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]

Thursday, April 26, 2001

• 1114

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Order, please.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is a discussion on children and youth at risk, and on proposing, promoting monitoring, and assessing of initiatives aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian society.

On the agenda, we're going to have a presentation, first of all, by John Godfrey, who is chair of our Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk. That will be followed by a presentation by Carolyn Bennett, chair of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. With Carolyn, we have Joan Westland, from the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work; Laurie Beachell, national coordinator of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities; and Paul Young, national chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities—and we welcome you both. And I understand that François Bélisle, of the Canadian Paraplegic Association, may be joining us later. As the presentation by John Godfrey is going to be first, François may well arrive exactly in time.

• 1115

Perhaps I can say for the record and for all of us here that the idea behind this meeting is for our subcommittees—which have done sterling work during the many months while this committee was engaged in public hearings on the HRDC grants and contributions, for example—to give us an idea of what they have done and what their plans are, so that the main committee can indulge in the work they have done, and so that we have a better feel for what they're doing on our behalf. It may well be that the subcommittee has suggestions for what the main committee should be doing, and we do understand that.

In the case of the witnesses who are here, you should know that HRDC is a very diverse department. As a committee, we find ourselves dealing with very diverse topics, which is the reason why we've been allowed to have the two subcommittees.

And by the way, I have to say we are very proud of them. I think I say that on behalf of the members on both sides of the House. The work that's been done by the subcommittees has been very worthwhile.

So perhaps we can begin with a short presentation by John Godfrey, who is chair of the Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

I would first like to note the presence of a few other members of the Sub-committee, including Ms. Guay and Mr. Tonks. Usually, we also have Ms. Davies who is not here this week, unfortunately. So we have a good representation of the Sub- committee on the Standing Committee.

[English]

I think it's important to note that I'm in this quasi no man's land, being half associate member and half witness, so I think I'm perfectly placed, in a symbolic fashion, in this manner.

What I would propose to do is to talk about five things briefly, Mr. Chairman, beginning with a short history of the subcommittee, which can be found as well in the briefing note that was in the binder. It's called “Briefing Book for the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities”.

The second thing I want to talk about briefly is the early childhood development deal that was struck last September, and the follow-up work the subcommittee is doing on that. You will have further background information on that, including a copy of the agreement signed on September 11. It says “First Ministers' Meeting Communiqué on Early Childhood Development”. As well, you have Marta Morgan's speaking notes from the subcommittee yesterday. Those are hot off the press, and they give a greater level of detail.

Thirdly, I want to say a word about our future plans concerning aboriginal children and youth.

Fourth is a word about the Social Union Framework Agreement and the renewal process. I think we wish to make a gentle suggestion to the main committee about an important piece of work it might wish to consider.

And finally, I'll just make reference to the suggested work plan for the balance of this parliamentary session, until June.

Let me start, then, with the history, which is nicely outlined in the briefing note. I want to say just a few things.

First, I think this subcommittee—and perhaps I may say the same of Carolyn's subcommittee on disabilities—is an example of Parliament and a parliamentary committee working at its best. What unites the people on such committees, whether it's on children or on disability, is that they attract people who have a common interest in the subject matter. Because these are horizontal issues—that is to say, because they cover several departments, and not just HRDC, but Health, Justice, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and so on—it's good that in Parliament there is a place where you can find a home for these sorts of issues. I think we are that home for children. The atmosphere in the committee has always been one of complete cooperation and one of enormous collegiality, and I think we've been extremely effective over time.

• 1120

As we say on the first page of your binder note, we do take a view—we have a theology, if you like—that children are, in a sense, a societal responsibility for all of us. When we look at early childhood, our increasing tendency to target certain at-risk groups has excluded the importance of focusing on all of Canada's children. Understanding that may be the best way, in fact, of helping at-risk children. We see that any effect of family and child policy always has two components: an income side and a service side. Finally, because of this horizontal nature, we have to work both within the federal government across departments and with the provinces across departments to come up with a coherent view of how we create integrated services for families and children, particularly in the first instance for the families with young children from zero to six.

We also have made it an operating principle of our committee that we want to focus a great deal on outcomes and indicators, so we know what we're doing, and so we're not just simply asserting that we've made a whole lot of investments but are not willing to measure how they're going or check them out.

I will not review all of the recommendations of the various reports we have made over time, but I would note that I think we can take some credit as a subcommittee for some of things that found their way into the 2000 budget, including the increase in the Canada child tax benefit; an income supplement; doubling the duration of employment insurance maternity and parental benefits; pushing forward on the challenge, if you like, of the federal government to the provinces to come up with an action plan to support early childhood development services; and the tax measures that were implemented and actually affect families with children.

I think those things that appeared in the budget, along with the fact that we got, successfully, in September, the early childhood development agreement, with a five-year investment of $2.2 billion, constitute some of the success of the involvement of the committee on this file. I don't want to say we were entirely responsible, but I do think it's great that things we advocated found their way into the budget process, found their way into the Speech from the Throne.

I want to move on to our current work—this is the second point—on the early childhood development agreement. As I said, we've given you a copy of both the agreement and Marta Morgan's comments from HRD yesterday on the agreement. I don't propose to get into the detail of either the agreement or her comments, but I think what the committee sees itself doing now is making sure this agreement works, and that it works so well that we can persuade the federal government to put more money into the agreement, as was promised in the Speech from the Throne. If we make this thing go, this is what we would view as a downpayment.

The initial tasks we've set for ourselves are to help all governments, including our own, meet a couple of deadlines. The first deadline is this September, when all the signatory governments have said they will have a baseline inventory of existing investments in early childhood services. The second deadline is in September 2002, when all governments have to tell how they're coming along in developing comparable indicators that will allow us to measure the effectiveness of these programs.

The work of the committee from now until June is really going to be, first, in understanding this deal in some detail—which we got into yesterday—and, secondly, in understanding how the measurement piece or the outcome piece or the transparency piece is going to work, and how we can help it work, how we can give that a public forum.

We view the work of our subcommittee and the work of this committee as part of the transparency. We are part of the spirit of openness, of engagement, and of letting the air in. We see ourselves as very much part of the SUFA process, if you like. So that is the second major piece of work we are undertaking.

• 1125

The third thing I want to mention is that, because of the Speech from the Throne, we see we have an additional and extended role to play in understanding better the situation with Canada's aboriginal children and their families. Once again, we think there are two components to this, as always: the income side and the service side. Once again, because it has all these difficulties of horizontality, the way in which we deal with aboriginal children and their families is challenging in that it's across federal government departments. It deals with, of course, the whole governance structure of first nations. We have to deal frequently with provinces on this file. It's extremely complex, but it's very important work. The committee has decided that this will be the chief focus of its work in the fall.

There are a number of things currently going on—for example, between the Department of Indian Affairs and the human resources department—concerning how the early childhood deal will be implemented on-reserve and off-reserve. We don't quite know how that's going to work yet, so we view both the role or the place for aboriginal communities in the early childhood development deal as being important to understand. We're going to have a brief overview of that before we go away, but we want to understand the whole package of services. We want to understand the aboriginal head start initiative and how that fits in. I don't think we're going to be restricting our activities simply to the zero-to-six population. I see us going up to about twelve, as the committee has desired, looking both on-reserve and off-reserve. So that is work for the fall.

The fourth thing I want to touch on briefly—and I dare say I hope it has some implication for this committee—is the fact that the early childhood development agreement, and indeed the health accord, were undertaken, as it were, under the umbrella of the Social Union Framework Agreement. It's important to note that the Social Union Framework Agreement is coming up for renewal. Let me read you the words from SUFA:

By the end of the third year of the Framework Agreement

—which will be next February—

governments will jointly undertake a full review of the Agreement and its implementation and make appropriate adjustments to the Framework as required.

Now, let me say that those words are more complicated than they first appear, because you're not quite certain whether you'll make the adjustments required by the third year, by February, or whether you just start the process then. But whatever the case, in the spirit of SUFA itself, which is again open and transparent, I think it becomes really important that there be a place in Parliament for us to review this. It is entirely contradictory that SUFA should be renegotiated behind closed doors.

All of the accountability and transparency...the medium has to be the message on this one. There has to be a place where we can do this. Why is it important? It's important because it's about how we make social policy in this country in the future when there are joint jurisdictions. One cynic has written the following to me:

One day, the federal government may want to get back into the business of formulating national social policy (as opposed to plans where we unilaterally give pots of money to the provinces, ask for no guarantees as to how it is spent, and then hope for the best and declare a political victory....)

Those are harsh words, but they're worth considering.

If we think this matters, then in the spirit of getting at things early, this is the time to be thinking about it. It's not after they've done the deal, and not to consider a text, but now. I would invite them to do that. Let me just give you two “for instances”, and then I'll move on briefly to the work plan.

For instance, one of the principles of SUFA is to ensure access to basic social programs of reasonably comparable quality to Canadians wherever they live or move in Canada. There's the notion of the race to the top. If that is so, does that mean for the Early Childhood Development Agreement, for example, that because Quebec has the best regime for child care in the country, that's the standard to which the rest of the country ought to aspire? That's an important question.

• 1130

Second is the whole way in which we develop participation for Canadians in developing social priorities and reviewing outcomes. The way the early childhood deal was done, for example, was again behind closed doors. There was no place for the rest of society in that agreement.

So I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, I can't tell this committee to do its work plan, but I think this is an important task to be undertaken by somebody, and sooner rather than later.

Finally, let me just remind you that I have given you the work plan. We have tried to work with other initiatives that are happening around the town. For instance, next Monday we are encouraging our members to go to the seminar on social indicators. Next Wednesday we will be focusing on the aboriginal part of the ECD deal. Because there is a major conference in Ottawa on early years and communities, we're going to try to scoop them by grabbing some of those witnesses on the week of Wednesday, May 9. We are doing more work on indicators on May 16. I guess we agreed that we're having this joint meeting on May 30 with the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. We think it's important that we work horizontally ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, that is an overview of where we've been and where we're going. I hope I haven't misrepresented....

[Translation]

I hope I have given an appropriate reflection of the views of my colleagues,

[English]

and I'm sure they will straighten me out if I've misrepresented anything.

The Chair: If I could ask first, would any of our colleagues who are on John's subcommittee care to add anything to or comment on what he's just said?

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey: Ms. Guay, do you want to add something?

[English]

The Chair: Alan Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think John Godfrey has covered what was discussed yesterday very well. We had two presentations, one from Health Canada and one from HRDC, where they indicated that the period we are going into is one of evaluation, measurement, and development of indicators. We will be very interested to see how that transpires.

A few points were raised, and I might mention the ones I raised. In relative terms, we invest $18 billion through health expenditures. The $2 billion of the early childhood program then seems like a small amount. The initial concern was, once that money is transferred to the provinces, is it being allocated to children's programs? We were given an emphatic yes, it is. It is not being laundered to be put into other programs, and the provinces have in fact stayed within the principles as agreed under the Social Union Framework, in addition to the agreement that was reached on the early childhood program. That's the first thing.

Because we're talking about community-based programs and trying to develop a platform of horizontal coordination for children's programs, the second thing I was extremely concerned about was similar to what we've seen recently with the Fraser Institute's analysis of schools. We wanted to be sure that programs at the community-based level, consisting of federal, provincial, and voluntary components, were evaluated on a level playing field. Then we, as members of Parliament, could be assured that in our areas of high risk right across the country community-based programs were in fact being cultivated, that they were accountable, and that through the indicators the oversight provisions were working. Those would be the tools we could use to measure those programs.

I think the committee was satisfied that as we go into this next phase now, the development of the indicators in particular will give us the assurance that we are making evaluations in a baseline way and in realistic terms.

• 1135

The final point I made is that I'd just like to send a copy of this paper, which provides an overview for programs related to disability issues, to that cynic through John. If that cynic can figure out the plethora of programs and understand how we are attempting to provide a platform within a framework that's accountable, then he's a better person than I am. For my part I am overwhelmed, as a new person coming into this, by the difficulty—and I'll look forward to asking some questions—in terms of similarly developing a coordinated platform for people with disabilities that we can all be assured is comprehensive, is tight, is horizontally clustered, and is working.

I agree with John that the two subcommittees...and this way we're dealing with the work program is a credit to the parliamentary structure. I don't think it needs reforming too much. I just think we need some accomplishments, and I think it's very much driven by that.

The Chair: Okay, and still at the level of comments from members of the subcommittee, we'll have Monique Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Just a quick remark, Mr. Chairman. I would just remind you that during our discussions—and John was in fact present yesterday; we met twice already—we as members of this party representing the Quebec perspective, explained why we did not sign this social agreement.

However, yesterday, the Health Canada officials assured me that there would be no sanctions against Quebec because of that. This is welcome news because you know that in Quebec our social policies in terms of prevention and early childhood, daycare and so on are indeed a model for the rest of Canada. They are a model for all provinces. We still have a lot to do, nothing is perfect. There are things that need correcting and more programs should be established.

I have one simple concern, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned about overlapping. I wish we could avoid situations in which money gets wasted. There was a lot of discussion yesterday about NGOs which already exist in the regions and have got their act together in that environment. I mentioned a number of very specific examples of those. I believe that we should keep on helping those people and we should reach a federal-provincial consensus. I imagine some agreements will be made at that level.

But we should not be disrupting what is being done and what already works extremely well in the community. Let us use that as an example, let us build on existing success stories, instead of trying to re-invent things which in fact are already there. We will save a lot of time. We will spare a lot of very important energy, children will benefit and the work will be done more quickly.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

I intend to proceed much less formally than we normally do, and I would say to the witnesses who are here that if you have comments or questions with respect to John Godfrey, I would certainly ask you to join in.

My suggestion, colleagues, is that quite quickly, with generally short questions and short answers, we just move around amongst ourselves. I had some questions myself, but we'll go to Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): I think the only question.... I know we have representation on that committee, and I'm sure Roy will be a very active member of the committee. From my own past experiences, particularly with the intergovernmental affairs portfolio, I would be really concerned as to whether there will be a constant awareness that the delivery of social services is a provincial jurisdiction and that the committee should really be working as a catalyst or working with people at the provincial level. As long as that's happening, I wish you good success on your projects.

The Chair: John Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Certainly the document itself reiterates the understanding that social programs are delivered by provinces. At the same time, because of the interconnection between income and services, there are so many places where we interact that I think the purpose of the agreement is to make sure we interact in a positive manner and that we're respectful of provincial jurisdictions, but where we can help fill gaps identified provincially....

• 1140

[Translation]

For instance, in the case of Quebec, there is an almost endless need for daycare funding because it is very popular program.

[English]

It's very important for us to develop a very positive, win-win relationship with the provinces, giving credit to provinces like Ontario, where the premier has made a commitment to early childhood development services. Now we need to say right, how can we work with you so that we both look good, and let's leave our guns at the door, just as we try to do at the level of the committee, where we say we are united in our dedication to the cause, over and above the things that separate us.

The Chair: Yes.

Please, go ahead, Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

I am a member of the disability subcommittee and I'm filling in for Libby Davies, who is back in Vancouver trying to....

The Chair: No problem.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm very excited about this joint meeting we'll be having on May 30, the two subcommittees, because last time around we had Nancy Karetak-Lindell sitting on the disability subcommittee. We were all struck and stunned by the examples of aboriginal children in the north with disabilities. They literally come into the world in need of extensive physical intervention, in need of speech-language pathology, physiotherapy, whatever it may be, and the services simply are not there. They need to travel thousands of miles to get the kind of services they need.

This is an exciting opportunity for us to sit down with the people in the different departments who can hear clearly from MPs such as Nancy about the huge disparity existing for aboriginal kids with disabilities, both on- and off-reserve. We really welcome this opportunity.

Mr. John Godfrey: To say as well—because it's important for us to behave horizontally if we think horizontally—I coincidentally sit as vice-chair of the aboriginal affairs, northern development and natural resources committee.

I'm always attempting to make sure we understand these connections between bad housing and aboriginal kids with disabilities; all of the health issues produced by overcrowding, or by mould, or by all of these other things have to be kept in mind. On the one hand, you want to be able to be focused on specific programs, so you can unpack the problem and start moving forward, but on the other hand, you have to keep reminding yourself of the connections between all of these issues and, for example, employment, the employment challenge in those areas, as well.

It's an exciting file, and I'm particularly glad our government has declared kids, the aboriginal community, and disability as priorities in the Speech from the Throne. We have to keep bringing them together. I entirely support...thank you.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Do you have any thoughts, John, before the aboriginal children's meeting, about what was going on in Labrador with the gas sniffing? This doesn't seem to be a lack of services?

The other thing on the health side is with the high rate of prescription drug use. The brake that was implemented there was deemed to be unconstitutional. When the brake was there, the high rate of prescription drug use fell dramatically; then, when we called off the watchdog, once it was gone, bango, the rates skyrocketed again. Perhaps we can find a constitutional way, because it is pretty scary.

How would it help doctors and druggists...?

Mr. John Godfrey: The committee is just getting into this. It would be presumptuous of me to claim any area of expertise on either of the questions you raise, but I would say that when we come to do our work in the fall, what we're going to want to do is to look at this whole cluster of issues.

• 1145

On the specifics of the Labrador communities, it seems to me that what we're seeing is the product of a long-term process. By the time those kids get to the stage at which we see them on television, they've had a huge number of bad things happen to them. That's why I think the committee's desire is not simply to focus in the case of aboriginals on the early years, although that's going to be hugely important, to get them off to a good start, but to continue right up to the point where they seem to be having, in some communities, real difficulties.

Again, this is simply an uninformed observation, but if you live in a place where there are no possibilities for work, you might well ask yourself, educated for what job? There aren't any. Why do you get up in the morning, and how do you feel good about yourself in such conditions of despair?

I wouldn't dare say more than that, but I do want to say that we will be trying to figure out how all of that hangs together in our work in the fall.

The Chair: John, I wonder if I could make a comment and ask a couple of questions.

First, on your point about the way the subcommittees have worked and the fact that, as Alan said, it's perfectly within the existing guidelines and it's simply a matter of making them work, I have to say that for our main committee, as you know, we can take testimony with a much smaller quorum than we can to conduct legislation, than we need for votes, and so on.

I must say I would like to see us move to a situation where, for agreed topics among the parties, we could function in that way and study something, and by the way, come up with a report that might be unanimously recommending certain things, or failing that, because the testimony will have been received by small numbers of the committee than usual, present alternatives, that either this or that could be done. I think there's a mode of operating that is quite different from the one we have to use when we're dealing with legislation. We are actually already doing that through the subcommittees, and I think the main committee could pick some topics where we could function like that.

There are two things I would like to ask you: first, I would like you to repeat your recommendation to the main committee quite clearly so we understand—that's how I understood it; and secondly, with respect to the early childhood initiative and the indicators for measuring the outcome, as we have witnesses here from the disabled community, how will the indicators the governments use to measure the outcomes reflect children with disabilities?

Mr. John Godfrey: Those are both excellent questions.

First, concerning recommendations to the main committee, our work has just begun as a subcommittee, or begun again, and we have pretty much a new cast of players. I think only Ms. Davies and I were on the previous committee. So part of the task of the committee right now is recovering its institutional memory so we can remind ourselves where we've come from and where we're going. So it would be a bit nervy of us to be too prescriptive in what this committee might do.

I would only say two things. One, it's obviously very important that we stay in touch with each other, because when we're dealing with these complex social files to the extent that we are a component on any of these things, whether it's on the indicator file or whether it's trying to help working families and understanding where child and family policy fits into that, clearly we have to stay in touch and work together collaboratively so that we can be a component.

On the second question you raised about indicators, the first issue of indicators is to relate the development of those indicators to the three specific programs that are to be funded under the Early Childhood Development Agreement. There's a fourth one, called community infrastructure, but that's a bit vague. The three components are prenatal and perinatal programming; parenting resources or parenting centres, parenting support, things like drop-in centres, parenting groups, or parenting courses; and early learning and care, the thing that dare not speak its name.

• 1150

We used to call it “child care”, but we can't call it that any more. We can only call it “early learning and care”, but we know what we mean. We mean purposeful child care.

So the initial development of indicators will deal with how we're doing. In other words, it might be the development of early identification of kids with fetal alcohol syndrome—we already have birth weight as an indicator—or school readiness to learn at age six.

But what's interesting is that we're getting into a field where there's quite a good set of data, for example, on how to measure the effectiveness of child care. There is quite a bit of literature on that. But there are other areas where we still don't know, and I would entirely support the idea of working very closely with the disability community on the development of indicators that, as Carolyn might possibly tell you, she would view as slightly the canary in the coal mine: if we can do well by children with disability, we're probably doing okay as a society.

I think all of this is in the making. All of these indicators are not to be announced, as it were, until September 2002, and if the principle is “earlier is better” in terms of how we get involved in the process, I think this is a hugely useful suggestion you're making. I know the government is mindful of it as well; they're just trying to figure out how to do it.

The Chair: I'm going to have one more question, and then we will move on.

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Chair, it's really just a follow-up on something you asked about recommendations. I thought I heard you recommend that this committee—

Mr. John Godfrey: Sorry, I totally forgot. Let me be quite precise. It's so big that I forgot it.

Let me reiterate—and this is perhaps as much me as it is the subcommittee, but I see that the members here are not disagreeing with me, so I'm going to view that as permission to continue. I think we've identified a major challenge, which is the renewal of this agreement, the Social Union Framework Agreement, which, depending on how you read the language, has to be all done, including improvements, by next February, or at least the process has to be started by next February.

Because the medium should be the message—that is to say, SUFA is all about public participation, transparency, and accountability—it seems to me that the way in which we measure it and talk about it ought to be transparent, and that this area, this domain of civil society, ought to be the place. If it isn't this committee, it should be some committee, but I think this committee is centrally involved, because we're talking about how we make social policy in appropriate cooperation with the provinces, not just what we've done in the past, but how we may wish to do it in the future. The earlier we get at this the better, because it's not on the radar right now. That's a good time to get on it.

The Chair: On behalf of our colleagues, I want to thank you very much for this presentation. It has been very useful.

Before we move on, I'd like to formally introduce François Bélisle.

François, I did mention you before, but you hadn't arrived. As I mentioned, François is with the Canadian Paraplegic Association. We're very pleased that you're here. We did welcome the other witnesses before you arrived. Thank you very much.

We'll go to Carolyn Bennett now and your colleagues.

[Translation]

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): On behalf of the Sub-committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I thank you for your kind invitation.

Last night, we were pleased to welcome the representatives of various national organizations whose mandate is to improve the qualify of life of persons with disabilities. A few of them even accepted to attend our meeting today,

[English]

and I'm thrilled. I'm very happy they're here with me.

I'm also happy that we have two members of our subcommittee here, and I would like them to introduce themselves in terms of their particular interest in this. That has been the strength of our subcommittee, that we always end up with fantastic people who care about this issue. It has been important to be able to work in as non-partisan a way as we can.

• 1155

In fact, Wendy Lill, who I hope will introduce herself first, is the real catalyst for the existence of the subcommittee. It was in the fall of 1998, when it was clear that over two years of the HRDC parent committee the disability file had not been opened, that she came and asked that this subcommittee be established, and we thank her for that.

So we have Wendy and then Monsieur Lanctôt.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much. I want to say that it was Carolyn who heard my plaintive cry at the beginning that we needed to get something happening, and it's actually been one of the most satisfying experiences working in this place to know there is a group of people concertedly working on issues of persons with disabilities.

I think a lot of people come to this area—and I think John mentioned this in regard to the children's subcommittee—from personal commitment. I have a son with a disability who is moving through the education system and will move into the employment system, into the independent living housing situation. Those are the major barriers we are facing as a subcommittee. So I am a bit of an anthropologist on this as well. I am following it through on a personal level, but also on a social policy level. I think Robert Lanctôt is probably in somewhat the same situation. I'll let him speak for himself.

The Chair: If I might say, your interest in these matters is well known on all sides of the House.

Robert.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you.

I do not know if the people in this room are aware of this, but in my Sub-committee, people know that I have a young child with a severe disability.

I am here not just because I have a handicapped child. I am here also because the issue that we are dealing with is a priority to which people only pay lip service without coming up with the necessary resources. I know that there are other people by the side of people with disabilities. We could talk about the parents of handicapped children. I am one of them. There are things which involve many departments, and I have asked the Sub-committee not to deal separately with each of those departments because we would have a big problem.

Let us simply stop saying that it is a priority and make it a real priority. I am getting a little tired of something today. I am pleased that there is a joint meeting with the Sub-committee which deals with early childhood, but the issue of early childhood is a very broad issue and I do not want the issue of young children with disabilities to become just one component among others.

Mr. John Godfrey, I do appreciate your interest, but I want to make it a superior interest with Carolyn and Ms. Lill. This is not just a theoretical issue, it is a practical issue. I wish to speak on my own behalf—I am a professional, a lawyer and my spouse is a chartered accountant—but this may also be a problem for people who lack resources. Even people with financial means have difficulties because they also need to deal with their employers. When you have to go to a hospital two or three times a week, there comes a time when the employer says that it is no longer acceptable. People in that situation should be protected. The child would also be protected in this way because we are talking about people who can go to that place and care for that child.

The issue of people who take care of people with disabilities is a truly important issue which has to be dealt with. Indirectly, we will clearly have a better control. People with disabilities will be supported. I do not want to talk about the ways of doing it today, but I think we could do it through the tax system or through the standards of sheltered work. It could be something huge. So I would like to speak first about what we need and then about the funding required. We have to start from the basics.

I would have liked to be here yesterday, but unfortunately I had another commitment. I wish to tell the witnesses here today that I am profoundly interested in this file. Of course, I am a member of the Bloc Québécois and I do work on behalf of Quebeckers, but I also work for people with disabilities. I shall not speak in a partisan way, but on the other hand, I shall not condone duplication. I am not here to help set up programs which already exist. However, I can help improve those programs. There are many things that can be improved in Quebec and in Canada. I certainly do not want the witnesses to fear that I want to start everything all over again, that nothing is going to happen; quite the contrary.

• 1200

I am a new member of the Sub-committee and also a new Member of Parliament. What I wish to say is that I hope things will progress quickly. I do not wish to tear down what has been built already, but there are things that have been built and that do not work, even though there is a nice program or a nice theory. What we need is funds, and I will be one of your spokesperson. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Robert.

[English]

I think all of us, in one way or another, are trying to translate our personal concerns and interests into a practical reality.

The other thing you mentioned—and John stressed it—is that these linkages in government that are this way are so often very important. But unfortunately, the government is designed to work in a vertical fashion. So thank you very much.

Carolyn.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The other members of our subcommittee are John Maloney, Janko Peric, Karen Redman, Tony Tirabassi, Reed Elley, Greg Thompson, and of course, our honorary member Andy Scott, who comes when he can.

Because our witnesses are from national organizations, I think before I go over the background of the committee, it would be appropriate that they introduce themselves and explain the national perspective they hold.

The Chair: By all means.

Laurie Beachell.

Mr. Laurie Beachell (National Coordinator, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Thank you.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities is an organization of people with disabilities. This is our 25th anniversary. We are an advocacy association. All board members are people with disabilities. It is a cross-disability organization. We have board members who have physical disabilities, who have visual impairments, who are deaf, who have learning disabilities, who describe themselves as psychiatric survivors, who have been labelled as mentally handicapped, etc. Basically, we look at federal initiatives and how they affect people with disabilities.

Over our 25-year history the importance of a standing committee or a subcommittee focused on the status of persons with disabilities cannot be downplayed in any way. It has been tremendously important to our community, right from 1981 and the Obstacles report, which was the first report that gave an overview status of Canadians with disabilities. The subcommittee has been a way of holding government's feet to the fire for movement forward in ensuring the improved status of people with disabilities. It has been a challenge on broad human rights, on broad social policy, on transportation access, on employment programs, on housing options, on issues of support to provincial governments to implement good social service programming, attendant care, support for early childhood development, etc.

The challenge has been huge, and frankly, it has often been met with platitudes. It has often been met with expressions of extreme goodwill from everyone, but no action. The subcommittee's reports have over the years identified that problem time and time again.

We seem to be entering a new era under SUFA, where we once again are, as it were, reaching the precipice. We're at the edge of the cliff, looking over and seeing some possibility here of a move forward. We're hoping people will actually take the leap and move forward with some new initiatives and new resources. But we're also prepared to stand behind and give a good push. Hopefully that's what this committee can do as well.

The challenge on the disability front is huge. I think you'll get some sense of that if I turn it over to our chairperson to speak a bit about his personal experience.

I want to raise one issue with you. In the federal-provincial discussions that are going on in In Unison, the priority of the community has been identification of movement on the area of disability supports. As with the children's agenda, we see a first step in that area being movement on the disability tax credit. We do not want that first step to be seen as, now we've done it and we move on to something else. It is only a first step. What we hear from provincial governments time and time again is that greater resources have to be allocated to the provinces for them to improve their programming. We certainly need accountability measures and indicators of success, but we also need to have the resources in those provinces where they do not have significant resources, to ensure that they will be able to move forward.

• 1205

There is great disparity among services across this country, to the point that in some provinces, if you need a wheelchair, you have the option of four or five models provided to you at no cost. In other provinces you have to find a service club that will raise money for you to buy it or you have to pay for it yourself. Your attendant care is income tested. You pay for it if you make x number of dollars or it's free if you earn less.

A friend of mine wanted to move to British Columbia for a new job. He lived in Manitoba where his attendant care was free. It was a universal program. It was not income tested. He had to figure out if he was going to be making enough additional income in that job because the B.C. program was income tested and in his income bracket he would probably be paying between $6,000 and $8,000 a year for his attendant care.

So a factor of movement in this country is the level of service across the country. Without good services across the country, we don't have mobility rights.

I'll turn it over to Paul Young to speak a little bit about his story.

Mr. Paul A. Young (National Chairperson, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Thank you, Mr. Chair. In one of my first official appearances as chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, it's a great privilege to speak to you. I had the honour of speaking to the subcommittee yesterday.

People are mentioning practicalities, actual facts, and life experiences, and I'd like to share one with you, if I may. Some 57 years ago I was born with cerebral palsy. I was labelled mentally handicapped and was studied more than the island I come from, Cape Breton. They couldn't figure out what was wrong with me. I learned later that it was a learning disability. Then a friend of mine said, no, it's not a learning disability. They haven't figured out how to teach you.

It's with great emotion that I sit here, because I'm a very privileged person. I am a Canadian citizen, which I'm quite proud of. I'm now serving my country instead of being a drain on society, as some would say. Not necessarily parties, but conservative-type people would say these people are a drain on society. We never asked to be a drain on society or to be put in the position of being devalued and considered different. But those in society who are able-bodied and very privileged are saying that very thing.

The two things that connect people to society are going through school, whether it be elementary, high school, university, or college, and being identified by the career you have chosen, if you can afford to do that. We believe, and I personally believe, that the key component to people being integrated into society and having the good life I have, which I didn't have 30 or 40 years ago, when I was a mentally handicapped person in a sheltered workshop and being talked down to.... There's no need of that.

There's only one thing a human being needs. They need money in their pocket in order to be able to have their transportation and housing and to have their medical needs taken care of by having Blue Cross, for example, by being a member of society and contributing. We find it very strange that people can't get that.

We're not asking for it to be considered a miracle worker or a member of a famous telethon where they're pitying people with disabilities. What I found out about being a person with a disability is that you're either one or the other. You're either Rick Hansen or Tracey Latimer. We're none of those. We're just people looking for an opportunity to have a job.

I'll quickly tell you my story. I was in a mentally handicapped segregated class. Then I was put into a sheltered workshop in Sydney, Nova Scotia, the very first client, as they called us, in 1964. There was no expectation in my family that I would be able to own my own home, drive a car, or be the chair of a national organization. I met some people who took an interest in me and saw more in me than the cute little mentally handicapped person I might have been at that time.

• 1210

I knew a lot about radio, and they said I belonged in radio. So I got connected with some people at a private radio station in Sydney, and I worked there for three and a half years. While that was happening, I met another gentleman who was a union member of NABET, the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians. He took an interest in me and helped me get a job at the CBC. He didn't give me the job at the CBC. He made me qualify for it. I worked 18 years at the CBC, up until three years ago. The only reason I'm not there now is because of government cutbacks. I worked there as an audio technician in master controlled radio.

I made a great deal of money, though not as much as politicians. I rented an apartment with my brother. I then got a mortgage, bought a house, paid the mortgage, and bought furniture for that house.

It seems to me that the conservative-type people who we have running the show right now in this country would think that was a good idea. But they seem not to think so, because the Michael Harrises of the world cut the very support we need in order to have the opportunity to be employed and to be able to buy the cars, the houses, the furniture, and the clothing to put on our backs and to contribute to society and pay taxes. God knows, I've paid taxes over the last 18 or 20 years.

Before, I was given that little handout that was a drain on society. My members are still experiencing people saying they're a drain on society. Yet the family benefits don't come anywhere near the minimum wage, and we're penalized because we have a disability. They think that either we're not going to make it or we're really great miracle workers. None of that is true. People need the opportunity to work.

Before I close I want to say that this is not just about money. My self-worth, my self-confidence, and my understanding of life in society is a hell of a lot greater now than it was 25 to 30 years ago, because I experienced life. I experienced meeting different types of people with different attitudes. God knows, in the CBC and in broadcasting you have people who are egotistical. They have to be because they're putting on a show. I've learned that people are different. Just because somebody is having a bad day doesn't mean I have to feel bad because I might have made a mistake. It's their problem, not mine. But if I was still in the sheltered workshop or the institution with whatever label anybody with a disability takes on, I would never have learned that.

As several people have said, we've been talking about this stuff for 23 years or so. A friend of mine was one of the driving forces. I'd like to say that one of the reasons I'm in this field is because I saw the kind of work my idols did: the late Allan Simpson, Jim Derksen, and Ron Kanary, who was part of the original parliamentary committee that talked about the Obstacles report. I think it's time to put our cards on the table and say, are we going to do something or are we going to feel nice about ourselves and just talk about disabilities?

My organization is fighting a lot of issues right now. People are not really saying very much. They don't want to appear to be too left-wing because people on the right might get upset. Well, I'm sorry, life goes on, and people need to have lives. Whether it's right wing, left wing, or whatever, I represent people who have a disadvantage, not because of their ability, but because of the perception that people with disabilities cannot do anything. The reason that happens is because of the do-gooders of the world portraying us as poor, unfortunate vegetables and saying, please give me money so that I can help these people and make myself feel good.

I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.

Many years ago the Government of Canada decided that people weren't in shape and that they needed to develop a program. They came up with ParticipACTION. Everybody was shown that the 60-year-old Swede was in better shape than any Canadian.

• 1215

I'd like to suggest to you, and I'm sure my colleague here would like to see it happen too, that maybe we should develop a program where we're doing public service announcements and demonstrating projects that are put on through NFB or whomever, demonstrating the positive aspects of a person with a disability being employed—not that it's a miracle, and not that it's a wonderful thing to do because aren't I a nice citizen who is very fortunate to be able-bodied? But the fact is that, in practicality, the stuff that I happen to be in and the fact that I became empowered to conduct my own life and to be the conductor of my own life, are better than having someone give me a handout.

The Chair: Can I ask a question?

Mr. Paul Young: Just before I close, sir, I want to make one point clear. Nobody with a disability, until they become employed, really has control of their life.

The Chair: I told you I wanted to ask you a question. I'm sorry, I didn't want to interrupt your flow, but I think we need a very short reply.

I wonder if you could just describe how the council functions. For example, in Peterborough we have a council for persons with disabilities, and the chair of that is Lois Harte-Maxwell. Are you an umbrella organization for our local councils?

Mr. Paul Young: We're an umbrella organization. We have eight provincial organizations and six national consumer-driven groups, meaning that people with disabilities—all types of disabilities—control the organization. Before 1976 people spoke on behalf of people with disabilities. Since 1976 we've been speaking for ourselves. “A voice of our own” is our motto.

The Chair: I'm just thinking purely from an organization point of view. My local council is an affiliate of you, the national council—is that right? I just want to know for the information, and it's either yes or no, I don't mind. I don't want to stop the flow here.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: We have individual members in some provinces. We have organizational members. We have a coalition of organizations in Quebec and British Columbia, etc. In Ontario we presently do not have a member. It had some internal problems. We have members from northwest Ontario—a strong membership—but we do not have a province-wide umbrella in Ontario.

The Chair: Is this group very keen on Andy Scott's idea of an act for Canadians with disabilities?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Yes.

The Chair: You also are, I assume.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: We have a whole discussion paper on a Canadians with disabilities act. We are not necessarily endorsing or opposing it at this point. We are saying there are a lot of vehicles that already exist that don't work. Let's make them work first.

The Chair: I would be most interested in seeing that line, if you could.

I didn't want to interrupt, Carolyn. I'm in your hands.

Joan Westland, welcome.

[Translation]

Ms. Joan Westland (Executive Director, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): Good morning. The Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work is a national association whose membership includes employers, unions, provincial governments and associations concerned with promoting employment for people with disabilities.

[English]

The kinds of programs and services that CCRW develops are really directed to the workplace. We have been making a shift from focusing on disability and persons with disabilities to saying that the barriers to employment for people with disabilities are not a disability issue; they're a workplace issue. We have to stop almost putting the blame on the individual with the disability and holding them accountable if they are unsuccessful in securing employment.

One of the issues that we are currently dealing with and that we would really like to bring to your attention—and I know from previous experience at these kinds of sessions that these are issues that concern all of the organizations—is the challenge of sustaining our programs and our initiatives. The kind of fallout that we experience, for example, like that of last year and some continuing criticisms of departments like HRDC, has been almost devastating to the national organizations in this country. In the case of the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work, it has seriously jeopardized our capacity to continue to support employers and to continue to deliver programs that promote employment of people with disabilities.

• 1220

What has happened in the enthusiasm to hold governments accountable is that governments in fact have been holding NGOs accountable. So instead of acknowledging that we are doing very effective and important work, we are now preoccupied with filling out more forms and conducting more interviews and dealing with more meetings to analyse and assess the kinds of activities that we've been involved in.

Around that issue as well, and it holds a little bit in question your own enthusiasm for indicators, when you start looking at indicators it does presume that the mechanisms that are in place are in and of themselves already effective and worthy to be analysed, or valuable enough to be able to start to assess what those indicators should be. In fact, the government systems that are in place are probably more close to organized chaos than to any other kind of description I would be able to give.

One of the dilemmas we have continually faced as organizations with disabilities is that the types of programs and services that need to be put into place to address the barriers that exist, particularly in accessing employment, require long-term investment, thoughtful policies, and a tremendous amount of human resource and expertise.

On the flip side of this, the programs that are available to us are short-term in investment, are minimal in the amount of resources that would be available, and don't in any way respond to what we have indicated as being the essential components for a successful program or service.

So there's a real contradiction in terms of the mechanisms that may or may not be in place and the kinds of anticipated or expected outcomes and measurements that people are putting into place to determine success or failure. Until we start to look at the infrastructures that need to be put in place to support the policies and to support the In Unison collaboration that we see, we are going to be heading for a future of great frustration and probably very little in terms of positive impact and results.

It's very frustrating for an organization like CCRW, which has developed its partnership across the country in all provinces and is demonstrating successful initiatives in promoting employment of people with disabilities, to be facing, number one, layoffs of its own staff, and number two, the inability to fulfil a lot of the contracts and agreements we have with the private sector because we are continually, and have been for the last year and a half, under serious funding crisis. This is a direct fallout from the kind of criticism that HRDC has been undergoing.

So I put those points out to you and look forward to questions to explore some of the more specific programs and initiatives of CCRW.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Carolyn, and the members of her committee, for inviting us to participate in yesterday's deliberations and having an opportunity to speak before you today as well.

The Chair: Joan, thank you very much.

François Bélisle.

[Translation]

Mr. François Bélisle (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Paraplegic Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I want to thank Carolyn and the committee for the opportunity to be here this morning. The organization that I represent is the Canadian Paraplegic Association,

[Translation]

the Canadian Paraplegic Association,

[English]

which has activities in all provinces of the country. In fact, we're quite decentralized. We have people working in 40 or so different offices around the country.

Our mission is to assist people with spinal cord injury and other physical disabilities to get over the trauma they have experienced, to help their families as well, and to help them through a variety of supports, including vocational support and support to get back to work, to reintegrate into their communities and to basically regain independence over their lives.

• 1225

As Paul was saying before, we are trying to empower them to help them become masters of their own lives. I thought that was a good way to put it.

The kinds of issues I would like to bring to your attention today in fact overlap a little bit what you've heard already, but let me perhaps bring some different elements or different perspectives to them. First of all, I think we have to recognize that what we all do is try to bring a better life to those people with disabilities, but in particular those with severe disabilities who are the people who are the most vulnerable in society.

In order to help them improve their lives, I think we are talking resources, to be able to put resources at their disposal. That can take two forms. It can take the form of direct resources to those individuals by way of, for instance, the tax system, or direct government support, but also, resources that are indirectly put at their disposal through the wide network of NGOs, as Monique Guay was saying earlier, the wide range of organizations that are already in the field helping these people overcome their problems. CPA is one of them and has been around since 1945 when the Canadians who were injured during the Second World War came back home. Back then, of course, there was not much hope for people with a spinal cord injury. You were confined to a hospital ward and there was really not much you could do.

I think we've come a long way since then, in part through the activities of organizations like CPA, which have been advocating...which have been especially putting service programs at the disposal of these people.

In terms of funding, I think what I'd like to mention is that, of course, the amount of funding available from government is not what we would like—we all agree about that—but there are also a number of funding mechanism issues I'd like to bring to your attention.

We, like many other organizations, get some funding from HRDC, for instance. But the cycle of funding is not what it should be. The proposals are accepted way too far into the fiscal year, so that when you begin the next fiscal year, you have to wait for months before you get an answer on your funding. That should be easily fixable.

Secondly, most funding tends to be project-specific, for particular activities. Of course, what we call the core costs or, if you will, the fixed costs are generally not covered, or covered only to a very small extent. Why is this? Obviously, the donors like to have some visible outcomes to the projects they fund, and if you fund core support that is in support of those projects, it's not very sexy because you cannot say, “We've supported the core expenses of CPA. What came out of this?” Nothing in itself, but a lot of support that made all the rest possible. So there's not enough core support.

Finally, it's always the one-year cycle, so it's very difficult for an organization to arrange its planning in such a way that it can really put its resources to best use.

To sum up, I think the funding cycle really needs to be looked at, really needs to be changed, so that organizations can have an answer very soon in the cycle as to what their level of funding will be. Secondly, if possible, there would be more core funding, more core support. Thirdly, there would be multi-year support; this one-year cycle really doesn't allow us to do very good planning.

I mentioned yesterday to the subcommittee that when I worked in foreign aid CIDA gave us a three-year agreement. We provided CIDA with a three-year work plan and they basically agreed to fund us for three years, obviously with the caveat that depending on their level of resources, they would provide us with that funding. But at least we knew where we were going for three years. It was a three-year moving business plan.

• 1230

I don't understand why some other departments of the same government cannot do the same. I would urge you to look into that, and perhaps, if possible, ensure that multi-year funding is available to organizations like ours.

I think also perhaps it's important to mention awareness building. We are a service provision organization primarily, but we also engage in quite a bit of public awareness building.

Some of you may be aware of the `Round the World Challenge that started from Parliament Hill last month with a fellow who is a quadriplegic. He has difficulty moving his arms and has no movement in his legs, yet he is going to drive his vehicle around the world in an effort to build awareness, and also to raise funds for the cause of spinal-cord injured people and people with other physical disabilities.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien came out of the House at noon right here in front of this building to greet this gentleman, whose name is Mike Nemesvary. Pictures appeared everywhere in the papers, in the Ottawa Citizen, and were picked up around the country. That provides a great deal of visibility to the cause and helps us indirectly in our efforts to raise funds from corporate donors and also from individuals across the country.

Unfortunately, it's hard to find money support from the government, for instance, that will include our awareness-raising activities. They tend to be for front-line programming for the benefit of our direct clients. Anything that government can do to help us increase our public-awareness-building activities would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, I want to reinforce a point that has already been mentioned, and it is that when we help someone who has sustained a severe spinal cord injury be reintegrated into his or her community, find a job, and work for perhaps 20 years, it has been shown that the benefits to Canada as a whole can exceed easily $300,000 for each one individual who is put back to work. Instead of, as Paul was saying before, being a drain on the country, that person now starts working, and instead of drawing cheques from the federal government, is now un contribuable, a taxpayer, somebody who contributes to the public fund.

The difference over a period of 20 years can easily exceed $300,000 for each person we can help put back on the job market. That's a very convincing economic argument for putting more resources toward helping people with a disability get back to the job market.

I'll stop here. Thank you for the opportunity again.

The Chair: Thank you very much, François.

Carolyn Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Following on what François has eloquently said, we believe the whole disability file is an example of how good social policy is good economic policy, and that we need to begin to stop seeing this as a tug of war in terms of what are really investments.

The disability file is a difficult one. As we've heard, since 1981 and.... My constituent the Hon. David Smith continues to remind me it's been studied forever. We have telephone books full of reports. We just need to get on and do it.

What's been clear to the committee is that because it is a horizontal issue that touches many departments, and because it's an issue for which responsibility lies in all three levels of government, it tends to be a very difficult one to make progress on because it's much easier for governments to do things that are all in their court than it is to have to collaborate with different levels of government and different departments and agencies.

• 1235

We found this to be an issue touching almost every federal department and agency, practically, and it has its rewards and challenges. It affects four million Canadians, so we have a great deal of difficulty accepting that this is a special interest group. There are four million Canadians affected and the lives of all of the people who are responsible for them. When you go into a room and ask if anyone knows someone or has responsibility for someone with a disability, the response is huge.

We need to make clear to the committee that the In Unison document mentioned a couple of times is an agreement between the federal and provincial governments. It has been revised in the 2000 version and is a sort of template upon which to do business.

We began our work on December 9, 1998. I see our work covering four areas. Area number one was monitoring. We heard from 11 ministers on the way their departments deal with disabilities. There were some success stories and some less-than-successful stories. The ministers all left with an appreciation of this issue as one about all Canadians.

Certainly, we felt that the knowledge their minister was going to come and testify became quite a catalyst for departments. We started to see them coming to our meetings weeks in advance to see what was happening to the minister before them. Yet there was also a clear sense that some of the ministers didn't know what the other ministers were doing in this file and that a serious lack of communication existed.

In terms of monitoring, we have also had three forums with community organizations, as we did last night. We feel blessed to have a file where there are these national organizations in the business of consensus development on national policies, who generally deliver a very consistent view to our committee, enabling us to really go forward. If we could do more to get public opinion onside, it would also make a big difference. Because public opinion and consensus on the right thing to do are the two things it takes to move forward on public policy.

Promotion has been a second activity. In collaboration with Mary Frances Laughton and Industry Canada—you may have noticed the brief citation in the Speech from the Throne—we sponsored a showcase of Canadian-made assisting devices for persons with disabilities in 200 West Block. It was a big success. They helped me do the same thing in my riding. There have been many opportunities to find out what it takes.

There are some amusing economic answers from the workplace that you may find interesting. People who come to work in a wheelchair, for example, actually bring their own chair. The chairs we all buy for our offices to put our employees in actually cost us a lot of money. There are huge savings. There has been some really interesting public information we may not be doing a good enough job of getting out.

In assessing what's going on, the subcommittee did prepare a full and complete report, a consensus among the members. It was an excellent example of a full consensus amongst all parliamentarians. It was called Reflecting Interdependence. This was a totally non-partisan report, virtually unanimous, with a wonderful tiny report from the Bloc Québécois, who do have to remind us of the provincial responsibilities, but we felt it was a real consensus.

The report recommended building disability issues into how government does business. This is again the ongoing theme of a disability lens. All of the government departments need to put their policies and programs through the disability lens in terms of avoiding unintended consequences. I think that as we talk about the labour market agreements and those kinds of things, if you don't put a disability lens on the kinds of measurements, you will end up with a severe disadvantage when you put those kinds of report card things on, because people will cherry-pick. This must be part of any labour market agreement.

• 1240

We recommended that parliamentary committees should study government business before it's carved in stone so that these plans can reflect public and parliamentary perspectives. This is part of putting citizens at the table and again trying to get government business done in a way that isn't a baked cake, where if you bring the citizens on, you can actually alter it a little bit. I think we're finding that this is extraordinarily important in the role of Parliament. But when we go to the Social Union Framework Agreement and the commitment that was there in terms of asking citizens to help us set priorities, it is really important that we use Parliament in that way and that we make sure that's there in the renegotiation.

We recommended that the federal government find better ways to address horizontal issues such as disability, including innovative reporting of policies and programs that consolidates and presents information about outcomes and results from all departments and agencies. There need to be reports across departments.

Obviously, our committee is a kind of horizontal report where you did hear from 11 ministers. As I think the chair knows, in chapter 20 on managing horizontal issues, the Auditor General did cite our committee as an example where Parliament can assist the business of government in horizontal issues.

It would mean that estimates documents ought to be able to cross departmental lines. You should be able to see that if you have plans and priorities, they may not all be in your department. How do we make sure that the government documents are able to reflect that?

We recommended that the federal government should attempt to overcome the jurisdictional barriers that restrict the opportunities of Canadians with disabilities. Particularly in the Social Union Framework Agreement, it does talk about mobility and some of the things that Laurie talked about. When we as a committee hear stories of a wheelchair being taken to the border between two provinces and the client having to get out of this province's wheelchair and get into another one, it is appalling. I don't think it's what we think of when we think of our country. This is nuts.

Later on we'll hear a little bit more around attendant care and disabilities and people being able to change provinces to go to university. This is hugely important in terms of mobility and portability and what we have as a country.

The government's response to our report did reiterate its commitment to an inclusive society. We do see the federal disability strategy as well as programs and services such as the Opportunities Fund, the EAPD program, and the Canada study grant as being part of that commitment.

Its response talked about the In Unison report and a commitment to involve Parliament in the community outcome measures. I think we would like to look at outcome measures in terms of the workplace and how we make sure labour market agreements also deal with the issues Robert talked about in terms of the parents of kids with disabilities.

Our fourth activity has been proposing things. We held two round tables on taxation and persons with disabilities, which resulted in letters to the Minister of Finance that suggested measures for inclusion in the last three budgets. I won't go over all of them. I think we were very happy that the things we proposed in our December 1999 round table, or thereabouts, ended up in the 2000 budget, especially the renewal of the Opportunities Fund.

• 1245

We think the finance official who has come to our round table has been particularly receptive, as has the minister. We are still pushing for the disability tax credit to be made fully refundable, and we want to see put in place some demonstration projects to provide disability supports and services.

One of the things where we've got, I would say, nowhere is in Eldridge. We feel that the ability of Parliament or the Government of Canada to follow up on Supreme Court rulings seems to be non-existent. We have sent letters to the three ministers involved—the Ministers of Human Resources Development, Health, and Justice. We've not received a response.

We do believe Health Canada has commissioned a paper in terms of looking province to province. But if you get a Supreme Court ruling that says there must be deaf interpretation in a hospital, how do we as a country make sure that happens? It's a human rights issue. I think we also felt that, in calling the human rights commissioner, she also was interested.

We have wanted to know whether or not even the human rights commissioner's office and back shop should have an audit capability. Should they have some resources in the Human Rights Commission to go out and audit that these things are happening, rather than her having to work on a case-by-case basis? What happens when the Supreme Court rules? How do we make sure it happens in the—

The Chair: I was going to say we have about 15 minutes, and we'd like to go around once.

Secondly, though, I would like to say to my colleagues that, with respect to those letters that I suggested I write on behalf of the committee and urge...first of all, complain, because we also as a main committee had many delays in replies to our correspondence, but I urge that they reply. Is that okay, colleagues?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That's fine.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The other thing was, as you know and last night we heard again, that when the children's agenda was released we were very disappointed that children with disabilities didn't seem to have a place in that. We are very cognizant in our committee that the disability agenda must include children, and the children's agenda must include children with disabilities and families of children with disabilities. I think we are led to believe that this omission is being rectified, and particularly the joint committee—the joint meeting that John's committee had with ourselves—I think has been very helpful in that.

Last night, after the round table, I think the witnesses have quite well represented their varying concerns. I'd just like to summarize them quickly.

I think there's a serious concern that community capacity is eroding. The fallouts from the HRDC blip are huge. They are really worried that accountability must be two ways, that they have accountability to their members and to all of that....

There has to be a more respectful approach to reaching targets, but also in terms of getting them the dollars when they need them. Some of these organizations are hundreds of thousands of dollars behind in what they're owed and are in the business of having to lay off staff because of unhonoured commitments.

We would, I guess, like the main committee to ask the minister for detailed explanations when she appears in the next few weeks on the questions that mainly François and Joan mentioned: funding cycle, providing money to cover court costs, and multi-year funding.

Laurie explained that the work out of PCO on the voluntary sector obviously also is a parallel process. But I think we want the voluntary sector to spend much more time examining their results and evaluating their programs than counting taxi chits for $10 and always having spot audits.

• 1250

So I think the post-secondary thing I've mentioned to you, Mr. Chair.... We hope that in your round table you will include the learning disabilities organization as well as the association of students with disabilities, and that we need these supports and services made available, particularly to those who are not attending university in their own provinces.

We think the change from VRDP to EAPD has reduced, actually, the amount available for students with disabilities. And, again, this learning disability thing—we want the HRDC standing committee to make sure that's included.

In supports and services, this is our ongoing work in unison. We will make this a priority in terms of supports and services. And in our work plan you'll see that this will happen in our round table on that.

We will continue to push for changes in the tax system, and we will do some work on that.

We will also be, hopefully, examining the labour market strategy, as was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and we will do that next week. Kids with disabilities...and we talked again last night about an examination on this accountability file.

Also, there's no clear solution to this audit thing in terms of what's happening and what's not happening. I don't think we've got an answer. We heard last night that when Serge Joyal was the minister...it gets ghettoized over there. How do we measure what we're doing? How do we set outcomes? How do we go at it, setting good outcomes and then letting all levels of government shoot towards those outcomes?

And we just promise, Mr. Chair, that as a subcommittee we'll continue to hold the department's feet to the fire, to quote Laurie Beachell, and that we will explore the options in terms of annual reports and legislation.

Thanks very much.

The Chair: Carolyn, thank you, and thank you to your colleagues.

We have a few minutes only for questions because we're committed to finishing at one o'clock.

I have a number of comments and questions myself. Does anyone else?

Could I begin?

Robert.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I have a very important question for the Committee as a whole. In fact, I mentioned this already during our first meeting in the Sub-committee.

I do appreciate Mr. Beachell's comment. I would like us to have the figures. I do not know if our researchers could get those figures. We could also invite all the provinces as well as Quebec to testify so that we would know what the actual needs are in terms of funding, even if the amounts are astronomical. Could we have those figures or meet with representatives of each provinces, separately or together, so that we could ask them to tell us about their needs? This would help us avoid putting forward figures that might be useless and meaningless. We could ask them to tell us what they need, and then we could talk about transfers and what the federal government could do.

I was not here yesterday, but my Parliamentary Assistant was. I wanted you to know that I was present, even though I was not physically attending the meeting. I have a good summary. People mentioned figures, but they may not be sufficient, as it appears from your discussions that funding is not forthcoming. There is clearly a funding shortage.

We need figures from you, but we also need figures from the provinces and from Quebec. They are a prerequisite. When we have those figures, we will be in a position to determine what we can request from each department. I hope they will all contribute, not just Heritage Canada or Human Resources Development Canada. We will be able to reach for every available dollar. I think this is an interesting suggestion. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I've been advised, Robert, that first of all, public accounts, of course, are organized differently in every province, which is what we would expect. But the other thing is that I understand you'll be hearing from a witness in the next couple of weeks, in the plan, who will be able to give us advice on that very matter—on the actual needs of the provinces. Right? Yes, and on the round table on support and services that is in here.

• 1255

Anyone else? Could I try my little list because we have to finish in five minutes?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Robert, it is on May 9 that we will have representatives from the federal-provincial-territorial working group, the co-chairs. I think that's the working group whose meetings Laurie and Joan have been attending for the last two days. There is actually a place where this stuff gets decided. What we could do, Robert, is to make sure you know that if they're not able to answer your questions at that meeting in terms of the information they've all shared with one another, then we can take it from there.

The Chair: I'm sorry we have to do this very quickly, but if we could.... First of all, I noticed in the plans, Carol, that you intend to travel. By the way, I think our committees do not travel enough. I would urge you to get your plans and your budget ready very quickly because it has not been easy to get approval in the House of Commons. We really need to work with all the parties to do that. I suspect in this case we will get it, but I would urge you to do it as early as you can.

With regard to Joan and the HRDC funding, Joan, you described to me what was happening. I knew what was happening during the public hearings on grants and contributions. You're essentially saying that it has not changed? In other words you're still...and it is sort of red tape, is it? Was red tape generated as a result of this? If you could reply briefly, please do so. You understand my problem here.

Ms. Joan Westland: If it were red tape, it could probably be fixed a lot quicker. I think there are a number of factors that are involved. One is the environment within the department itself. We have the reaction from the bureaucrats to the kind of criticism they've been experiencing, and that is that the way to avoid criticism is not to make decisions. If you don't make any decisions, you can't make any mistakes. So there's a fundamental problem in the operation within the department that's causing the difficulties.

Secondly, there's an issue centred around what they consider criteria for eligible funding, and this we are informed is driven by Treasury Board. Treasury Board informs us it's driven by Finance. In fact we've never been able to identify anyone in either Treasury Board or Finance who seems to be the driver behind what HRDC says is limiting their capacity to respond.

So there are a number of factors. Red tape is one, but if it were the only one, we could probably focus on that.

The Chair: Okay. It's just that the Auditor General, who obviously was quite critical of those programs, also said that he was concerned about the department erring on the other side with the result that people on the front line might lose their initiative and their drive.

Ms. Joan Westland: Just let me add one more example.

The Chair: I promised the members earlier.

I would be grateful for some information on the Canadians with disabilities act. I would be most grateful for that.

I was also struck by the wheelchair and the provincial boundary thing. When she was here, Monique Guay mentioned the dangers of duplication. It does seem to me that when there are multiple jurisdictions, multiple NGOs, and people in place, the danger of people falling between the cracks is as great as the danger of duplication. In fact, in many ways if everything were duplicated, you'd at least be sure that everybody would be caught by the net. I was struck by that.

As to the point about mobility, I think the federal government has great responsibility for mobility across the country in terms of qualifications and all sorts of other things.

François, we have on the record very clearly your points about the funding cycle. I understand it, and I think the researchers do. As to your other key things about core support, multi-year support, and being like CIDA, we do have that on the record.

On the awareness programs, there are two of you. François, you mentioned it, and then Paul described this ParticipACTION-like effort, which I think is a part of the same thing. I hope you follow that up in the subcommittee's hearings so you don't have to wait for one great big going-around-the-world event. As Paul said, what ParticipACTION had and still has are these short, sharp advertisements that catch people's attention and raise awareness. I was very pleased with that.

• 1300

Carolyn, your getting ahead of government policy and getting ahead of the estimates is something the main committee is very interested in.

I would like to suggest, colleagues, that.... I think this has been a very productive meeting. I think it's given us.... We're most grateful to you all for giving the main committee the sense of what you've done and what you're going to do.

I would like to ask that if we could proceed and develop a draft of a report, a short summary report—I don't know how the researchers would put it.... As I see it, one of its purposes would be to show quite clearly as a model how this thing is working. It might be useful to other committees. It would describe the subcommittees, their relationships to us, their relationships among themselves—which is very interesting, including this joint meeting that's coming up—how they work, how they have worked, and how they intend to work. I've mentioned the linkages.

Oh, and as we've mentioned, there's this interest in horizontal issues the Auditor General expressed. The plans we have here—which I think are quite clear but could be sort of fleshed out a bit.... Suggestions and recommendations that have come up, either things the committee might endorse or things to serve as examples of the concerns people have.... By the way, some citation of the reports and other sources that were mentioned here....

In the one quite short document, these would be summarized. This would be good for our members, and it's the sort of thing we could share with other standing committees. Now, Bill and Julie, do you think that's something that would be feasible?

If you did it as a draft, the main committee would consider it.

Yes? Alan Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I'll be very brief. I think a huge amount of that work has been done in this very excellent briefing document by William Young.

John Godfrey talked about institutional memory. This is an evolutionary report that integrates a lot of the shortcomings that have been alluded to, but it smacks of a dead end. For example, it makes reference to the Caledon report, which attempts to develop a nation-wide, universal fund that would give the support of mechanisms, be they on the income-support side or be they the tools that are necessary for the community to function. I would like to add to the suggestion you have made that whether it's within the context of the Social Union Framework or within the context of this report, some response should be given to mechanisms such as that advocated in the Caledon report—and in any other reports that may be available, so we can keep a full-court press.

Any suggestions you might have to do that, Carolyn, would be very much appreciated.

The Chair: Alan, thank you very much for that. My thought was to try to get to a level above the briefing paper we have so there'll be something official floating around that deals with these matters.

I wanted to thank Carolyn Bennett, and, colleagues, I want to thank you all for coming here. We do appreciate what you're doing. We hope the work continues at least as well as it has because there have been some successes, I understand.

Our main committee will take under advisement various recommendations as to things we can do and that we will be doing. I'm hoping that in the next months we'll be freer to do things like that than we were when some of us met before, when we were engaged in the public hearings on the grants and contributions.

I thank you all. The committee is adjourned until next Thursday.