SSPD Committee Meeting

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

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 4, 1999

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): I'd like to call the sixth meeting of the committee to order. We welcome the minister responsible, the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew.

Mr. Pettigrew, will you introduce your officials, please?

Honourable Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister, Human Resources Development): With me today is Madam Susan Scotti. She's here in case the questions are too complicated for a ministerial mind. I also have some of my assistants at the back for more technical information that the committee might require.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you, Madam Chair, for having invited me to come before this subcommittee.

[Translation]

I am very happy to participate in your debates today as the Canadian Minister responsible for disability issues. I have come here today to provide you with an update on what the government has done for persons with disabilities and to work with you on our common goal, which is to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities.

My appointment to Human Resources Development Canada coincided with the completion of the report of the Federal Taskforce on Disability Issues. I would trace back my involvement with Human Resources Development Canada to the conversion of the Scott report into a guideline for our current and future actions.

Looking back over the two and a half years that have passed since October 1996, I see progress, but I also see a real need to do even more for persons with disabilities.

[English]

To understand the context of the recommendations in Equal Citizenship for Canadians with Disabilities: The Will To Act, one must confront a paradox. This report was written because in the minds of many persons with disabilities and for those who advocate on their behalf, at the same point in time, nothing changed and everything changed.

The report itself speaks to the gap between saying and doing. From the early 1980s through to the mid-1990s, numerous parliamentary reports and recommendations charted a better way toward achieving equality and inclusion for Canadians with disabilities. But as written in The Will To Act, “implementation of these visions...has left a lot to be desired.” So by 1996 nothing had changed—or had it?

It would be difficult to fault many Canadians with disabilities for feeling their world had been turned upside down. Everything, it must have seemed, was changing. Within the Department of Human Resources Development, for example, major program reforms were under way: the Canada Assistance Plan; unemployment insurance; the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act, the VRDP, which had existed for a generation and more; the Canadian jobs strategy; the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities; and of course the Canada Pension Plan.

Taken together, these programs and initiatives contained many of the disparate components of the government's disability policy. They were familiar, and they were also regularly the object of much criticism from the very people they were intended to serve. New on the horizon were the Canada health and social transfer; employment insurance; employability and social partnerships; a pledge from the Government of Canada to recognize labour market training as a provincial jurisdiction; and labour market development agreements with provincial and territorial governments that followed.

• 1540

Whether these new instruments are better or worse for serving the needs of persons with disabilities is a question that engenders much debate. It is an important debate, which requires our full concentration and attention.

I believe the rapidity of change during this period, especially for individuals who feel very little control over their own circumstances—as many persons with disabilities often feel—was an equally important part of the equation leading to a sense of greater insecurity. It is this perception or reality of insecurity among Canadians with disabilities that is the barometer for our work.

I see an essential role for the Government of Canada in building a just and inclusive society. At the same time, however, the Government of Canada is not and never has been alone in this effort. Provincial governments throughout this country have pioneered and in many cases led the way toward social progress.

[Translation]

What the changes I spoke of partly reflected, and what the recent social union framework agreement still reflects, is the evolution of Canada towards a more balanced federation, a federation which better meets the needs of Canadians, a federation in which governments consult together and assume responsibility for the issues that are under their jurisdictions and find new ways of working together to resolve the issues which go beyond the narrow framework of exclusive jurisdictions. This is what is happening now with health care, with the war on child poverty, and with the issues facing persons with disabilities.

[English]

In speaking of federal progress on disability issues, it is important to keep the big picture in sight. Canadians have won the battle against the deficit and have helped to restore stability to the country's finances. For its part, the government has identified key areas for reinvestment: health care, innovation, knowledge, access to education, and children.

There will be those who say this is not about disability. While they would be correct in pointing out that those investments have not been branded under the heading of a disability strategy, the net results of the government's actions do benefit Canadians with disabilities. Persons with disabilities have as big a stake in these initiatives as other Canadians.

Restoring fiscal sanity and creating a climate for solid economic growth is a good thing. Expanding access to post-secondary education, I contend, is a good thing. Building a more innovative economy and research community that pushes the frontiers of information technology is a good thing. The challenge has been, and will continue to be, finding ways to include all Canadians in the work of building Canada.

To be certain, too many barriers exist for Canadians with disabilities, and too many doors remain closed to them. But the prospects for a more inclusive society and economy are much better today than they were in the years of mounting deficits and dwindling resources to be invested. And while the government has been putting the big pieces in place—pieces that form the foundation on which to build—progress on specific disability issues has indeed been achieved.

We understand that we cannot do it all alone. We must work with other governments, the private and voluntary sectors and the disability community, to achieve our objective of full participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of Canadian society. Partnerships are key to attaining this goal.

• 1545

You will remember that in June 1996 the first ministers made disability issues a priority item on the agenda for social policy renewal. After discussions with stakeholders from the disability community, my provincial and territorial counterparts and I released In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues last October. One of the key aspects of this joint initiative is our agreement to develop an accountability framework to monitor our progress in implementing the In Unison paper, to report on our successes, and to highlight the remaining challenges that require continued attention.

[Translation]

I would like to take a few minutes to outline some of the activities we carried out to reinforce the legal protection measures for Canadians with disabilities, recognize that additional costs are incurred because of disabilities, and improve employment opportunities for these people.

The changes to the Employment Equity Act represent one of the major reforms that were undertaken; more recently, we included an obligation to respond to the needs of persons with disabilities in the Canadian Human Rights Act. We also updated the Criminal Code, as well as the Canada Evidence Act, in order to improve access to the judicial system.

I am specially proud of several initiatives undertaken by my own Department, including the Opportunities Fund. This fund, which was announced in the 1997 budget, is part of a $230 million investment over three years in new programs designed to help Canadians with disabilities become more independent and better integrate the labour market.

The fund receives $30 million a year and is managed in partnership with groups representing the persons with disabilities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. This fund has been very successful, and I hope it will continue to be.

Our new EAPD program is also very promising. This is an initiative we launched with the provinces last April. Under the agreements reached with the provinces, $193 million a year will be provided for this EAPD over the next five years to help fund the provincial programs and services which assist persons with disabilities in finding jobs.

The Canada Pension Plan disability program is one of the essential elements of the income safety net in Canada and is the most important disability benefit program in the country. This year, 289,000 people, including 101,000 of their children, will receive benefits. The Canada Pension Plan provides basic income replacement for Canadians who cannot work because of serious medical or disability problems.

Through various departments, the government also improves service to clients by establishing better links with other disability benefit programs and by helping Canada Pension Plan recipients who are trying to find a job or go back to school. We are also striving to streamline our appeal process in order to eliminate unacceptable delays.

I am specially proud of the provisions of the Canadian equal opportunity strategy for helping students with disabilities. Scholarships of up to $5,000 are now offered to disabled students who have children or other dependents. This funding is in addition to other subsidies granted under the Canada Student Loans Program.

The many reforms introduced since the taskforce presented its report allow Canadians with disabilities to acquire skills and experience, and to obtain the support they need to overcome barriers to employment.

[English]

In the months and years to come, you can expect to see more of this philosophy in practice. We will start by bringing greater coherence to federal policies and programs and by increasing accountability.

We understand that the federal government must get its own house in order and lead by example. Part of that job is building a richer body of knowledge on disability issues. There is currently little reliable national data on people with disabilities to guide policy and program development. Strengthening the capacity of the disability community and broader community facilitates fuller participation through partnerships.

• 1550

The strategy isn't only about government; it's about how government can work more effectively with Canadians in all sectors to move this agenda forward. By improving their access to the information and technology, employment measures, training, and education, employment opportunities for Canadians with disabilities will be expanded, and we must recognize and respond to the acute needs of aboriginal peoples with disabilities and integrate culturally appropriate solutions into all aspects of the federal strategy. We will set the stage for longer term action on issues such as portability and mobility, as well as income and tax measures.

Finally, we need to emphasize the need for prevention and the promotion of health issues as a way to reduce the incidence of disability. We will continue to work with the disability community to ensure that any new initiatives we eventually introduce will produce meaningful results. We recognize that limited resources may be available initially, but I believe we can start to make some strategic investments in order to move forward on this issue.

I have asked my department to identify some resources for this year to begin developmental work on HALS, or the health and activity limitation survey. I am confident it will amount to about $1 million. I will look to this committee as well for help in developing the federal disability strategy. My department is at your disposal. Your input and support will be absolutely essential to the eventual success of this initiative.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for your attention.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll begin the questions.

For the sake of the committee but also for you, Mr. Minister, as the lead minister in this, I would let you know that we have other ministers who have confirmed to come. Minister Collenette and Minister Manley are confirmed for March 18, 1999. Minister Massé also will come on March 18, 1999. We have Minister Dhaliwal almost there, and we are still awaiting replies from Ministers Rock, Stewart, Dion, McLellan, and Martin. We obviously were interested in the social union part of those ministries as well.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'll push them.

The Chair: Thank you. That was the right answer.

The first question will be from Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Thank you, Carolyn.

Thank you, Pierre, for coming. Could I ask who wrote this speech?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Why?

Miss Deborah Grey: Because it sounds too good to be true.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, thank you very much. It's really what has been inspiring the work we've been doing for the last two and a half years and really where we hope to be going. This is honestly an issue on which we've been very committed in the last two and a half years. As you know, we brought it to the social policy table with the provinces. We produced the In Unison paper. As a matter of fact, you will have recognized elements that have been there over the last two and a half years. But there is a real commitment there.

Miss Deborah Grey: I appreciate that. I'm just not sure that disabled people would be wanting to jump up and down right now, Pierre, because of course you've seen the letter of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities that came forward on February 26, 1999, and theirs tells a much different, much sadder, much less cheery attitude than what we've heard today. I guess our responsibility as a committee here is to find out what in heaven's name is the gap between these two.

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions specifically from your remarks.

On the health survey, for instance, you say you want to commit $1 million to this. That certainly came forward with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Does this mean there is a commitment to HALS in 2001 in the census?

• 1555

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: This is money I am reallocating within my department to HALS. It should be around $1 million. I have asked my officials to identify $1 million, and we have identified it.

Miss Deborah Grey: In the first sentence in your remarks, you said “Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee. I am pleased to participate in your study.” I wasn't aware we were doing another study. I thought this committee had talked for two months, or whatever we've been—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Since 1996, Deborah.

Miss Deborah Grey: 1996?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes.

Miss Deborah Grey: Oh, Sheila, it has gone on a decade and a half.

I think, Andy, you had mentioned 1981.

It's almost 20 years now, and I'm not so sure I want to be part of another study, Madam Chair, frankly. I'm kind of nervous about that.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Do you mean in my introduction, Miss Grey?

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes. It says on page 1, “I am pleased to participate in your study”.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: What I said in French was participer à vos travaux—to participate in your work.

Miss Deborah Grey: Oh, I see.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Maybe there is a translation problem, but I meant to say that I was happy to participate à vos travaux parlementaires. Isn't that the proper expression? I don't know how to put that in English.

Miss Deborah Grey: Good. I feel somewhat better about that.

Again, in terms of what these people are saying, we have talked in committee here, over and over again on all sides, about what many people with disabilities are coming forward with, that we've studied it to death and we want some action on this. In your position as lead minister, does this mean that disability issues, rather than just on these pages... Granted, with some of the things that have been done in terms of budget issues and the opportunities fund that you've talked about, maybe it is better than it was. But I'll tell you, we hear some very sad stories and a level of frustration with this letter to the Prime Minister, where it seems to me that people are almost prepared to rip their hair out. Is this a lead priority for the lead minister?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Absolutely. It really has been for two and a half years, and I can honestly tell you that within my department I have seen important changes in attitude toward disabilities. That has been reflected in every encounter, every meeting I have had with members of the disability communities, as they have witnessed. They've told me that they have noticed that change in their dealings with my department at all levels.

Let's be clear. I hope I have conveyed the right tone here in my remarks, that there is still a lot that needs to be done, and I'm really there, that there still is room for a lot of progress. I'm saying that because of the fiscal situation of the country now, I believe we can become more ambitious. At the same time, we have to be realistic.

But while I'm pleased with the progress of the last two and a half years—I didn't mean to be bragging or to be too triumphant—I do realize that there's a lot more that needs to be done. At the same time, it's important to take stock of the progress that has been made, the opportunities fund, but the EAPD too, which is a much better program than the VRDP before and really meets the needs of the disability community.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks. I'll pass for now.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madam.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Minister, I thank you for coming. I see a nice symbol here: it is warm, it is pleasant, and there are many happy people, while outside, the weather is rotten. I would like the persons with disabilities to not be just outside.

In your introduction, you said the government was inspired by the Scott report, which, as we know, is a truly liberal report. This does not mean it was not a good report, but you did say that it inspired current and future actions. I would like to have a few examples, because according to the letter Ms. Grey mentioned, it seems that it isn't exactly a bed of roses for persons with disabilities. That is my first question; others will follow.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I am not implying that is it like a bed of roses for persons with disabilities. I also read the report and a number of other documents, but at the meetings I attended with members and representatives of groups representing persons with disabilities, they acknowledged the significant and very important progress that was achieved.

Allow me to point out that one of the measures we took to improve the current situation is the Opportunities Fund, an extremely important fund which had a good start and is doing well.

• 1600

We have also increased the annual funding of our employability program from $168 to $193 million, a $25 million increase to meet the demands of Québec, who estimated that the shares were more or less fair depending on the needs. In Unison was adopted by the provinces and the Canadian government to monitor our progress and provide direction for the remaining challenges we want to meet.

I announced a moment ago that I will be investing $1 million in the research program... I forget the French name.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The mobility program.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It is the Health and Activity Limitation Survey, also known as HALS. I think there is still room for improvement.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I was close enough.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You were close enough. So, our work will really go in that direction.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The Minister of Finance tabled a budget last February. It goes without saying that before the budget is tabled, the ministers make representations to Mr. Martin, which surely reflect their priorities.

I would like to know what representations you made, notably on the issue of persons with disabilities, because there does not seem to be anything new in this budget. Could you shed some light?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You cannot expect me to talk about the conversations I had with Paul Martin during the weeks and months that preceded the budget. It is obvious that, in the budgetary process, we expressed a certain number of priorities. By the way, the Minister of Finance will be appearing before your sub- committee. I have always found genuine openness and availability in Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance. This is why we have had quite substantial improvements over the past years and I have never had too much trouble negotiating certain improvements. I think we are on the right track.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I will ask you a more specific question. I do not believe the Canadian child tax benefit reflects the distinction between healthy children and children with disabilities. As we very well know, some children have extremely serious disabilities, and everyone knows that life is very different when a child has a disability.

[English]

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I would have to look—

[Translation]

I'm sorry. What's happening to me all of a sudden?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's it, assimilation.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Don't worry about my assimilation, Madam.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It happens to me, too.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: To speak English?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's it, exactly.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I can look further into it, but the national child benefit...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, that's it: the Canadian child tax benefit. I have learned that name by heart.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The tax credit.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's it, the benefit.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: This benefit does not make a distinction between a child...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I will look further into this and we might make...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If what I'm saying is correct.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, but on the other hand, there are other programs.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I suggest you talk about it for the next budget, because there will be more.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, but on the other hand, there are other programs which may improve the situation. The Canadian Association for Community Living wishes to enhance the...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: So, you will look into this.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I will look into this. At the present time, the benefit is indeed granted per capita, per child. There is no distinction between the two.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Chair, may I ask another question? I will save my other ones for later if we have time.

We know that in communities, there are many organizations which address the needs of disabled clients. These organizations, which I know very well, are always looking for funding, which means that a lot of their energy is devoted to looking for money.

• 1605

Do you see any way to free them to a certain extent from this? Do you have the intention of granting them a three-year funding, for example, on which they could rely and which would enable them to efficiently meet the needs of their clients?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, and the Scott report had in fact recommended that a new funding system be established to make their lives easier. In 1997, national organizations representing persons with disabilities were widely consulted. The social development partnership program was launched in 1998. Under the new funding system, non-governmental organizations for social services and services to persons with disabilities will receive $5 million a year to support national organizations, $4 million for specific projects, and $3 million for community integration activities.

Under this new funding system, the department is committed to defining funding priorities each year, in co-operation with the volunteer community and the reference groups involved, and to report regularly to these groups on operational activities and projects.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's a start. Thank you.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It's a good start.

[English]

The Chair: Judy, would you explain that Wendy's...

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I'd like to begin by explaining that I'm filling in for Wendy Lill, who would desperately like to be here and is still trying to get here. She left Halifax early this morning, ended up in Toronto, and is now en route by train and still trying to get here. She just really wanted to be here. As you know, Madam Chair, she feels very strongly about these issues and was quite instrumental in working with you in making this subcommittee a reality. I will do my best to try to fill in for her.

I think she would want me to start off in the same way the two previous speakers have, and that is to thank the minister for being here, but to say there does appear to be a huge discrepancy between the words and the rhetoric of the minister's speech and the feelings of the community. The letter that's just been sent to the Prime Minister from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities speaks of enormous disappointment and concern.

I think that needs to be addressed in some way. There is obviously a big gap between what the community feels is being done and what the government thinks is being done. Related to that broad question are a couple of specifics. One of the first issues mentioned in this letter is the changes to the Canada Pension Plan's disability program. It is certainly a concern I have picked up in my own constituency; it's probably the number one issue for case work that we're dealing with. Many people are saying they are being turned down automatically before their application has even been reviewed. The doctor's recommendations are not being considered. They feel there is absolutely no hope of getting recognition for their lifelong disability and some economic security to be able to live with some dignity. That's the first question.

Maybe I'll quickly ask two more, and then wait for an answer. The second has to do with the health and activity limitation survey, which you said, Mr. Minister, you've found around $1 million for. I think the committee, and I know Wendy, wanted me to ask how soon this would be up and running, and if you could provide details to the committee about this survey getting under way.

A third point would be with respect to the opportunity fund, which you mention in your speech as being a significant achievement of this government. In the letter from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities they express grave concern about the fact that it has a three-year limitation, that funding will run out in the year 2000, and that at this point, without some assurance of ongoing funding, they are forced to start looking at shutting down shop in about six months. Do you have a commitment for being able to carry on the opportunities fund?

• 1610

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, I won't make any budgetary commitments today. You will understand that very well. But I'll invite you to look at my track record, the number of programs I have set up since I've been at HRDC. For example, the youth employment strategy was a three-year program, and when it came to an end, I got its continuation on a permanent basis in the last budget. The same thing with the Canada jobs fund—the transitional job fund has become the Canada jobs fund. So we'll get to work at it, and hopefully we will be able to replenish the fund when it comes.

As to your second question, on HALS, it's ready to go right away. The money has been identified; it's going now.

Regarding the CPP, 35% of applications are approved, and overall, after all appeals, about 48% are approved. The CPP disability benefit was originally designed as earnings replacement for workers who have become severely disabled. It was never intended to provide benefits to all persons with disabilities, as you know.

During the consultations with many Canadians, including representatives from the disability community, it was said that the former requirements for attachment to the labour force were not strong enough. The new rules address that concern, but at the same time the new rules are still more generous than the original rules of the CPP prior to 1987, when workers had to contribute in five of the last ten years and in at least one-third of the years since their eighteenth birthday.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a quick question to follow that up. I hear what you're saying, but it seems to fly in the face of what my experience is in the constituency with people raising these concerns, and with what the council is saying. They clearly state that eligibility has been made more difficult for applicants, and pension benefits are more restricted. Maybe it's not in the rules, but in the application of the rules, and perhaps—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, no—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —in the administration of this benefit, people are not being looked at seriously. We're talking of people with permanent lifelong disabilities, yet going through all kinds of hoops and still without hope and help.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, we try to apply the rules as humanely as possible, but when you have rules, you have rules. I did acknowledge that there had been a tightening of the rules in 1987, but I'm saying they are more generous than the rules previous to 1987. This is something that was heard pretty widely, that the former requirements for attachment to the labour force were not strong enough. This is something that was said as well. So we're trying to find a balance here.

The Chair: Before we go to Mr. Muise, I would like to thank you, Mr. Minister, on behalf of the committee. The committee felt very strongly that they wanted to be able to do a few things and get them ticked off. The fact that you have come today with a commitment to HALS helps us with one of the things on the list of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. It's thrilling to us that we unanimously approved the sending of the letter, and that you've come here with an answer. That's terrific for us. So thank you.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm really glad to have the opportunity to discuss with you some of the issues I deal with on a daily basis that affect the disabled. My first concern, in preparing for this committee during the Christmas recess, was how much work had been done in various studies, and how few results took place from those studies.

I'm not looking for a general answer or a specific answer, but maybe a commitment on your part. I came here on this committee with hopes that we could accomplish something, but I'm wondering if we're just going to end up having another recommendation and no results from it. I know I'm being general in my comments, but I'd like to see some forward movement on some of these issues.

• 1615

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You have my commitment. This is a priority that we have adopted, both as Human Resources Development and I would say as a government. If I look at the track record of the last two and a half years, I do find concrete elements to make us optimistic that we will continue on that trend. I'm very committed to that, I can tell you that.

Mr. Mark Muise: Again, the House is a very good first step.

I'd also like to echo what my colleague just touched on about CPP. If there's one single issue we deal with more at the constituency level, it's CPP disability. Mr. Minister, with all due respect, you may feel that since 1991 things are better when it comes to dealing with CPP. That is not what is felt on the ground. People are of the opinion that the initial application is just refused. Sending it to appeal, to review—there are three or four or five processes—I have seen cases where it has gone on for four and five years. That is not the norm, but many are from two to three years.

Of course, not every person can be paid and not every person should be paid because not every person qualifies. But when you sit down with a person and you look at the medical records—and I'm not a medical doctor, but I have an insurance background, and I recognize that not all these people should be paid—people with serious, long-term situations are just being pushed and pushed in the hope they will forget about it. What happens here is there are two costs. There is cost in the frustration and the lack of self-confidence and self-esteem of these people. There is also the cost of the review people, the people who sit on these boards, and the salaries and the per diems that are paid to these people. There is the cost at the provincial level for social assistance to help these people, and on and on. This is one area in which I feel we could make big strides if we at least stopped passing the buck and at the end paying and having to pay interest and so on.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I understand that 35% of the applications are approved. That's a big third. It's not 100% that are refused; 35% are approved, and when there are appeals it goes up to 48%. This is a significant number. When we made the changes, the objective was to make sure benefits were there for those who really need them. You have the same stories as well. One of the criteria is that you must have severe and prolonged illness to meet it. Some applications are refused, but people who are not entitled should not be encouraged to apply either.

Mr. Mark Muise: Correct.

Mr. Minister, I understand that point, and I agree with you, but it's when there is positive information that this case should be approved and it has just dragged on in the hope of not having to pay, in the hope that something will happen, or in the hope that when it is close to the age of retirement they will go on the other benefit and not this one. I just think there is an unfairness there in certain cases. If you could look at that aspect, I think it would be a positive move.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, as a physician, I just had an add-on question to that, in that I was concerned that some insurance companies make people apply in some ways knowing that they don't qualify. What kind of bureaucratic time is being spent on these people who won't be paid by their private carrier unless they apply for CPP disability, and is there anything we could do to tighten that up?

• 1620

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We're doing it with the present system, but it still creates problems with the backlogs and other things like that. But we keep saying don't send them all to us.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: But it is definitely used by some other interveners.

The Chair: Is there something we could do through the Insurance Council or something that could actually just stop these applications that are neither severe nor prolonged?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: There are discussions under way right now with the industry, precisely to meet that objective.

The Chair: Thank you.

We now have the privilege of having Mrs. Finestone, who was the chair of the human rights committee the last time a minister appeared on this topic of Canadians with disabilities. That was June of 1996 and it was Minister Young. Mrs. Finestone was the chair.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Andy was the co-chair or the vice-chair or whatever. We were together on this issue.

Mr. Minister, welcome. I have a strong sense that although I would agree with Madam Grey that it's a very positive approach in your speech, for which I'm very grateful, now I hope the speech and the content matches the reality back in my riding. Because of the work we did on disability, there are a great number of people who seem to think I know more than I do. So I assure you I'm waiting to find out from you.

As a matter of fact, in that light, I wonder if you would help me out. You have a department. Is that right? You now have a Department of Human Resources Development that's putting together a disability policy framework. Is that accurate?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Okay. Could I know who's the head of that?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Who is at the head of the...

Ms. Susan Scotti (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): I'm the ADM.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Welcome, Susan.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Thank you, Mrs. Finestone. Nice to see you.

I'm the associate assistant deputy minister who's responsible for putting it together. Mary Glen is the director general for the social development partnerships, under which the office of disability issues comes. The director is Karen Junke.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Has the relationship been improved and is dialogue being undertaken between all the various departments of government? Have you got a round table that's actually working, and is dialogue with action taking place? Mazel tov is all I can say.

[Translation]

In French, it means the same thing: Mazel tov.

[English]

So you have a horizontal policy and it's active. All right.

My second question then goes to the minister. Mr. Minister, you've been responsible. I think we're going to check up on the other departments, so you might let them know we're checking up on them and finding out who's going to be active in their departments and reporting to Madam Scotti.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: There are 23 departments involved.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Well, all I can say is that's a big headache. Maybe you should put them all together and give them a little power.

My second question is for you, Mr. Minister. HRDC has been responsible for the development of the labour market agreements. I wonder where the inclusion of the disabled is in that particular undertaking. In the national child benefit the provisions of the additional needs for the disabled children that Madam Dalphond-Guiral referred to are absolutely vital. As well, the post-secondary undertakings we have, and the initiatives, have not seemed to answer the needs of the disabled students.

Last but far from least is the social union framework agreement as it addresses the mobility of Canadians, as it will address the issues in all phases of the social union. Because that social union framework, as you yourself so well described, is a program of action, how do you resolve a problem? Where are the disabled within that social union policy development scheme?

Those are three points. No, maybe four. First, can you answer to the labour market agreement? Second was national child benefits, the need for the additional moneys and care for the children with disabilities. The third was the post-secondary education that doesn't remove barriers for students with disabilities.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: And the social union.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: And the social union framework. Really what we want to know is what have been your initiatives over the past two years? Why haven't you incorporated so that we visibly know and are aware of what's taking place for the disabled and concerns for the disabled?

• 1625

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: On the labour market development agreement, we have in parallel the EAPD program that has replaced the VRDP. In terms of employability, we're working very hard at helping Canadians to integrate the labour market through our employability EAPD program, which the provinces run with us actually in each of their provinces. So we're spending more money on that aspect of things.

On the LMDAs, and whether they will have an impact, a worry I've heard is that because of the accountability we're asking for, people sometimes ask if the provinces will neglect disabled Canadians in order to perform better in terms of the number of unemployed Canadians who they have will have helped to integrate the labour market. It's still in the early days. I would be very sorry if that took place. This is something we will have to keep a close eye on and find solutions to if it actually arrives that way.

On the national child benefit, I'll look into it. That was raised. I will look at what we could do within the present system right now, because indeed the national child benefit does not differentiate between families with disabled children or families with... It's strictly income based. It is an income-based program. As you know, there are lots of other credits available to families with disabled children.

On the post-secondary education, there is from last year a $5,000 scholarship for disabled students who have children or who have other people they are responsible for. So that's already a good improvement.

On the social union framework that was reached and signed by the first ministers, we must see it not as the end of a process but as the beginning of a process. To me, that framework needs to be fleshed out now. It is there. It actually was largely inspired by what we did on the national child benefit in terms of the workings between the Government of Canada and that of the provinces. That indeed has been a bit of a model for the framework. So what we have to do is to continue to use the social union framework as we are using every social policy table with the ministers of the provinces and all that to promote an agenda for the disabled, and In Unison commits us all in the same direction.

I think that—

[Translation]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Go ahead and finish.

[English]

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I thought you wanted to—

[Translation]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, I have an additional question.

[English]

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: To me, the social union framework should help us to do even more work, because I do think that what we've been able to accomplish in the last few years is precisely because of this partnership we're trying to develop between the different jurisdictions and with the different tools that each jurisdiction has at its disposal.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I think that augurs well if it works. My question, then, is in order for there to be a sense of transparency to meet the gap between what is supposedly being done and what is perceived to have been done, as was raised by my colleagues across the table, we need some transparency in the work we're doing and we need a consultation mechanism with the societies that are suffering from disabilities and have to have input. Unless it's on your foot, you don't know how it fits.

The civil society in today's world is a very important aspect of the work you do. It's not only the minister and not only the bureaucrats, but it's the receivers of the service who are very important, and the transparencies, as I said before. What model do you intend to use in the social union practice as you try to implement policies that will relate to the disabled? How do you plan to go ahead, and where are you going to use that group and your special unit within your enormous areas of responsibility?

• 1630

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It's the whole idea of capacity building. This is what we're trying to do. It's the capacity building within civil society to be able to take a larger role and a larger place, and I believe that if we do it with the provinces it's going to help a great deal. As a matter of fact, we're trying to progress a great deal on the accountability system as well. As you know, we're moving on accountability—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If you have the inputs and you want to measure outputs, I think the people who are involved, namely the disabled, have to know what you're doing in terms of input so that you can properly measure the output and then check it against what is their reality and what is the government bureaucracy's reality.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I absolutely agree. We need to improve accountability. I'll tell you that my own department, Human Resources, is playing a leadership role in the development of accountability frameworks in disability at both the federal level, with the other departments, my colleagues who you will be meeting—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I know you're the lead minister, with a lot of headaches. That's why I want to see that you get help.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: That's very generous of you. We're also doing it with the provinces at the provincial-territorial table as well, and that accountability has to go through regular processes and collaborations. I think we're on the way.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Ms. Finestone has mentioned that we've been discussing this for some time. I can't miss the opportunity to commend Mr. Bernier, who represented the Bloc on the committee, and Ian McClelland, who represented the Reform on the committee in the last round. I would say that Mr. Bernier in particular was very aggressive in the pursuit of the amendment to the human rights legislation to include duty to accommodate specifically. And I think Mr. McClelland's priority has always been measureable accountability. I think he would welcome what you had to say about HALS today.

The question, of course, is whether the $1 million is enough so that we're not losing any time. I think ultimately the money we had to get now is simply so that we can begin the work so that we're not losing any time waiting until another fiscal financial decision is taken. So is it your opinion that this money will allow us to do the work we need to do now?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Andy Scott: On the labour market agreement, I don't believe we've signed an agreement with the Province of Ontario yet. As a result of this fact, and as a result of the provisions in the earlier labour market agreements, if there is a new idea that is included in a subsequent agreement—and this won't come as a surprise—then that change can be incorporated into prior agreements.

In the event we determine that in fact there is a problem with the labour market agreements around disability because of the very rigorous accountability mechanisms—and I think we've all experienced that there is a problem, in that the provinces are forced to cherry-pick to meet the accountability numbers that are in the agreements—if we could improve that in a subsequent agreement, it may offer relief in other ones. I don't think anybody intended that, frankly, but I do think it is an outcome, and I think that if we could improve that it would go a long way toward making these mainstream programs more accessible. Because what has happened in some provinces—and my own, I think—is that the province sees the opportunities fund as somehow being the disability piece, when in fact it was never the intention that the opportunities fund would be a segregated program but rather a supplementary program to mainstream programs, which in this case would be the active measures to the labour market agreement.

It's the same as for SOG, the special opportunities grant, which is not instead of student loans but in fact in addition to student loans. The student loans, by the way, shouldn't be taxable. But I think we know this; it won't come as a surprise either.

In terms of the accountability, I would echo what has been said about the social union and the opportunity to use the framework. As you say, we're looking for other places to build on previous success, and this seems to be one that is really open to us. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us to bring everybody to the table as the language of the opening statements... And I would urge us to see the opportunity that the social union framework provides and encourage the department to move in that direction.

• 1635

I hope I'm not taking too much time. There are just a couple of things.

I mentioned non-taxability. On CPP, I don't think any member of Parliament could say that the disability piece of the Canada Pension Plan works to our satisfaction, because you wouldn't be reflecting what you experience every day. However, as one of the other elements, we talk about private insurance, but the provinces—I don't know if other provinces do this, but I believe they do, and I know New Brunswick does—force people who would seek income assistance to actually demonstrate that they've been refused CPP, in order to get it. Consequently, when you have a refusal rate that is high, which also means you have an appeal process that is very onerous because of the fact that people are forced to prove that they couldn't get CPP before they can get income assistance, if we're going to go after the private insurance companies, we also have to recognize that we have provinces we have to attend to.

I'm concerned about the practical problem of having a 23-department horizontal initiative, led by a very capable minister. Let's say that the priority in terms of disability were a refundable tax credit and that doesn't fall under the responsibility of the department. How does a lead minister, responsible for a cross-cutting issue like disability... How does that get handled in an effective way, if that is in fact the priority item?

I guess I've taken enough time.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: As you know, when we speak about the 23 departments, 23 of them are involved in identifying particular measures that they should be doing. But a lot of it takes place on a one-on-one basis. When we talk about justice issues, I will call Anne McLellan. So it's not at all cumbersome. There's a good round table that is pretty productive and pretty effective at the officials level, but between ministers, we never meet the 23 disability ministers to see that. It goes a lot more easily than that.

On what you raised on the labour market agreement, we'll have to see. It's still very much in the early days, as I said earlier. But in these agreements, even if we negotiated, there is a clause for reopening the agreements. Once we sign one agreement, for instance... Historically, the first one I signed was with Alberta, and obviously Alberta didn't want to sign, or they wanted to sign but they said at the same time that should some other provinces get something in your negotiations that we would want, we want an opening. It's article 24. But now it's their prerogative to open it if other provinces down the line got it.

From our point of view, it is more in the assessing that we will have to see if there are things that should be changed and measures that should be adopted to change them.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Does that mean that if the labour market training doesn't adequately address the disabled, even though there's a commitment to do so, there's no way in which—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: There will be reports tabled before Parliament every year, in which we will be able to measure the efficiency of every provincial capacity to integrate people. If we saw that there was a problem, we would sit down with them and discuss it.

Mr. Andy Scott: The opportunity is very specific. The opportunity is because we haven't signed an agreement with the province—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes.

Mr. Andy Scott: —and we will, or may; it's in the future—and because of the provision that exists in the other agreements, that if a province signs a subsequent agreement... I suspect there will be provinces that would be very open to this, because it would relax, to some extent, some of the conditions. Therefore, if we recognize that it is a bit of a problem—and we've heard enough to suggest that it may be—and the opportunity exists to remedy it in a subsequent agreement, I think we should consider seriously doing that.

I don't think there would be a great deal of resistance on the part of the provinces, because they would see some relief, if you like.

• 1640

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: But do you see a real problem there? Honestly, is this just something you suspect might happen? Do you already have early signs of it? Honestly, before today I wasn't informed of it, but now I've heard it twice.

Mr. Andy Scott: Respectfully, minister—this is the labour market agreement—there are quite rigorous and well-intentioned measures for the provinces to meet. But in the local HRD office that is responsible for meeting those measures—I don't know what the central Canadian language is, but in our part of the country it's called cherry-picking—the people they engage in these programs are the people who are most likely to be to be immediately employed. That works against people in many cases with disabilities—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, I understand very well—

Mr. Andy Scott: It's my experience that it does happen.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: But it does happen. Okay. Well, we'll have to do something.

The Chair: We've heard a little bit that in determining what outcomes there should be in any labour market agreement or anything, you want it so disability lands on those outcomes as they're originally designed. So cherry-picking is not possible because it won't meet one of the necessary outcomes, which is to make sure more persons with disabilities end up getting jobs. You want the outcomes determined. Whether we want that in the social union or in the labour market, we want it so the disability lands on everything, so the groups that come together to determine outcomes... That's good.

The frustration is that when we look at performance indicators, they should be based on the outcomes, they shouldn't be based on how long it takes to answer the phone or how many times people get a busy signal. We don't want those things as performance indicators; we want performance indicators that are based on the outcomes that were collaboratively set.

We're a bit worried that when we start talking about accountability, before we've all had a crack at what the outcomes and performance indicators should be, you can't talk about accountability until you have those two things and agreement on them.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I agree with the approach you've just described. That's the approach we want to work on.

The Chair: Great. That's what we would love to support you on.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It was worth coming this afternoon, Madam Chair. I'm learning.

The Chair: I think we would like to go back to Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: I have just another couple of questions here about page 4 in your speech, where you talk about CPP disability. I think we're all pretty well agreed here. You must be too; you've obviously spend some time in your constituency office. I don't think it's any surprise, in either rural or urban areas, that it is a nightmare. I have had grown men and women in my office in tears because they have not been approved and they were put through such horrendous cross-examination in the appeals process. They come back to me just weeping because they have been reduced to shreds by the questioning, the cross-examination. I just find it unbelievable.

When you talk about streamlining the appeals process to eliminate unacceptable delays, how, when, and where is that going to happen? In the last year alone we've accumulated 19,000 backlogged appeals. How in the world will we we get through those? It's gone up by 64% in 1995-96 and 44% in 1996-97. Pierre, how will we deal with those 19,000 appeals?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We've already begun to address it. We've hired more people. I've given the judges who will evaluate these cases more flexibility. There were a number of quality judges who couldn't do them, and now we've made it possible for them to do it. So in terms of both numbers and overall flexibility between the regions and all that, hopefully we will make a dent in this backlog. But we've already begun in the last few months.

• 1645

Miss Deborah Grey: In terms of these tribunals, referees, or judges people have to go before, we all know, when we're feeling healthy and fit and know we're going up against somebody to try to prove our case or whatever, it takes a lot of strength and energy to get your head around whatever you need to present your case.

I've had people in my office who are just in such pain they can hardly get down the hallway in the mall to my office, and sometimes they can't even sit down in my office. That's just one example of these people who get to this tribunal situation. Then, when they come out the other end, what kind of accountability is there for the referees or judges? These people say they have never been treated like that in their entire lives and they're just reduced to nothing. To me that's just such a tragedy.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm not complaining about any particular office because I've talked with MPs across the country. You talk about input-output accountability, but who says to these people, “These are human beings, and they're human beings in a whole lot of pain right now, and maybe you don't have the right to shred these people”? They're out of luck. When private industry insurance tells them to get CPP, they try to get CPP. It takes them forever to get through. They're behind on their bills and everything else. Their mortgage payments aren't being made. Then they say they can't get CPP and the insurance people say to them, “Well isn't that a pity”.

Something is dreadfully wrong there. What is the accountability process for the people who are in place to be loving and kind yet fair with these folks?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Madam Scotti will answer.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Or Victor Rabinovitch. Do you want to take this?

Miss Deborah Grey: I'm not at all fussy. Anyone can answer it.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: As long as you get answer.

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch (Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security Program, Department of Human Resources Development): Madam Chair and Mr. Minister, there are 286 members of the review tribunals at the present time. They are order-in-council appointees. A review tribunal always consists of three members: a medical professional, a lawyer, and a member of the general public. They are answerable to the commissioner of the review tribunals, who is also an order-in-council appointee. That person in turn will make all information available, so we know the statistics on what is adopted, or what is passed and what is not.

I know they go through an extensive training process before they begin to sit as a review tribunal. They make a point of trying to treat the individual in front of them absolutely as an individual and not at all as a court proceeding.

The whole review tribunal process is, of course, handled at arm's length from the department, so in no way is there a departmental input to their decision-making. However, all evidence is brought forward, because in the end it is just part of the administration of law and the act. The final level, of course, is the Pension Appeals Board, and that consists of three judges at the court who will sit on any particular case. I hope that's the answer.

We don't have any information about 19,000 backlogged appeals. Those aren't our statistics, Minister.

Miss Deborah Grey: What are your statistics then?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: They are considerably less than that. At the present time the review tribunals are running between four months to eleven months and they're making about 9,500 decisions a year, so there isn't a backlog of that kind at all.

Miss Deborah Grey: I am taking my numbers from a Human Resources Development Canada annual report of the Canada Pension Plan, 1995-96 and 1996-97, pages 21 to 23 and pages 18 to 20 respectively. It seems fairly—

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: My information is from 1999—current time.

Miss Deborah Grey: That's wonderful news.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: So that's good news, then.

Miss Deborah Grey: That is terrific news.

You say these are order-in-council appointments, and that's the way things go, I guess. They do that and they are at arm's length. Who, in the final analysis, reaches their arms out and says you're not doing it right; these people are being humiliated? Arm's length is super, but doesn't someone sooner or later need to reach out and say no, you don't talk to people that way, because they're disabled and frightened, and they're human beings?

• 1650

I don't know, Susan. I just know all of us around this table here are facing this in our offices, and we don't know what to say.

Ms. Susan Scotti: The commissioner is responsible for doing that in the end.

The Chair: Maybe we'd like to have the commissioner come to the committee.

Miss Deborah Grey: I think that would be great.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Invite the commissioner then.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks. I appreciate that. I think all of us are just terribly frustrated, because we want to do what we can to help in our offices. But holly smokes, I'll tell you, they are the most painful days in my riding office when I have to face people and they say “Deb, you have to help me. I've been everywhere. You're my last resort, and you have to help me.”

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Deb, are these people who you think should have qualified but didn't, or are they people who set an expectation level—

Miss Deborah Grey: By and large, these people looked to me—and I'm not a medical type—to have pretty severe and pretty prolonged disabilities.

The Chair: That's why we have lay panellists on the appeal.

Miss Deborah Grey: It's really important, I think.

The Chair: Madam had a question, and then Ms. Torsney.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to make a comment on what Ms. Grey has just said. It seems obvious that when the notion of disability involves such a discrepancy, something must be done. A rational and realistic definition of disability must be found. This is fundamental.

My question is relatively simple. The Opportunities Fund was announced in 1997 and is therefore in its second year. There is one more year to go. In 1997, there were a little fewer than 200,000 unemployed disabled people. How many disabled people were able to find a reasonable job under this program? And based on your evaluation of it, will this program be continued?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I cannot tell you today whether the program will be continued or not, because it is the Finance Minister's prerogative to announce budget credits.

I can however tell you that we expect the fund to help 4,000 to 6,000 disabled people each year integrate the labour market.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: A few moments ago, I heard something about a commissioner. Please explain. I did not know there was a commissioner of disabled person's rights.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It is not a commissioner of disabled person's rights but rather the Canada Pension Plan commissioner.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I see.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We must have the same person in Québec. You know that the Québec pension system is perfectly modelled...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is entirely different.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, it is identical.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I mean it is the Régie des rentes du Québec.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It is the Régie des rentes du Québec. It is independent, but it has the same definitions of disabled people, of disabilities, and so on. The definitions are the same.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I see.

For anything involving persons with disabilities at the federal level, should there not be a commissioner of disabled person's rights? There are many commissioners, and I believe they are called senior officials. These are respected people who write reports, and the government must listen to what they say.

When I see the list of ministers who rush to the promenade, no matter what the weather, I am impressed. This means that there are many people, at the department level, who have or should have something to say. Could we not consider appointing a commissioner of disabled person's rights? This might force all these ministers to agree and determine what is best for these people, who do have full citizenship.

• 1655

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It is an interesting suggestion. I do not know who would be responsible for eventually appointing such a commissioner. For the moment, as minister responsible, I can tell you that we have devoted a lot of energy and effort to this issue. I have spent a lot of time with members of the disabled community, but this is a suggestion the committee might want to review. If the committee decided to make a recommendation, the government could look further into it.

[English]

The Chair: In the horizontal issues, I think we are struggling to have a look at all of the possible options, but I think we've heard lots. Whether it's persons with AIDS or the emerging need for home care, clearly there are big hunks that fall under different ministries. We promise you that we will think of all of these suggestions.

Ms. Torsney, you had a quick question. If I'm correct, you wanted Mr. Rabinovitch to return to the table.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): And while he's getting to the table, I'll assume the minister wasn't the big hunk you were referring to.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Now we know who in the room was listening.

The Chair: Congratulations for that, Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to go back to the issue of CPP and the review panels and things like that, I've heard of some cases in which people have been working in a certain kind of employment that may have depended on them being fairly physically agile, but they become ill or are injured. They then apply for CPP because there is no possibility of doing their previous work. They're turned down, so then they go to the review panel. I've actually heard of cases in which review panels are giving suggestions to them as to what they might do in their less-than-able state.

I'm wondering, sir, what the guidelines are and what the expectations are for people to find other work. Are they checked against current labour market opportunities that might exist in certain markets?

Let me give you an example. I actually heard about a woman who suffered very seriously from arthritis and some other illnesses. It was actually suggested to her that she might look for a job as a parking lot attendant, which in the winter would be a wonderful place to be if you were arthritic, of course. Also, given that most of the parking lots in my area are attended by automatic machines, I'm not sure where there are any parking lots where that person would be able to get that kind of job. So it just seemed a bit odd that in the review process someone would be turned down, and that the only suggestion anyone could come up with for her as a possible employment would in fact be something that doesn't exist in our area and was ill-suited to her current state of health.

I wonder if you might be able to provide some further information on that.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Madam Chair, to answer the question through you, the requirement set out by the law is very strict. As you know, it creates essentially black-and-white situations. Is the applicant totally unable to work? Is that total inability expected to be for a prolonged period? It's quite different from worker's compensation legislation, under which people can be judged to be partially disabled, because the partial disability may change over a period of time.

That is the strict setting out of the law. Philosophically, the inclusion of disability under a pensions law is based on the concept that a person is essentially pensioned off from work. They are not going back to work, ever. That is the expectation.

• 1700

A second consideration in this is that the CPP is funded by contributors, not through general taxation. As officials work case by case, then, they're looking at whether the requirements of the law are being met, and whether all the interests of the contributors are being respected. So there is a balance involved there.

It is never easy. I can tell you that because, as the minister will be able to point out, my work colleagues and I personally have to sign many personal letters to individuals, describing why they are not accepted into the program. It really is not easy to do that, particularly when you read some of the letters—and I'm sure you're all on the receiving end of the same information.

Just to describe the process of what happens, there are the initial applications, of course. These days we're doing very well in terms of speed on the initial applications. By and large, a little over one-third of initial applicants are accepted into the program. By and large, initial applications are being dealt with in a two-month period, or roughly sixty days. The applicant then has a choice of whether or not to appeal.

The first level of appeal is an internal administrative appeal. But it is an appeal. The people handling it are completely separate from the previous people who handled the initial case. Those initial appeals are also being handled roughly in a two-month turnaround period. I say “roughly” because you're always going after the individual or the individual's doctors to ask for additional information. At any time when additional information comes in, it's put into the file, and that can lead to a change of decision. I can give you many examples of that. I was able to fortunately sign off a letter just two days ago saying that someone was admitted into the program precisely because new information had come in.

After that—in other words, the initial level and the first level of appeal—the individual has the choice of going on for the arm's-length, separate appeal at the review tribunal level. I might point out that approximately 88% of all applicants to the CPP disability are handled at those first two levels. It might be 87% or it might be 89%, but it's approximately 88%. So when you're dealing at the review tribunal level, we're still dealing with roughly 12%.

At that level, the review tribunal itself—and you may wish to speak to Mr. Smith and some of his colleagues, which is your choice as a committee, of course—will also seek additional information. What it may seek is a functional study of the individual, and a functional study being carried out by people trained in physiotherapy and other specific professional capabilities. The tribunal will seek advice to say whether or not the individual can perform work—not the job that he or she was doing, but some other type of remunerative work. That helps to guide the review tribunal members to a very significant degree.

If I put myself in their shoes, they are facing an individual who is obviously not a happy person, who is obviously not a comfortable person, and who is obviously trying to make a claim. You have a lawyer who is acting as the chair, someone from the medical side who acts as one of the members, and a general member of the public as the third member. They are trying to evaluate, with all the information, whether or not this applicant really could do some form of work.

They are not required and they are not called upon to evaluate the labour market situation. The act, the law, does not permit for that. In fact, in 1995 the Auditor General, who is of course an instrument of Parliament, criticized the department for being too inclined to take labour market conditions into account. Of course it's in the hands of a minister of Parliament to change the law and by all means to make our job easier as officials. We'd then be glad to apply your law if you wish.

• 1705

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But following up on this, two things come to mind. Clearly, when you're dealing with a 59-year-old woman who is very close to her 60th birthday and would therefore qualify for early CPP, let me just say I'm glad we made changes to ensure that there will be CPP, and CPP disability particularly. Those opportunities for work, for gainful employment, are greatly reduced, not just by a disability, but clearly by age, because we know there's age discrimination in a very big way.

Secondly, I wonder if you keep stats on the number of people who are in fact turned down, or who have applied and who die before they make it through the process. I would imagine that in some cases those figures are skewed. Of the 88% of people whose applications are dealt with in that other process, I'm sure some of them in fact didn't make it.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: I can look into that, Madam Chair, since I'm not aware of those statistics. Because we're dealing so much with individuals, individual pain and individual problems here, there are a lot of stories that do circulate that aren't necessarily reflective of the reality.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You must keep some stats, though.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: I'll look into it.

The Chair: At another time, maybe the committee could look at some of those questions, perhaps when we bring the commissioner in. Or maybe we could have the officials come back at another time if that's okay, Mr. Minister, because I think we would like to know what happens to the 12%. It's probably something the committee should explore. Is that okay? Yes? Great.

Miss Deborah Grey: Excuse me, but how many of the 12% do qualify when they get to that level?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: I'd be dealing from memory, and I'd hate to give you incorrect statistics. I can come back on that, too. We can provide it to the committee.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We can send it to Madame Grey, or we can—

Miss Deborah Grey: Just send it to the committee.

The Chair: Maybe what the committee would request would be a detailed report in terms of just CPP disability and these kinds of stats. Then, once the committee has had time to digest that report, we could bring the officials back to discuss it. Is that fair?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Madam Chair, that would be a pleasure. We can do that.

The Chair: Great.

I think the minister has his own weather warning in terms of where he is supposed to go, but I think there were some quick questions.

Judy, could you just ask your question, and then Mark, Sheila, and Andy can do the same, and we'll then let the minister answer all four?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just to go quickly back to the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister on February 26, it clearly came after the budget, when organizations felt a great deal of disappointment with the absence of any funding to make up for the cuts of the past. While I think the news of a million dollars for the survey is welcome, I don't think it will diminish the concerns these groups have, nor will it diminish the concerns this committee has. In fact the letter actually states that what they're really concerned about is that “there are no stated desirable outcomes, no action plan, no commitment of resources.”

With respect to the federal strategy that you outlined in your speech, is there an action plan that you can present to this committee, with some defined outcomes? With respect to the concerns that the aboriginal communities have, is there an action plan to deal with their very unique and onerous difficulties, with clearly defined outcomes? With respect to the In Unison report, is there an action plan to show that we're going forward with a national initiative, not just an accountability framework? And as a fourth point, given the need for accountability and transparency, have you met with these organizations—or at least the umbrella group—since they wrote this letter, to help address these concerns? Finally, are you able to provide for this committee an accounting of the opportunities fund so that all can determine the breakdown of the expenditures?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Eventually, we can do that on the opportunities fund. There's no problem there. I have not met the umbrella groups that are there, but I know them all. I have met them in the last few months or years, and I would be delighted to see them again.

• 1710

Actually, I was surprised by the tone they chose to adopt, frankly, because several of them had given me very different signals in a number of opportunities in which we had discussed this situation. I was disappointed, but that is what politics is about, I suppose. I'll continue to do what I can.

What were the other elements?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Action plans.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, we will be meeting with the provincial ministers shortly. The dates are being worked out right now—the end of March, beginning of April—to continue working within the framework of the In Unison paper that we have adopted. Definitely, the In Unison plan is giving a very clear direction, and we are going to be working specifically in that particular direction. The same thing with my colleagues of several departments: you will be meeting some of my colleagues. So we continue to be very active. That's why I began my remarks by saying that we needed your advice.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Quickly, Mr. Muise, if you want to just add—

Mr. Mark Muise: Very quickly, Madam Chair.

The Chair: And then Mrs. Finestone and Mr. Scott. You could answer the three together, and then you can go.

Mr. Mark Muise: I wanted to make a comment that this was not minister-bashing when we were talking about CPP disability. You've seen around this room that there is a very, very serious problem. It's almost, in some instances, a collection agency type of mentality, and I don't think that's right. These are people who are in very hard shape. They don't all qualify, but they should be treated like people.

Thank you.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I haven't taken it as minister-bashing, don't worry.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay, good. Thank you.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Minister, I want to come back on something that Andy Scott didn't push hard enough because it was in his own report: that the special opportunities grant to students with disabilities is considered taxable income. I think the recommendation that it be non-taxable is a very valuable way of recognizing the unavoidable additional costs of disability to these students.

I would like you to please put that down as a priority for negotiation with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Revenue and please see if you can move that forward. Thank you.

The Chair: And we'll help.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you very much. I hear you well.

Mr. Andy Scott: I didn't bring this up the first time because I was hoping the trains would get Ms. Lill here, but we're almost out of time.

Wendy brought to the committee's attention a problem that was experienced with regard to accessibility in the House of Commons. In fact, the committee has written to the Speaker, asking the Speaker to attend to this issue. So I think it would behove the committee, in her name, in her absence, to ask the minister responsible to join us in bringing this to the attention of the Speaker so that we would in fact make sure that the one place we should be held most accountable for, in the context of the opportunity of people to participate, should be accessible.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Minister, for coming.

I think we are optimistic in a number of ways—first, that you've come, and that your remarks were so positive. And the social union does make us feel, particularly because of the In Unison document, that we hope the disability file would be on top of the list of things when we talk about putting meat on the bones of the social union. This difficult file of persons with disabilities might be one of the first ones to move forward in the social union, in terms of setting those objectives.

The third reason I'm hugely optimistic is that I understand the Canadian Labour Force Development Board is going to sunset in December 1999, and it means that you might have some money available. We were just wondering if maybe some of that money that's available would help us with your commitment to build capacity in the community.

As we leave today, I thank you. And to all of the people who have come with you, we're grateful for all the good work they've been doing in this file. Thank you.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: And they've taken good notes, with your advice.

Thank you very much.

• 1715

The Chair: We have two little tiny housekeeping things for the committee. The first would be the motion that as we had a little difficulty earlier this week, with fabulous witnesses and all of us being spread very thin on the number of committees we sit on—

Mr. Mark Muise: Certainly never from lack of wanting to be here, Madam Chair.

The Chair: In view of not wanting to send witnesses home, would somebody like to move this motion?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Seeing as how I got called in, I'd be happy to do that. I want you to know that I've become a member of this committee by default.

I move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that three members of the committee be present and provided that one member of the opposition be present.

I thank you, Deborah. You were there once, when it was the three of us.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to ask a question. The word "opposition" refers to any member of the opposition and not only to the Official Opposition, does it not? I see a big o here.

[English]

The Chair: That's right, any opposition.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We will advise you of the dates, the ones I laid out before.

Next Thursday, Minister Massé from eleven...

The Clerk of the Committee: No, no. Next Thursday we can't get the minister.

The Chair: Oh, next Thursday Mr. Massé is unable to come, so we were wondering about Mrs. Grey's suggestion of the Canadian Alliance for Animal-Assisted Services. I think Ms. Moss might be able to come.

Then on the 18th Mr. Massé is only available from 11 to 12, but I think we sort of had a consensus that we'll take the ministers when they can come. Collenette and Manley are confirmed for the regular time of the meeting.

The other exciting news is that on May 5 we have been able to book Room 200 in the West Block to do the assisted office with Mary Frances and Industry Canada. Our show and tell is now booked for May 5, with a sort of 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. kind of thing. We would invite all the members of Parliament and senators and the disabled community and employers like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Bankers Association, any of those people to come and see, with price tags, what the various kinds of assisted offices would look like and how much they cost.

Is there any other business? Okay, see you next week.

The meeting is adjourned.