and whose lives, in the end, will be ruined by a partial disability.

Which leads me to the point that disability issues are really horizontal issues. They involve tax measures, as well as integrating persons with disabilities and providing them with support on a daily basis. Discussions relating to these issues cannot be limited to human resources, precisely because they involve tax measures for persons with disabilities.

When you cut into the Canada Health and Social Transfer and social programs—allow me to get back to this issue—it has an impact on the medical support that must be provided to persons with disabilities. In Quebec, for example, there is the drug insurance plan. A person suffering from multiple sclerosis must have access to drugs that cost at least $17,000 per year. If we want to be sensitive to the needs of disabled people, then we need to make sure we're not approaching the situation from a narrow angle, and that we're considering the issue as a whole, otherwise we are simply burying our heads in the sand and we are providing insufficient measures. In the case of people living with permanent disabilities, we are asking too much of the parents and of the families, and the efforts of governments, the federal government in this case, are insufficient to truly support these persons with disabilities and their caregivers, on a daily basis.

The Chair: Christiane, you have three minutes.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, in many of the representations the honourable member makes, I am in complete accord.

First of all, absolutely, this is a horizontal issue, and I make my case again that I don't think that hiving it off into one little place is going to allow us to make progress. We do have to understand the opportunities that exist for us to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities, in a horizontal fashion. When you talk about tax measures and when you talk about different programs and services, every ministry in this government has to appreciate and understand it.

That's why I think this committee of associate deputies is so important—because it is horizontal. It's also vertical, between levels of government. I think we're making progress there as well.

With regard to identifying outcomes, absolutely, one of the things we know to be true is that we don't have sufficient enough research to really do the kind of job that we will potentially be able to do. Some of the things from the subcommittee, of which the honourable member is a member, I believe, focused on it.

How well do we use the information that's available from, for example, the Muscular Dystrophy Association? How well do we understand the reality and expectations of what it means to be a person with MS and what the expectations are? Can we fold that into our undertakings in a better way? I think we can.

With regard to children, it's making sure in the national children's agenda that children with disabilities are also very much a part of that. I know that was a concern of members of the subcommittee: they didn't see that reflection clearly enough in the national children's agenda. That is an issue that has been raised with the provinces as well.

I think our support for the health and activity limitation survey for the National Longitudinal Study of Children, including Canadian children with disabilities, is going to help us build that base of research. But engaging organizations and individuals more directly as we make progress is going to be fundamental in getting it right.

[Translation]

The Chair: Christiane, you must be very brief.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Minister, I'd like to ask you a question about the job readiness measures, the support measures for persons with disabilities. I know that recommendation number 5 proposes that an agreement be reached with the provinces and the territories. In the case of the Canadian Social Union, that's a whole different story, but according to the response of the government, there is some thought being given to the issue of the transferability of the support measures. What are your thoughts with respect to the transfer of the support measures for persons with disabilities to the provinces? I am told that you are thinking about it.

• 1230

[English]

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Indeed, it is the provinces that have the responsibility and jurisdiction to develop issues of portability.

We do have agreements now with all the provinces on the issue of employability and how we can better work together to provide opportunities for Canadians with disabilities in that particular regard.

I would only say again that thanks to the direction of the first ministers, issues facing Canadians with disabilities have been brought front and centre to our social policy tables. With continued encouragement from the work of this committee, and at the provincial level, like with parliamentary committees, and with strength and involvement with community groups, we will make progress. We have to.

The Chair: Colleagues, I assure you, when we have these very interesting discussions on very important matters I don't like cutting people off, but I think it's for the sake of the discussion that I'm trying to move it along.

So it's Larry McCormick, Judi Longfield, Bryon Wilfert, Rey Pagtakhan, Mark Muise—who by the way is here as a member of the subcommittee. Then I have Yvon Godin again and then Dale Johnston. So there are a lot of people.

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one small comment.

The Chair: You may, provided that the question be quite short.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: I find the Minister's response this morning quite akin to magical thinking. In response to questions she tells us that she is thinking of transferring measures, however we...

[English]

The Chair: Christiane, I think the Bloc has actually already had more than any other party. I'm doing my best here.

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: But those are your answers, Minister.

[English]

The Chair: Could we proceed to the next questioner, please?

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.

The minister just said that attention must be given to this very important topic that's being discussed here today. I see that more attention has been given to it recently, following up a few years ago with the Scott report and now with the subcommittee.

My concern, Minister, of course is probably nothing new. I want to just bring your attention to my situation that I often see across this country in rural Canada. Access is not as easily available to people in rural Canada, as the distance makes a great difference. I'm thinking about people coming to my office recently regarding the Canada Pension Plan disability. Yes, the waiting time has been reduced. And yes, the waiting time is still too long.

It's great that you've actually decided to use live people to respond on the telephones now. This is probably more important with disability-related issues than any other situation. But you know, when these people have to appear before a tribunal, before boards, and go back to specialists, it's a real obstacle for these people in rural Canada. I'm not sure your officials recognize this.

I ran into someone who works on one of those boards on the weekend. I had a conversation, and I asked where they were working. They mentioned several centres across Canada. But it's a long way from people—even in my riding in southeastern Ontario—to get to those centres. I think we have to make a little more effort there.

The Canada Pension Plan Review Board seems to have a backlog. Yes, the backlog is less than it was previously, but.... I'm sure there are qualified people out there, whether the department needs a pool of people or whatever. They tell me that perhaps they're waiting for a medical person, or they're waiting for someone with a law background. I don't think enough effort is being made to serve the people here.

I know Mr. Dubé will remember when we had the excellent meeting with your deputy minister in December and he talked about a pilot project you're doing now. I think it's across the country you're trying a few of these. I would ask you to move forward with these types of projects, because it is the people who are most in need we are talking about here.

Thank you.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to respond to that?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Just very quickly.

I can just say to the table that as a member of Parliament myself, I know that a significant number of the representations I get in my constituency office are with regard to Canada Pension Plan disability. That's why when I came into the portfolio I focused on this particularly and why, when we're talking about improvements, it really is a reflection that as a member of Parliament I bring my attention to it.

We have increased the number of adjudicators. We have increased the number of judges sitting both at the review tribunal level and at the Pension Appeals Board level. I think that's going to deal with our flow.

• 1235

Without question, it's fundamental when we're talking about this complex program, CPP disability, that we spend more time at the front end talking to people about what their disability is and whether or not it is likely for them to have this program available to them. We have to do a better job at that, and that's where the pilot projects are coming in.

The Chair: Judi Longfield and then Bryon Wilfert.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I know you're aware that the employment issue is just a small part of the disability file. I've read that the associate assistant deputy minister from the investment branch has the disability file. Isn't that branch responsible essentially for employment and employment ability? So how are we going to deal with these other issues? How do we ensure that they don't get lost and are not funded?

I know we're working on it, and the disability pension is one. But essentially it's employment and employment ability, and I'm just afraid that some of those other things are going to get lost.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I would just recognize that the honourable member has made representations about the continuation of the Opportunities Fund and has recognized that this is one of the very important grants and contributions we have in place that make a difference in the lives of Canadians with disabilities.

Our work with the provinces on the employability programs is there. It's continuing.

In summary, all I can say is that the priority of Canadians with disabilities has without question been increased subsequent to the Scott report, subsequent to the work of a specific subcommittee of this committee that has drawn attention to it and asked ministers to come one by one by one about how they're making differences.

I would just reiterate, as I did in my opening comments, that I think the role of parliamentarians is absolutely essential and critical to ensuring that the government maintain a focus and a priority on behalf of Canadians with disabilities.

The Chair: Judi Longfield, very briefly.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, I was a member of the subcommittee, and I feel badly that I was so late in the—

The Chair: I understand the interest of all members in this topic.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay.

I thank the minister for her answer, but I'm still concerned with issues like housing for people with disabilities. I mean, where does it fit in? Who's taking the lead role and who's coordinating all of those? Is it Human Resources Development Canada? Is it someone else?

I know there are meetings with various deputies at various levels, but how do we ensure that we have that focus so that we're addressing those issues? As I say, employment is good, education is good, but there are other issues. And housing is another. I mean, I think you'll understand that I have a great interest in the homeless file, and people with disabilities are among those in that area.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: What I can say is that we can build on one of the recommendations of the subcommittee, which is to include access and disability lenses in all the policies of the Government of Canada. That is one thing in the response to the subcommittee that is a priority that has been accepted by Treasury Board and across all departments. I think that really does bring focus to this issue.

The Chair: Bryon Wilfert, then Rey Pagtakhan, then Mark Muise.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister.

I have just a comment first, and then a question. They're not related.

On the CPP disabilities, I certainly recognize that there have been changes made and some improvements made in terms of dealing with live people on the phone, etc., but the bar is very high. Members of Parliament are not necessarily equipped, and certainly their constituency offices are not equipped, to do the job of the department—nor should they do the job of the department.

The difficulty is when people come into your office, you are dealing with people who have a specific issue, and we are not the physicians. They produce all sorts of information for you, documentation. It's not up to me to adjudicate what they present to me. There is the material that is presented by the office to walk people through, etc., but at the end of the day I cannot provide them with the type of advice they really want.

I think the department has to do a much better job in equipping and providing the kinds of tools members are going to need in order to deal with this very critical issue. Quite frankly, it's not good enough. We are making progress, but to my view we have a long way to go. I make that as a comment. You may want to respond to that, Minister.

On the other issue I wanted to raise, the In Unison report, you're going to be making a report in the fall and presumably obviously coming to this committee. We talk a lot about the accountability framework, particularly when you mention in your comments, Minister, other departments. Can you briefly give us some indication as to what objectives are you looking at. What are some of the elements and what kind of measurable indicators are you looking for? And what type of overall timeframe are we examining here in terms of being able to respond effectively by the fall?

• 1240

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes to the first issue. Again, that's the rationale behind having more people on the end of the phone lines and dealing with individuals more directly through the department. Hopefully with that, the lines at your constituency office will be reduced. Also, it's why we've added 190 nurse practitioners, who are the adjudicators at the first level, to make some determinations about the information that's provided. But again, it's a very challenging piece of your work and I appreciate that.

With regard to what's happening on the accountability framework that we're developing with the provinces, I can say that officials are working now at all levels of government—territorial, provincial, and federal—to develop the accountability structure. I would ask Ms. Scotti to make some comments about the details there very briefly, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Susan Scotti (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have two initiatives under way on accountability. One is with the provinces and territories, which is designed to look at societal indicators that relate to persons with disabilities and to group together effective practices that are being pursued across provincial governments to respond to issues of disability. So that's an initiative we have underway with ministers of social services at the provincial level.

At the federal level, we have a subcommittee of an interdepartmental group of assistant deputy ministers that represents 25 departments across the federal government that is looking at the same question of what kinds of reporting mechanisms are needed to report on what the federal government is doing in this area, to develop some outcome indicators of progress on this file and to look at the whole question of how we can come to some consensus on what would be an appropriate access and inclusion lens to be used for policy development purposes.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: And I want to ensure that the committee is involved in that.

The Chair: I have Rey Pagtakhan, then Mark Muise.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back, Madam Minister, to the issue of the CPP disability. We know we have three criteria: severe, prolonged, and incapable of any gainful employment. The bottleneck is at the last criterion, capability of any gainful employment. And of course the capability is in the eyes of the beholder, from the eyes of the department and the government and from the eyes of the employer. Whose eyes shall prevail? I would like the department to address that issue.

Secondly, in the history of the CPP tribunal, changes have been made in the last Parliament where now we have the chair headed by a lawyer, presumably to ensure that the analysis of evidence is clear. Secondly, the other member ought to be from the health care field, and the third member can be a citizen at large who can be a lawyer again, or who can be another health care worker.

So my question is, how come cases that go to the CPP tribunal are cases appealed by citizens who felt aggrieved, Madam Minister? At the level of the appeal, there is a counsel for the government, who is usually, in my understanding, a lawyer, and yet the citizen has no legal counsel and is not even entitled to legal aid. And so members of Parliament have appeared and I have appeared.

But now that we have this tribunal, when the citizen wins the case, the government appeals the case. My question is, if we have faith in the institution that Parliament has created, let it be the final court of appeal. When the government loses, the government has to accept the decision of the CPP tribunal.

Alternatively, Madam Minister, I would submit that when the appeal has to go beyond the CPP tribunal, let it be that the government provides legal counsel to the citizen. Otherwise, the citizen who cannot afford, the citizen who feels she is disabled, she is not able to work—how can she get the legal fund to help her represent herself in the higher tribunal of justice?

So, Madam Minister, in all sincerity, let us revisit the criteria. For this it is not fair. Let us have faith in the CPP tribunal and I think we will achieve a greater level of justice.

• 1245

An hon. member: Bravo!

Mrs. Jane Stewart: There are two things, Mr. Chair.

First of all, in the context of the CPP disability, again, it's in the context of the act and the determinations are in the context of the act. We look at different programs and supports that are available as income support for Canadians who are less able to work. They include the CPP disability, which is the level of last resort. We have workers' compensation at the provincial levels, we have employment sickness benefits through employment insurance, and that structure, and it may be time for a committee like this to look at that undertaking.

On the second issue, again, speaking as a member of Parliament, one of my great concerns is precisely the one the honourable member brings forward. I've asked the department to provide me with statistics about numbers of individuals who come before the tribunal and the appeal board with and without counsel and what the results of that is, because, to me, it's precisely this undertaking. If an individual comes forward, are we expecting that they should be able to present their case? Is that the matter of course? Is it now the common rule that they have to have someone make their representation? I want to know that, and I want to build on the actual facts and the data to understand if we can include and improve the process precisely in regard to—

The Chair: I'm moving on, and I know of Rey's personal and professional interest in this matter.

Mark Muise is here as a member of the subcommittee. Mark, we welcome you very much. We're very pleased to see behind you Dr. Carolyn Bennett. I thought I saw her a moment ago, the chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you have a full agenda, so I'll try to be very brief.

But my opening comments have to do with the people we're speaking about today. We're speaking of probably the people who are the most in need and the least able to represent themselves. And I have to, on the CPP, without saying any more, say that I support my colleagues Mr. Pagtakhan and Mr. McCormick, who have echoed my sentiments exactly. I want that to be on the record.

Another very important thing—and I've spoken to the minister on this one—is the Opportunities Fund program, which is very effective. It's on the ground, it's quick, and it provides a very good benefit to disabled individuals to bring them back into the mainstream and to the workforce, and with much fewer bureaucratic nightmares than the other programs they have to put up with. Make sure the proper checks and balances are there, Madam Minister, but anything you can do to make sure that thing stays there is very important.

Another very important thing—and I know it might not be directly related to you, but it spreads across the bandwidth—is the qualification for disability tax credit. Again, families with either disabled adults or children face an undue hardship financially and from a stress level and all these things. And I think that this qualification is much too harsh. It goes against what it's there to do.

Another very important thing—and, Madam Minister, I have to tell you that I'm speaking as someone who knows. I have a 13-year-old daughter who has cerebral palsy. I think I'm very fortunate that I have the ability to take care of her financially, but I see other families that don't have this ability. I think one of the other issues that is more long term than the other topics we touched on is the future of how these individuals will be able to live in society after they have become adults. My biggest fear in life is not when I'm here to take of my daughter, but when I'm gone what happens to her. She hasn't contributed into CPP, and even if she did, it's hardly enough to keep her going.

So there's a huge strain on families there, not just in the short term, but the stress of having to deal with the ongoing thoughts and concerns of what happens to your children in the future. When you have children who can take care of themselves, they can still get into trouble, but they have the tools necessary to take care of themselves. But when you have a child who doesn't have that ability, there are serious problems there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thank you to the honourable member for support for the Opportunities Fund program, and from my sense, that's echoed around the table.

In terms of the disability tax credit and other tax measures, the honourable member recognizes, as did, I think, the honourable member Madame Gagnon, the horizontality of the issue here and that there are requirements, not only through grants and contributions but through tax programs and through other efforts that have to be broadened to include Canadians with disabilities. We have, I would note, made changes to the tax structure, particularly in response to caregivers and the need for domestic support for individuals. I think that will continue to be an area where we have to improve. It also speaks directly to our role and responsibilities with the provinces and when we're looking at pilot programs in terms of portability of supports and management of supports, where that connection comes in at the social policy table.

• 1250

Mr. Mark Muise: Madam Minister, since you're here today and you're the lead minister, when you're at the cabinet table I think you're the perfect person to spread that message and maybe shake the tree so that proper things can happen.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I will continue to do that.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chair: Mark, is that okay?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

The Chair: Yvon Godin, and then Dale Johnston and Carolyn Bennett.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to say that I too agree with what my colleague Mr. Muise said regarding the qualification for the disability tax credit. In order to qualify now, the criteria are such that a person almost needs to be completely disabled and in need of the care of another person. When this is the case, the drugs already cost enough. And all the people in this situation are not always covered by a drug plan. So I hope they will take this into consideration.

For my question, I'd like to come back to one of the answers you gave regarding the Canada Pension Plan. You mentioned that it was an agreement between the provinces and the federal government. If this is an agreement between the provinces and the federal government—I know that this has to do with the compensation program whose costs are shared by both levels of government—why is it that people who are eligible for the compensation are not eligible for the Canada Pension Plan?

[English]

It's because of the programs they have together, such as compensation, WCB, and you have the Canada Pension Plan.

You were saying a little while ago that there was an agreement between the provinces and the federal government, and that's how I got it. It was an agreement between the two. Those programs work because of negotiations done by the federal and provincial governments. Many times people qualify for the provincial compensation and do not qualify for the Canada Pension Plan. It's two different programs really.

I'm just going with what you have said to me. We have lots of difficulty with what is provincial and federal when it comes to qualifications.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The provincial compensation practices are provincial and under their jurisdiction. When we come to the Canada Pension Plan, it's a common program that the province has to approve amendments to for the act.

But the issue of full versus partial compensation is one that I know has been raised by the subcommittee. Again, it's understanding all the different avenues, whether it's a disability tax credit, tax measures, whether it's CPP disability, whether it's provincial programs of worker's compensation, whether it's EI sickness benefits—how does that all fit together, and do we really have a safety net that is acceptable for Canadians with disabilities now? If not, it is an area of potential study for this committee and one that I think would yield some interesting results.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dale Johnston, and then Carolyn Bennett, and then, colleagues, I'm going to wind it up.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister, for appearing today.

My question is along the lines of the CPP disability as well, Madam Minister. First of all, I should say I'm presenting this question not only on behalf of the people who apply for CPP disability through my office, but also for my office staff, who have to tell these people that the norm is that they have to wait several months to appear before a tribunal and present their case.

I'm just wondering if the minister could tell us what percentage of applicants for CPP disability are approved on their first go-around, that is to say, who don't have to go through an appeal process right off the bat.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thirty-five percent.

Mr. Dale Johnston: It seems as though the other 65% come to my office, Madam Minister.

One of the things that I see wrong with this is either.... It's not that the bar is set too high—I think it makes sense that their disability should be severe and prolonged and that they're unable to sustain work—it's the matter of trying to define just what exactly that says and what it means. I would think that it's really unfair. A great majority of the people who do come to my office, and I'm sure other member's offices as well, do go through the hoops, and after many, many arduous months, they are approved for disability. It would seem to me that we should be more clear about whether they qualify or not. Would the minister like to comment on that?

• 1255

Mrs. Jane Stewart: As my deputy is just whispering to me, sometimes an individual's situation changes in the course of this length of time. More specifically, again, to reiterate, one of the undertakings we are putting into place—it's now in a pilot form, and I anticipate it will be a successful series of pilots—is to spend more time with potential recipients, those who are applying, to sit down and talk with them about what their circumstances are, what the probability of being accepted really is, so they've got that information, instead of having, even at the early stage, to create this relationship of paper and back and forth. This is one of the things that I think is tremendously important for us as we try to apply and administer the CPP disability program more effectively.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, any improvement would certainly....

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I hope you will be seeing improvements, in all honesty, because of the increased numbers of personnel that have been hired at all levels of the process, but also as a result of some new strategies.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I've noticed that the minister uses the word “accountability” in her report, and certainly that's an appropriate word for the minister to use, I would think. I also believe that accountability pertains to accountability to the client or the person who's applying as well. So I hope that applies there.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Carolyn Bennett, who is the chair of our subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, if I could help with Mr. Johnston's problem, I think one of the things our subcommittee is looking at is also that there's a lot of third-party people pressing people to apply for CPP, such as the private insurance companies, who I think as physicians we knew wouldn't qualify. I would like to see us be able to separate that group out of the overall statistics. I think we've been looking toward some of those numbers or some sort of tick-off at the top of the form that asks if somebody made you apply.

I was thrilled that the minister's remarks had the commitment to undertake research and demonstration projects, because as you know, one of the key priorities of the disability community is portability and access to disability supports. As we examine in the subcommittee that the multijurisdictional nature of disability sometimes means that nothing happens, we can do the federal things in terms of taxes or the things we can do.

I guess I was also heartened by the commitment in the Speech from the Throne that we would use this social union framework agreement. I was just wondering what you thought the next steps would be on the federal-provincial negotiation or pilot projects and whether with added outcomes you would be prepared to come and chat with us at this subcommittee.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I am always available to come to the subcommittee and learn from the expertise that has been gained by what I view to be a very effective engagement of Canadians with disabilities. In my comments, I say again that I think the role the department can and should have with the subcommittee is one that we really have to explore so that we can really squeeze out the direction and the advice from those of you who have really, quite frankly, become quite expert in this field, and that we can then use, along with our own engagement of interest groups, Canadians with disabilities themselves, to improve our policies and strategies, and that that too finds its way into the relationship we have with other levels of government.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: Thank you.

The Chair: Minister, if I might, thank you and your colleagues for the presentation today. It's very important that we remember that the full title of our committee is the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This is the home for all the problems associated with those matters.

• 1300

As you know, this is the largest committee on Parliament Hill. One reason for that is the size of the department, of which you are the minister. We understand that. The other is what I just said, the fact that we do deal with this area of the status of persons with disabilities. And we were very pleased when Parliament allowed us—we were one of the few committees to do so—to have the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, as well as our Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk.

So we greatly appreciate your being here. I want to thank your colleagues who participated, and I'm going to come back to John Godfrey in a moment. So, Minister, thank you.

We perhaps have other matters to deal with. Colleagues, my suggestion—I will come to John Godfrey in a moment—is that we meet at 11 o'clock on Thursday and proceed through the remainder of our agenda as it is printed on this form.

I have a point of order, I think, from John Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: My only point of order, which does not relate to the minister, is simply that by Thursday, February 17, the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk was supposed to give a work plan that would relate our future intentions to the work of the main committee. I just want to say that we're not able to do so right now because we don't know the future work of the main committee. I would beg the indulgence of the main committee if we delay establishing a work plan until we have a better sense of what the main committee is up to, so we can be helpful.

The Chair: Okay. We did receive a sort of interim report, I recall, before Christmas—

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes.

The Chair: I don't see any objection to that. It's essentially something of an extension of the other subcommittee.

Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the indulgence of the committee to deal with the two items that I have on the order paper, very quickly.

The Chair: Well, could I hear them first, Dale, so that I can—

Mr. Dale Johnston: I would like to withdraw, first of all, motion one, standing—

The Chair: And the second one is?

Mr. Dale Johnston: The other is that I would like to invite the Minister of Labour to appear before the committee.

The Chair: I think I'm in agreement and have no objection to the first one.

Regarding the second one, Dale, might I point out that you've given notice. It's item 13 on our agenda, and we will proceed to that on Thursday, if that's okay.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, I'd like to speak to that just very briefly.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Time is of the essence here, and I'd like to make the invitation as early as possible in order to allow the minister to prepare.

The Chair: I am concerned about your second request, because the order we have in there is the order in which we received motions and for which we had 48 hours' notice. Now yours is on there, and I will do everything I can to make sure that your motion is dealt with on Thursday, even though it's number 13.

Colleagues, are we comfortable with that?

We'll adjourn now until our regular meeting time, which is 11 a.m. on Thursday. Thank you very much.