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 18, 1999

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): I'm going to call this meeting to order; we have such short a time. The Liberal side has been somewhat decimated by the flu, but there's the minister and the chair. We should be able to hold our own on this side.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I have a little housekeeping piece of business before we start the presentation, or whenever you want.

• 1535

The Chair: Before the minister speaks?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just wanted to get something out of the way.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I wasn't here for Pettigrew's presentation. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make it, but I went through the transcripts. I found it all edifying, but I feel that many questions we had in our briefing notes from the clerk weren't answered. I'd like to table them on behalf of the committee and present them here so that they can be sent on to HRD to have answers provided.

I apologize that this is not in French at this point, but I didn't have time to get it into French.

The Chair: If it's all right with everybody, Wendy, if you table that with the clerk I think she will have it translated and sent on.

The Clerk of the Committee: We will send it on to the minister and ask for a response to those questions.

Ms. Wendy Lill: That'll be fine.

The Chair: We will circulate the questions to the rest of the committee.

Minister.

Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to say how delighted I am to be here this afternoon.

With me is Ms. Marian Robson, chair of the Canadian Transportation Agency; Mr. Gavin Currie, director general of the air and accessible transportation branch for the CTA; and Ted Cherrett from Transport Canada, director general of corporate relations.

I have, as usual, prepared a text, which I would read with your indulgence. It is a bilingual text, as is normally the course. I know we have a unilingual group among us, but since I don't have an English only—

[Translation]

The Chair: There is no problem.

Mr. David Collenette: You are just in time, Madam. Welcome.

[English]

As I said, I'm delighted to be here to describe some of the initiatives Transport Canada has taken in the area of accessible transportation, particularly at a time when the government is looking to develop a new federal disability strategy—as was outlined by my colleague, Pierre Pettigrew—a strategy about which all of us in cabinet feel very strongly, and to which we lend our support.

I'm told it's been some time since a Minister of Transport has come before a committee on this particular matter, this very important matter. Of course, a lot has happened in the meantime. I want to outline briefly some of the approaches my department has taken to accessible transportation by providing a bit of historical context and then by describing some of our present initiatives.

[Translation]

In the 1980s, Transport Canada was active on several accessibility fronts. For example, the department developed barrier-free policies; established a Minister's advisory committee bringing together for the first time members of the disability community and transportation industry representatives; undertook a broad range of research and development initiatives aimed at making the transportation system more accessible; funded the Accessible Vehicle Acquisition Program; produced an information newsletter; and conducted cross-Canada workshops looking at the needs of persons with sensory disabilities.

[English]

In 1991, with the implementation of the five-year National Strategy for the Integration for Persons with Disabilities, Transport Canada identified specific priorities to facilitate greater access across the national transportation system and disbursed over $19 million.

Our participation included providing financial assistance for the acquisition of boarding systems for intercity buses, trains, and small aircraft, accessible equipment and vehicles at airports—for example, taxis, shuttle buses, and rental cars—and accessible vehicles in small urban and rural communities.

Other measures included funding of sensitivity training for carrier staff, the development of a training package for travel agents, and the development of a generic training program for use by transportation service providers.

• 1540

As part of our strategy, our transportation development centre also pursued a variety of research and development initiatives, such as: development of a research and development framework for intelligent transportation systems, or ITS, which has the goal to increase the safety of elderly travellers; evaluation of standard lift-equipped and low-floor transit buses; and other projects.

[Translation]

The funding for these initiatives sunset in March, 1996. Since then Transport Canada remains committed to maintaining accessibility through various policy thrusts, for example, the Intercity Bus Code of Practice, consultation initiatives, such as the Minister's Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation, and research and development initiatives related to accessibility for persons with disabilities.

My Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation first met, in its present form, in 1990. As I mentioned earlier, it represents a long-standing practice of the Minister of Transport to consult directly with representatives of the disability community and the transportation industry on how to make the transportation system more accessible for travellers with disabilities, thus supplementing policy advice from the Department. Since becoming Minister of Transport I have had the pleasure to attend two meetings of the Advisory Committee and heard first hand the concerns on members' minds.

[English]

The Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation, or ACAT, includes in its membership representatives from national associations of disability advocacy and service groups; seniors' organizations; transportation carriers; and transportation facility owners and operators. Federal officials from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Industry Canada, and the Canadian Transportation Agency also attend as observers and at times as presenters. Most recently, provincial representatives have been invited to the meetings as well.

Since 1997 Transport Canada has been working on the development of intercity bus accessibility standards. In recognition of the low level of progress and sensitivity of the issue, the department established an ACAT subcommittee to develop non-regulated, voluntary standards respecting the accessibility of the highway coaches.

This subcommittee, the accessible intercity bus committee, or IBC, first met in March 1996 and was comprised of representatives from the bus industry and consumer organizations representing persons with disabilities. As well, the department hired an independent facilitator to work with members to come to a mutually acceptable conclusion.

I'm very pleased today to report that as a result of the committee's work, agreement was reached on a voluntary intercity bus code of practice. This code, which I launched last summer when the Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation held a meeting in Toronto, came into effect last October for a two-year trial period. It complements the Canadian Transportation Agency's rail code of practice, which outlines the accessibility provisions applicable to rail cars as well as service-related issues.

I also had the pleasure of participating in that particular announcement early last year, also in Toronto.

Because the bus code was written by members of the intercity bus committee, all parties have expressed both ownership of it and their commitment to ensure elements of the code are met.

The intercity bus code of practice sets out the means by which scheduled intercity bus services will be provided in a safe and dignified manner to travellers with disabilities. The code deals with fundamental physical attributes such as signage and lighting as well as services provided automatically and those requiring advance notice. Attendants, damaged or lost mobility aids, training, timetables—all these things are covered.

[Translation]

The Department will monitor the implementation of the Code and report the results of the monitoring and mediation process through the Advisory Committee. Should you wish to review the Code more thoroughly, copies have been left with the Clerk of the Sub- Committee.

For many years, travellers with disabilities have argued that their need for a human attendant for air travel should not require payment of an additional fare. Building on the success of the voluntary Intercity Bus Code of Practice, I agreed to establish a similar process to examine the long-standing, thorny issue of attendant air fares. An ACAT consumer/industry sub-committee was struck under the guidance of an independent facilitator. I am awaiting the sub-committee's recommendations with interest.

• 1545

[English]

On the research and development front, the department's transportation development centre, or TDC, has been very active in its pursuit of initiatives undertaken to further enhance levels of accessibility in the transportation arena. Currently, Transport Canada's R and D program is focused on four areas—accessible air travel, the needs of travellers with sensory impairments, intercity bus accessibility, and personal-use vehicles.

Accessible air travel activities include the development of guidelines for aircraft boarding/transfer equipment and looking to find solutions to the boarding difficulties encountered when using small aircraft—i.e., those with fewer than 60 seats as well as those with fewer than 30 seats.

With respect to travellers with sensory disabilities, work includes the testing of aircraft in-cabin communications systems for travellers with those disabilities.

On the question of intercity bus accessibility, work involves demonstration of an intercity bus equipped with technologies to assist persons with sensory disabilities and an in-service demonstration of a portable wheelchair lift for intercity buses.

That was demonstrated quite well, I might add, in its launch at the Toronto ceremony.

In addition, work continues on the development of accessibility standards for personal-use vehicles and adaptive devices generic testing programs.

Transport Canada is also exploring more fundamental improvements to increase the seamless connectedness between modes of transport. I'm quite interested in a number of specific initiatives in Toronto that involve the redevelopment of Union Station as a seamless intermodal facility and the linkage between Pearson Airport and the downtown, perhaps using a rail link.

I believe progress on these initiatives will benefit and enhance accessibility and mobility of persons with disabilities. Certainly these projects, if we can realize them, will allow us to showcase our new strategies in dealing with accessibility on the part of the travelling public.

[Translation]

Finally, I would like to leave you with a thought on how Transport Canada could play a role in the proposed Federal Disability Strategy. I spoke earlier of our research and development activities. There is a great deal of important new work in this area which the Department's Transportation Development Centre could undertake in support of the Federal Disability Strategy being developed under the direction of my colleague Minister Pettigrew.

If the Strategy is approved, we would continue to work with our colleagues at HRDC, in the private sector, and with others in the disability community on R & D ventures in the spirit of continuing to improve access to transportation as we move toward the new Millennium.

[English]

Finally, as you know, in 1996 the Canada Transportation Act came into force. Like its predecessor, the National Transportation Agency, the Canadian Transportation Agency has the responsibility for ensuring no modes of transportation under federal jurisdiction pose undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities.

Because of the important independent role played by the agency, I have asked Ms. Robson to be here today to elaborate on the very significant role the agency plays in ensuring the accessibility of the transportation system. I hope you will permit her to say a few words.

Merci.

The Chair: Ms. Robson.

Ms. Marian Robson (Chairman, Canadian Transportation Agency): Thank you very much, Minister, and Mrs. Bennett.

I also want to thank the committee for this opportunity to briefly discuss the agency's initiatives for accessible transportation.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is the federal economic regulator of the transportation industry in this country. We are a quasi-judicial tribunal that licenses, regulates, and settles disputes in Canada's transportation system.

• 1550

We have an equally important social mandate that gives us responsibility for ensuring accessible transportation for people with disabilities.

The agency's enabling legislation, the Canada Transportation Act, empowers us to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to federally regulated modes of transportation without undue obstacles to their mobility.

When it comes to the carriage of passengers with disabilities, we have jurisdiction over air carriers, rail carriers, extraprovincial ferries, extraprovincial bus services, and all terminals and airports.

The act gives the agency the mandate to eliminate undue obstacles in the transportation system. We use a four-part approach to meet our mandate.

First, we have developed an active outreach and educational program to liaise with people with disabilities, consumers and the industry.

Secondly, we have set standards through various regulatory instruments.

Thirdly, we monitor the implementation of standards by the industry and their impact on persons with disabilities.

Finally, we make determinations on a case-by-case basis when persons with disability file complaints. If the agency determines that an undue obstacle exists, a decision is issued directing the industry to take corrective measures.

At the agency, we try very hard to connect with the people we serve. We've established an advisory committee as well as working groups made up of industry representatives and persons with disabilities. These groups are consulted regularly on various initiatives.

We are actively involved as guest speakers or participants in numerous events and seminars organized by the transportation industry as well as by the community of persons with disabilities and of course ourselves at the agency.

As I mentioned earlier, the act empowers us to make regulations, and we have done so twice since 1994. We first issued regulations that set out the terms and conditions of the carriage of persons with disabilities aboard aircraft of more than 30 seats in Canada. In 1995 the personnel training regulations came into force. They set a minimum level of training for carrier and terminal personnel who deal with the public and offer services to people with disabilities.

[Translation]

We believe this type of training goes a long way to change people's attitudes and helps them be more sensitive to the needs of those with disabilities. Regulations are not the only way to bring about changes.

[English]

In accordance with the government's approach of setting standards using alternatives to regulation, the agency has adopted a different approach, one that allows us to in fact accelerate the implementation of minimum accessibility standards. This is why we've published two codes of practice.

First, the air code establishes the required accessibility feature of aircraft—for example, the number of seats with movable armrests.

The rail code has a two-pronged approach. First, it sets the services that rail carriers are required to offer to persons with disabilities. The second part establishes accessibility features for the rail cars. This includes such things as on-board storage for wheelchairs and availability of tie-downs to allow passengers to remain in their wheelchair during the trip.

We plan a third code of practice, to be issued this summer, that deals with extraprovincial ferry services.

These codes of practice set the minimum accessibility criteria that the industry has publicly committed itself to follow. They are the result of a lot of work, of a consensus reached by the disabled community, the industry and the agency. Overall, more than 3,000 people and organizations are consulted on these initiatives on a regular basis.

Although the codes of practice rely on voluntary compliance, the agency conducts a formal monitoring process. We have built in a rigorous method in each code to evaluate its success.

Another means by which the agency can eliminate undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities is in the formal resolution of complaints. Last year, for example, the agency issued 49 decisions following complaints from passengers with disabilities. The agency renders a decision on a complaint within its statutory deadline of 120 days. This relatively quick resolution time is an important feature with the community of the disabled.

• 1555

[Translation]

Moreover, Agency decisions often result in effective corrective measures being taken. These measures are implemented either because the Agency so directs, or because carriers choose to do so of their own accord. The following are examples of such measures having been implemented following a complaint.

[English]

For example, a carrier was required to identify which seats on board its aircraft are accessible and to make them available to persons with disabilities. In another case, a carrier improved its baggage-handling procedures to quickly locate mobility aids, such as wheelchairs. In another case, an airport terminal operator was required to provide a greater number of TTYs, telephone devices for the deaf, to meet the needs of the hard-of-hearing.

One of the objectives of our educational and outreach program is to communicate regularly with persons with disabilities. Last year the agency distributed close to 50,000 brochures and newsletters in an effort to inform them of their rights in the area of transportation. We are also proud to say that all of our documents are available in such alternative formats as Braille and audio tapes.

We have circulated a very large pile of paper to all of you to indicate to you the various publications the agency produces.

Last fall we launched our Air Travel Guide for Persons with Disabilities. This is the product of consultations with the industry and the disabled community. I think it's a really excellent brochure. It offers practical advice on planning a trip and describes the services provided by air carriers. The ultimate goal is to give people with disabilities and seniors the tools to take charge of their air travel experience.

We followed up the launch of this guide with active media relations focusing on weekly newspapers and an advertising campaign in specialized publications. As a result, local stories ran for many weeks, and so far about 10,000 Canadians have requested and received a copy of this guide. It's an extremely popular item, and extremely useful.

In addition, we're making deliberate attempts to increase the awareness of travel agents since, as we know, about 80% of all travel is booked through travel agents. They're a key part of the chain. By way of presentations, training seminars, advertising bulletins, and participation at regional trade shows, we encourage these key people to recognize the importance of their role with respect to travellers with disabilities.

The market for accessible transportation services increasingly includes seniors. As we know, seniors are a larger and larger group in our society. Seniors are represented on the agency's advisory committee, and we are very conscious of their interests as we plan new initiatives. As well, 1999 is the International Year of Older Persons, and the agency plans to expand its outreach to this clientele group.

It is important that senior citizens be made aware of their rights, of the services they are provided by carriers, and of the agency's role in the area of accessible transportation.

Internationally, the agency participates actively at the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICOA. We have recently been involved with a working group of experts created to develop guidelines to help countries adopt measures that will make their air transportation networks more accessible. These guidelines will be published shortly by ICOA.

At the agency we look forward to another very active year in accessible transportation. In addition to launching the extraprovincial ferry code of practice this summer in the Maritimes, we will be examining the accessibility of terminals, boarding mechanisms for small aircraft, and the terms and conditions of carriage of persons with disabilities on these smaller aircraft. We will also carry out a survey with users of the accessible transportation network to get a clear picture of the progress made in this area.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the excellent relationship the agency has with Minister Collenette and his department in furthering the progress of an accessible transportation system in Canada. Last year the minister officiated at our launch of the rail code of practice at a ceremony in Union Station in Toronto. His participation really underlined the importance he places on these cooperative efforts between people with disabilities, the industry, the agency, and Transport Canada to improve accessible transportation through voluntary compliance.

On another initiative, the intercity bus code of practice, agency staff are pleased to assist Transport Canada and its working group in developing the code.

• 1600

I believe much has been achieved in the past several years to improve the travel experience for Canadians with disabilities. The many collaborative efforts between the agency, Transport Canada, the industry, and the disabled community have indeed produced concrete results. While the industry has made real progress in improving accessibility, I must note that obstacles still remain and there is still much more work to be done.

As we begin the new millennium, we must redouble our efforts to achieve the goal of providing persons with disabilities full access to all modes of transport.

Thank you.

The Chair: Miss Grey.

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

Thank you both for your presentations.

David, I have just a few questions for which I would like answers. In terms of the social union talks that happened last fall, where mobility of Canadians was going to be one of the key objectives, how do you see Transport Canada doing on that issue, and how much more do you have to do?

Mr. David Collenette: I'm not sure how to answer it in that context, in terms of the social union. We are dealing with federally regulated modes of travel here, by and large—airlines, for example, and the whole question of attendants. Rail is exclusively within our jurisdiction. Intercity busing is within our jurisdiction. Most people don't realize that interprovincial trucking and interprovincial busing is a federal responsibility, although we have delegated the administration of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which regulates these industries, to the provinces.

So I'm not sure I can answer you in that context. Although I stand to be corrected, I'm not sure it's quite relevant, because of...in associating deals with us, in effect moving into areas of provincial jurisdiction, giving notice and using the federal spending power, here we're looking at our constitutional jurisdiction on the transportation in certain areas, so we don't really run up against that.

But I stand to be corrected by any of my colleagues or officials.

Miss Deborah Grey: No, I understand that's within federal jurisdictional powers, but it would be a really good thing to get along between provinces and federal government to get those things working well. When the premiers and the Prime Minister come out saying, “We have a great deal here”, do you feel confident that the two levels of government are going to be able to work together and get a few things accomplished?

Mr. David Collenette: Again, on the rail side and on the air side the provinces don't play at all, because it's totally our jurisdiction. Where you have a point, of course, is on surface transportation, on intercity bus and interprovincial bus.

Next week we are bringing in amendments to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. I'm introducing them into the House at that time. There has been agreement, in terms of moving toward deregulation in the bus industry, on a certain timetable to effect this. Now, some provinces, such as Quebec, have concerns on how we bring this in, but I think overall the provinces are in agreement.

Transport, funnily enough, is one area in which we don't seem to have many disagreements. We have had not any rancorous meetings with my provincial colleagues in the four or five...since I became minister,

[Translation]

including the province of Quebec. There was a lot of collaboration with Mr, Brassard, the ex-minister of Transport, for example.

[English]

So there is no problem in dealing with this, and they're fully supportive.

Miss Deborah Grey: Do you think the federal government should take more role over transportation issues or do you think the provinces should have some or sole responsibility? If you're so non-rancorous, do you think maybe the federal government should take more over if things are going just so jolly well?

Mr. David Collenette: Of course, on the question of passenger rail and air, we have it, and there's no way we're going to give up any role in those jurisdictions.

An interesting point you have raised, though, is that with the preponderance of moving to short-line rail company operations—and there are some in your own province—and the possibility that those short-line operators may, with our VIA Rail passenger reorganization, operate under contract certain services, especially remote services, those railways do come under provincial jurisdiction, but as I understand it, they generally will assume the federal safety code in the carrying out of their duties. So in terms of dealing with the handicapped, I assume it's the same thing.

• 1605

For example, right now we have the Quebec north shore railway. Now, that's a short line that operates exclusively within the province of Quebec. It therefore, I believe, is subject to the laws of Quebec. The same goes for Algoma Central Railway in Ontario. They carry passengers—one between Sept-Îles and Schefferville, and the other between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst, I think—on these tourist trains, and yet they adopt the federal regulations. Again, it's not rancorous.

Now, you talk about the federal government taking more jurisdiction. An interesting point comes up here. Not to get too much off the subject, there is a move on the part of the trucking industry, and also the bus industry, for the federal government to take more of its jurisdiction, jurisdiction it never thought it had until the Supreme Court issued a decision in 1954 that the federal government was most surprised to receive. They therefore said, okay, we'll legislate, but we'll delegate all the administration back to the provinces.

In those areas I think the various stakeholders want us to take more of a role, but we are very careful, even though we have the jurisdiction, not to upset the good harmony we've established over the last 50 years of working with the provinces.

Miss Deborah Grey: You talked about Toronto and Pearson airport and intercity buses, but is anything going on in the rest of the country?

Mr. David Collenette: I regret that there was too much of a Toronto-centric focus to my speech, but that's natural, since I'm preoccupied with those issues on—

Miss Deborah Grey: You wouldn't suggest that federal dollars are just going into Toronto because you're preoccupied with it, would you? Certainly not.

Mr. David Collenette: No, no, not at all. But given the fact that the greater Toronto area has a population of 4.6 million, which exceeds every province with the exception of the province of Quebec and Ontario, obviously there is a preoccupation with passenger transportation on both bus and rail, in the urban areas, although obviously not just Toronto; Montreal as well.

I know in Alberta, of particular interest to you is intercity bus. There's a lot of traffic and use of those facilities by people with disabilities, as well as, of course, of air. I mean, air goes just about everywhere in the country.

So I'm sorry if I'm too Toronto-centric, but it's something that's almost innate.

Miss Deborah Grey: I'd like to ask Marian a question.

Where are you from, Marian?

Ms. Marian Robson: Biggar, Saskatchewan.

Miss Deborah Grey: Hey!

The Chair: Good answer.

Ms. Marian Robson: Right answer?

Miss Deborah Grey: There is no right answer.

Mr. David Collenette: And she lives in Vancouver, and works from there. You see, the CTA—

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you, David, but I'll bet she can tell me that herself.

Where do you live now?

Ms. Marian Robson: Ottawa and Vancouver.

Miss Deborah Grey: There we are.

What's your background?

Ms. Marian Robson: Basically transportation.

Miss Deborah Grey: How long have you been with the CTA? I should have looked this up.

Ms. Marian Robson: I was a member of the former NTA for about 18 months until the CTA was introduced in July of 1996. I became chairman at that point.

So all in all, I guess it's been about four years.

Miss Deborah Grey: Have you seen some pretty exciting changes?

Ms. Marian Robson: Yes, very exciting changes. There's a very big difference between the NTA and the CTA in terms of our responsibilities, although not on this field. Fortunately we maintained the accessibility mandate from the previous administration, but we had quite major changes in terms of further deregulation of particularly the rail industry, and of course the end to rail subsidies.

So there was quite a major shift in our jurisdiction and also our approach. We have tried to take a much more open, communicative approach and a less formal, legalistic one, which has been the tradition of the agency.

So we're doing a lot more communicating. We're out in the regions and talking to people. I think it's going really quite well.

Miss Deborah Grey: How many people are with the CTA?

Ms. Marian Robson: There are 250.

Miss Deborah Grey: What's your budget?

Ms. Marian Robson: It's between $20 million and $21 million.

Miss Deborah Grey: You said in your remarks—and I'll just close with this—that you have done some exciting things. I suspect it's been a marvellous opportunity for you, but we have more to do.

Tell me three things—bing, bing, bing—that you see need to be done.

• 1610

Ms. Marian Robson: I think we definitely need to do more in terms of smaller aircraft. That's a big area for the disabled. It's a difficult area for the industry. As we all know, it's not easily achievable, but that's one area on which we want to place some focus.

I'd like to see even more communication. We do a tremendous amount of work in communication, but we're still not even scratching the surface. In terms of the disabled community, I think we're doing quite well, but we want to do a lot more in terms of seniors. They're a diverse group, and we want to do a lot more work in terms of the seniors' community.

Generally, we feel that we still have quite a long way to go in terms of the training of personnel, particularly in the airline industry.

As you probably know, we had a very large case a couple of years ago, for which we had a hearing in Montreal, concerning Lucie Lemieux-Brassard. Lemieux-Brassard is a large woman in a wheelchair, and she had been part of a task force on disabilities that travelled all over the country. She encountered, out of 17 trips to different parts of the country, 14 obstacles to her mobility, including such things as refusal to disassemble her wheelchair and missed flights. It was a rather nightmarish experience.

So we got that complaint. We dealt with it partly in writing, but because the issues were so important, and the theme throughout was the capability and training of staff, both ground staff and on the air side, we held a three-day hearing in Montreal dedicated to training. We had the three carriers where it had been found that there were obstacles to her transportation—Air Canada, Canadian, and Air Nova. They appeared, and we had very detailed discussions about their training programs.

It's certainly not that they don't have training programs; they do. We monitor them. We try to assist them with their training programs. They're very serious about it, and they're making tremendous efforts. But we find that for a variety of reasons, when we talk to our advisory committee, these problems recur and recur. That's just not good enough. We have to make greater inroads there.

So that's another priority for us.

Miss Deborah Grey: Good. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Carolyn.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madam.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Minister, thank you for pointing out my arrival in such an extraordinary fashion.

Mr. David Collenette: Oh, yes.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to ask you and Mrs. Robson a few questions.

I would like to know what percentage of mobility-impaired people use intercity transportation, either the train, the bus or the plane. In the real world, the percentage of people who travel is not very high. There are many people who stay at home, in their small town, and who travel only within their region. I would like you to give me an idea of this percentage if you know it.

Mr. David Collenette: Unfortunately, I don't have those numbers with me at the moment but I wish to assure you that we will do research and send them to you.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Very well, thank you.

I want to ask you a second question, not in your capacity of Transport minister but in your capacity of cabinet member. You are not unaware that people with disabilities do not really have a representative up there, in the cabinet, making sure that they are treated right. There is no minister as such to represent them even though there are many departments. In fact, this committee will certainly be in the Guinness Book of Records given the large number of ministers who agreed to meet us within a relatively short period of time. This is impressive.

We know very well that the social union agreement—I don't need to remind anyone that the province of Quebec did not sign it—actually provides for national standards. I will ask you a question that deals more specifically with people with disabilities. As you know, in general, we can lower the standards, which is easier, though we can sometimes set the mark higher.

• 1615

If I go by what people with disabilities tell me and what they confide to many of my colleagues, the situation people with disabilities live in in Quebec, even though it is not perfect, can arouse envy in a certain number of Canadians with a problem in other provinces.

Do you think that the standards we will be aiming at will be above that mark? Will we try to establish everywhere else standards as high as those that were introduced in the province of Quebec or is that not that obvious?

Mr. David Collenette: Your suggestion regarding the nomination of a coordinator in the cabinet to look after the interests of people with disabilities is excellent. I will be most pleased to present this idea to the Prime Minister or the House of Commons.

As for the national standards, it is true that Quebec heads the list of the provinces regarding regulations and transportation for people with disabilities. Our goal is to learn from the experience of all provinces and to adapt their regulations in order to establish a national standard. We recognize that the experience of the province of Quebec, especially in the field of bus transportation, is very laudable. As I was telling Miss Grey, we are the ones, at the federal level, responsible for travel, air transport industry and railways.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to come back to the minister of Transport. In your brief, you mentioned the fact—I don't know if this initiative has already been taken or is just contemplated—that travellers with disabilities who need an attendant should not be required to pay an additional fare. An attendant can be a person but also an animal in some cases, for example, a guide dog. Are guide dogs presently allowed to travel aboard vehicles controlled by your department? Have those dogs got to go in the hold?

Mr. David Collenette: I said in my speech that we are presently studying the issue of attendants, including animal attendants.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Alright.

Mr. David Collenette: As it is natural that we should allow people with disabilities to travel with another person, the same regulation should hold true for people accompanied by a guide dog.

I was just given the answer to the question you asked me about the number of Canadians with disabilities; they represent 16% of the population.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Sixteen percent?

Mr. David Collenette: It is a high percentage which surprised me enormously.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is a lot.

[English]

Ms. Marian Robson: Perhaps I could just quickly comment on the guide dogs. There's already a requirement in our terms and conditions of carriage for the guide dogs. That's a right people have now.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Fine, thank you.

Ms. Robson, I will ask you a question that may be followed by others afterward.

You mentioned the complaints to the Transportation Agency and said that you settled about 50 complaints in the last year. Does it sometimes happen that after your evaluation and your judgment, companies—because I suppose that it is often companies that are the target of complaints—refuse to submit to your arguments, appeal the case or take similar steps?

• 1620

[English]

Ms. Marian Robson: That happens rarely.

Perhaps I can explain a little bit about our complaint process. Let's say a passenger encounters a problem—for example, their wheelchair is broken when they arrive, and it's not returned to them quickly, which puts them in a terrible situation. There are all sorts of variations on the problems people encounter.

When they write to us with a complaint, that becomes a formal document and a formal complaint. We then pass that to the carrier in question, and then I assign members to that particular file—two and three members if it looks as though it's going to be quite a controversial file—and then those members and staff work on that case.

The carrier and the disabled person exchange pleadings, essentially, normally in writing. When those pleadings are complete, the staff does more research, the members discuss the case with staff, and then they come to a decision.

Frequently they will come to a decision that finds that the actions of the carrier did in fact create an undue obstacle to that person. There are cases, of course, where they find the carrier did not create an undue obstacle, so it goes both ways. We can then order particular corrective measures.

For example, if a passenger had a problem getting at the right seat—one that has movable armrests, for instance—we would order the carrier to change their system and make sure disability passengers have the first rights to movable-armrest seats, which is already in the regulation. We would require them to provide evidence that they are doing that and to report back to us.

We can't award damages, but we can award costs. We certainly can order mitigating measures. We can order improvements. We can order a whole range of things.

Normally our decisions are not appealed, but even as I say that, there are two or three appeals at the moment at Federal Court. Normally, however, we rarely have appeals of our decisions.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Merci.

The Chair: Are they published?

Ms. Marian Robson: Yes, all our decisions are on the Internet, and they're published.

The Chair: And if anybody hasn't complied...?

Ms. Marian Robson: What is the mechanism for compliance?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Marian Robson: Essentially, the carriers do comply. It would be very rare, very unusual, that they would not comply.

Mr. David Collenette: We do have mechanisms for dealing with it.

Ms. Marian Robson: Yes, we have mechanisms.

The Chair: Shunning.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Marian Robson: I don't recall running into the problem. It's just not normally a problem.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming before us.

Marian, I'm struck by your comments concerning Lucie Lemieux-Brassard. I believe she went around with The Will to Act. She was part of the disability committee. It's stunning to think that someone who is disabled ran into problems—18 or 19 times, was it?—in terms of travelling with the committee.

We had a man here last week who has a hearing aid dog. He has had many occasions in which he has had to go to the Human Rights Commission with complaints.

People with disabilities seem to have to accept the fact that their lives are just one long litigation or complaint or protest. What a hell of a way to have to live. I'm wondering how we can change that.

If you had not been with Lucie throughout this process, you wouldn't even have known about that. How many people have absolutely given up travelling because they just can't deal with the mortification involved with one incident after another?

Back to this issue of dealing with them case by case, as you say, with the carrier then doing your bidding. Do they then do it the next time and the next time? What are we looking at? Is it simply, “Well, we got caught this time”?

How are we actually moving ahead in terms of making it a more user-friendly place out there for persons with disabilities?

• 1625

The Chair: What we've been wondering, I guess, is other than case by case, is there a place for a proactive audit of these things so that they don't have to be done case by case?

As well, what is the difference in terms of the American system, where they can actually sue and get damages? I think our concern is that here in Canada, people just don't go, and in the U.S., they sue. I don't think we want to move to that, but as we have this aging population we don't want people to feel they can't go.

Just to follow up—I think we're short of time here—even in terms of such things as the safety videos being close-captioned, or those types of things, couldn't we just be auditing that stuff and just doing it?

That's just to add a bit onto Wendy's question.

Ms. Marian Robson: We are concerned about the same thing you're raising, the consistency of behaviour. Travelling is difficult enough, but when you're disabled, it can be an absolute nightmare.

What we are going to do this year is conduct a survey of travellers with disabilities. We haven't quite designed it yet, but we're going to consult with our advisory group. We have so much anecdotal stuff. We have complaints and we have all sorts of consultation. Our staff has a tremendous intelligence network. We know quite a bit about what's going on out there, but we don't have a lot of very hard evidence.

Our plan is to have quite an extensive survey of travellers with disabilities. We're hoping to design it so that every time they have a travel experience, they're filing a report with us. We can then start building a base to be able to say what's really happening out there.

So that's one initiative. It's not a total answer, but I think it'll give us a much better handle.

The second initiative is that we are trying to be preventative as well. That's one of the reasons this travel guide is so important. We're trying to get the message across to the disabled community and to seniors, whose numbers are growing by leaps and bounds, that they have a lot of rights under our regulations that they don't know even know they have. A lot of services are required to be provided by carriers if seniors just knew about them when they booked their travel.

So we're trying to prevent some of these things through people being much better prepared to undertake this rather difficult experience.

Those are a few things, but I know it's not something that's going to be solved overnight.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have one more quick question.

There have been many reports on disabilities. We have a stack of them. So many of them do not seemed to have been acted on.

In the transportation area, Getting Back on the Road: Passenger Transportation and Persons with Disabilities was tabled prior to the dissolution of Parliament in 1993. There was no response. It put forward 13 recommendations, and I guess in most cases these recommendations weren't acted upon. I have the list of recommendations here.

Perhaps I can table this so that we can get answers on how many of these recommendations have been acted on to date, in 1999.

Mr. David Collenette: Absolutely. I'd like to perhaps get some word back from the department on that. We'll let you know.

Just adding to what Ms. Robson said, I should point out that there is a video with closed captioning that is now being worked on by our people who deal with cabin safety on the aircraft. This will be of particular help to those travellers who need that kind of assistance. When you go on the big planes now, you just assume everyone can hear, which obviously is not the case.

Ms. Marian Robson: The other thing I should mention is that the codes of practice are going to make a big difference as well. These are quite recent. There are requirements now for such things as Braille seat markers, storage space for wheelchairs, and eventually wheelchair-accessible washrooms.

So on the equipment side, I think the disabled are going to see some really quite dramatic improvements, particularly air but also rail. With the bus code now, this is giving people a lot more power than they had before, because now the services and equipment are going to have to meet standards.

• 1630

We are going to monitor them like you wouldn't believe. We're not going to sit back and hope they do this. It's going to be very firmly watched. We have the regulatory power to enforce.

So I think we have some teeth in our act, which we're trying to use as judiciously as we can.

Mr. David Collenette: It might be a good idea, if the committee's interested, to demonstrate certainly on the bus and the train here in Ottawa. That shouldn't be too difficult to do with VIA and with one of bus companies. Maybe we could even do something with one of the airlines. They can let you know.

The Chair: That would be terrific.

A quick question from Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Oh, I don't know about it being a quick question, Doctor.

I don't always stand up in support of cabinet, but I would like to point out that our cabinet ministers do hear about rural Canada, as I'm sure Mr. Collenette would remember, although probably not since yesterday, or today.

On the intercity busing, I congratulate you on the voluntary practices they're going to follow, but in rural Canada people often don't have any available option other than buses. I'm wondering if there's anything in place to encourage these bus companies to comply and to work within these suggestions.

Major companies have had a monopoly in the past—I don't know where the monopoly is on buses now—in the rural areas. Of course, we would like to try to provide the same assistance to our rural people, when possible. For many of our bus companies the ownership is now U.S. and expanding globally with the bus purchases of the last year. I wonder if this will make a difference with the voluntary part.

So I'm a little bit concerned when I hear the word “voluntary” there.

Mr. David Collenette: On the first point, I think you raise a good issue. As you know, the provinces do have jurisdiction over interprovincial buses. With the big urban transit systems, not just Toronto but also Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, and other cities, you usually find that those transit systems do accommodate the handicapped and do make allowances, but very often they look towards the federal standard as being one they want to follow.

Obviously, with what we have done on rail and on intercity bus, that is something the provinces have taken note of and certainly want to emulate in areas where they have the full jurisdiction.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Minister, in regard to rail and air, I'm glad the federal government has the responsibility, because we've made some real progress there, but I'm going to refer to interprovincial rail and maybe talk about VIA, which is a private company, I believe.

Mr. David Collenette: No, it's a crown corporation.

Mr. Larry McCormick: A crown corporation? Fine; thank you.

They're using those same rails. I know you would have the power within cabinet, when the rail companies want to take away some services in some places....

Today VIA does an excellent job as they cross the country—for example, from Toronto to Vancouver—of stopping at remote locations for people. I'm very impressed when I see these stops for letting people leave the train and picking up passengers in northern Ontario and Manitoba.

Again, though, we do need your assistance here to make sure the train does keep stopping for people in the rural areas, some of whom have disabilities.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: In closing, I would like to say that I'm delighted that Ms. Robson is looking at the small planes issue. Certainly those of us who were in Nunavut this summer...and when you realize that 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the American border and then there's the rest of Canada. We need to be able to get people around, and I think our aboriginals with disabilities and people in remote communities really need our help on this.

In all of these things where we want to be proactive, I think we would like to see that the minister is able to make sure there's some money available for this kind of research. One of the things the committee has felt very strongly about, obviously, is HALS, the health and limitations survey. We were hoping there would be a commitment from the ministers to be able to make sure HALS happens.

• 1635

I hope your department will be involved in the preparation for HALS, so a lot of the questions around transportation will be part of that survey. We hope you will commit to making sure that happens in 2001, because it will be 10 years since it happened before.

On the social union stuff, we are excited by the prospect. There actually needs to be some leadership from the federal government on these things, where there are best practices around and accountability is possible. So even if it's not the jurisdiction of the federal government, there is a need to make sure these things happen for all Canadians, and we would provide the leadership within the framework of the social union in terms of these priorities for Canadians and make sure these things happen.

Thank you.

Mr. David Collenette: I just want to disabuse you of the social union issue. As I said earlier, it really is not a vehicle for obtaining these objectives, as I understand it. We certainly have other means with respect to federal-provincial cooperation on transportation. There is federal jurisdiction over intercity buses and intercity trucks, as well as exclusive jurisdiction over air and rail, except for those short lines.

On the HALS issue, we are fully involved. We don't have much in the way of research at Transport Canada on handicap issues. It's about $500,000 a year. So if the committee would like to advocate for more, we'd be more than happy to join you.

The Chair: Great. Thank you so much for coming.

Mr. David Collenette: Thank you very much.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Madam Chair, I have in front of me a budget submission for this Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, requesting a small bit of money to operate on. I'd just like to say to some of the people who are sitting here opposite me that in the last five years we've had an excellent relationship, working with all parties on this very important matter, with HRD. I know the member from Fredericton once did a major study on it, with all parties in support of it.

Do I hand this to the clerk to make the submission? Will this go on to the clerk of the HRD?

The Chair: Yes, just move that it be approved by the subcommittee to be presented to the—

Mr. Larry McCormick: I move that this submission for a budget be approved by all members present of this subcommittee.

Miss Deborah Grey: If you said the member for Fredericton did all this work before, why would you be recommending $28,000? Are you going to do it again?

Mr. Larry McCormick: That's a very good question, Deborah. I even thought of that when I decided to mention Andy, because he did a lot of work. We could look back at the whole social security review we did in 1994 and 1995—I did it with Diane from Calgary—but not enough has been done. If this small or large amount of money helps move it along, it might be a worthwhile investment, we think. You're point's well taken, Deborah, in my opinion.

Miss Deborah Grey: Who would these 20 witnesses be, in your recommendation here?

The Chair: We'll let Bill talk. I think we want to be able to have a one-day round table. We want the disability ombudsperson or whoever from each of the provinces to be able to come. We want to have a good round table of the disability community instead of witnesses, and have a full working day, maybe with a working lunch. We'll get everybody in and see if we can get some consensus in the room, as opposed to this sort of sequential witness stuff.

Miss Deborah Grey: Do you think these people have ever met together before?

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'm sure some of them have—probably all of them at different locations.

Miss Deborah Grey: I'd be very surprised if they hadn't.

Mr. Bill Young (Committee Researcher): They haven't been in front of a parliamentary committee for at least five years. A lot of them haven't appeared before a parliamentary committee. The last appearance of the disability groups was 1997 or 1998 before the HRD standing committee, and that involved only three.

Miss Deborah Grey: Did representatives from those communities get together when Andy Scott was doing this enormous amount of work on this?

• 1640

Mr. Bill Young: They formed a reference group at that time. I think the department has brought those people together at least once or twice since then.

The Chair: Departmentally.

Miss Deborah Grey: I'm not going to stalk this, but I hope we're not just going over something that's happened here not once or twice but any number of times.

The Chair: In wanting a report to Parliament, we need to really hear what the groups have to say. As you know, if we'd had a budget before, we would have done that first and then brought in the ministers, but we've had to do it the other way just because of the finances, the imperative of—

Miss Deborah Grey: You just said, if we had that report. Wendy just mentioned five minutes ago the report that was tabled in 1993, which had some tremendous recommendations in it, and then Parliament prorogued. That was two Parliaments ago. It was never even responded to in 1993 when a new government came in.

The Chair: I personally feel there's probably a day's work we need from this group to look at CPP disability for sure, a children's budget for next year and caregiver stuff. There are some key questions I would like that group to see if they can find consensus on, so we can report to Parliament or the parent committee.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): One of the things about being a visitor to a committee is that although it's my first time here, I know many members on the committee and have worked with them. We did that kind of thing on the justice committee with the victims' rights and the whole issue of victims. We brought them all together and had a kind of round table with everybody. It was extremely helpful and hammered out a consensus from groups from whom you never thought there would be some consensus.

So I just offer that as a comment.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Can we call the question?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now we get to welcome Minister Manley and the truly wonderful Mary Frances. Welcome, Minister.

Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm appreciative of the opportunity to meet today with the subcommittee and provide an Industry portfolio perspective on disability issues.

As you mentioned, I'm accompanied by Mary Frances Laughton, who is chief of the assistive devices industry office and has been managing the disabilities portfolio at Industry Canada since I became minister. I think she's well known to all members of the committee.

I want to review some specific initiatives the portfolio has undertaken, but first I want to emphasize certain common themes that tie these initiatives to the portfolio's overall work.

[Translation]

As you know, the government has endeavoured to provide an environment where the private sector can create jobs and grow the economy. Lately we have focused on the importance of productivity to this agenda. This committee must address the measures needed to enable persons with disabilities to contribute to increased productivity in Canada.

In 1991, approximately 4.2 million Canadians, or 16% of the population, reported some level of disability. These Canadians must be able to participate more fully in Canadian life, in “equal citizenship” to use the words of the Scott Task Force. This will mean a better standard of living for all Canadians, in addition to the benefits to people with disabilities themselves.

[English]

Another issue that has influenced the actions we've taken while I've been minister, with respect to the disability issue, has been to make Canada one of the most connected nations in the world. Every year new technologies are introduced that level the playing field between those who have disabilities and those who do not. The Internet, as one such technology, enables the mobility impaired to reach out to the world and bring the world into their homes.

There are thousands of other advantages of assistive devices that ensure that people with disabilities can fully participate in their communities. Some of these initiatives have been undertaken by Industry Canada and by partners in our portfolio.

Let me first talk about the technology for assistive devices. In formulating initiatives to respond to the needs of the assistive devices sector, I've benefited greatly from the input of an advisory committee on assistive devices. Out of more than 65 projects that were funded in the early 1990s, more than 40 products and services have now been commercialized. For example, Industry Canada was a partner with a Montreal-based company in developing a world-first large-print scientific calculator, which was badly needed by science students with vision impairments. Vision-impaired Canadians can identify any bar-coded item using SCANTELL, a talking bar code reader developed in Newfoundland in partnership with Industry Canada.

• 1645

Deaf and hearing-impaired Canadians can interact with any business or other individuals with the Kanata-developed TEXTEL system, which turns a desktop computer into a TTY. Profoundly disabled Canadians can now find work using the B.C.-developed JOUSE, a mouth-activated mouse that is connected to a computer and not the user, thus allowing full independence in accessing a computer.

[Translation]

Industry Canada's Assistive Devices Industry Office primarily promotes the industry, through such efforts as maintaining databases, producing a newsletter, contributing articles to publications, and disseminating information about Canadian companies and organizations that produce assistive devices. Many of those firms are, right now, at the CSUN Technologies and Disabilities Conference in California with their products.

[English]

This is the reason why I wasn't able to bring some gadgets along to demonstrate today. They're all in California for this trade fair, but they'll be back shortly.

[Translation]

The Assistive Devices Industry Office gathers and disseminates the kind of information and advice that helps these companies tap market opportunities.

As you know, our Assistive Devices Industry Office is organizing, on your behalf, the mini trade show of Canadian assistive technology. The May 5 event will showcase some of these technologies and demonstrate to our colleagues here on the Hill the low costs of providing workplace accommodation with Canadian products.

[English]

So this will be very exciting to demonstrate these devices on the Hill.

The Copyright Act, as amended by Bill C-32, addresses some of the special circumstances faced by persons with perceptual disabilities. In particular, section 32 permits the perceptually disabled, or a non-profit agency acting on their behalf, to convert certain types of works into a format that is specially designed to enable them to perceive those works, or the performance of those works, without infringing copyright. For example, a literary work such as a book could be made into a talking book for the benefit of the blind without requiring the authorization of the copyright owner and paying a royalty.

The CNIB and other alternate format-producing organizations have praised the government for its actions on their behalf. In fact, the CNIB presented me with a Braille version of section 32, which I haven't actually managed to read yet, but I'll work on that, along with some Braille children's books. I presented the books to one of the local libraries, the Ottawa Public Library, last fall during Ontario Library Week.

[Translation]

The information highway is one particular technology holding great promise for persons with disabilities. We have made access to the Internet a priority through such initiatives as SchoolNet and the Community Access Program. We have endeavoured to put government and other pertinent information for business on-line through Strategis which has been designed and maintained in a fully accessible format.

We have sought to ensure that access means access for everyone including persons with disabilities, and that the services available on-line include services that provide tools for community living.

As part of SchoolNet, we operate a learning and training Internet site for persons with disabilities. We are also working on the development of advanced multi-media learning tools.

• 1650

[English]

Through the community access program, or CAP, Industry Canada helps establish access sites to the information highway that will allow Canadians in remote and rural locations to obtain information on resources available to persons with disabilities. When choosing which CAP proposals to fund, we have made access to persons with disabilities one of the evaluation points.

The information highway is one example of a technology that can be designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. In addition to accessible websites for those using adaptive technologies, we've promoted alternative formats for the print-handicapped. Telephone services are accessible to the deaf and to the hard of hearing. Training is made available in an accessible location and format.

The Canada Business Service Centres are examples of where government services have taken the needs of those with disabilities into consideration. Accessible centres are being established across the country. The program is looking at ways to ensure an alternative format for content.

In designing a program, service, or product, it's essential that we think proactively and that we get the design right so that it serves the needs of everyone in a community. We shouldn't be living in the land of retrofit. And this is especially true for industrial design.

One way to foster industrial design that responds to the needs of those with disabilities is through standards.

[Translation]

The Standards Council of Canada is the federal body responsible for the standards that will help assure access to persons with disabilities. In partnership with international research organizations, the government should develop standards for the use of remote access and other consumer devices and the development of new technologies.

Standardization will lead to the development and adoption of better availability of communication and information technologies, minimize incompatibility of technologies, avoid fragmentation of supply, ensure safety, and help in the procurement process for equipment and services.

[English]

I want to turn now to a part of the industry portfolio that helps persons with disabilities contribute directly to Canada's economy. As Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification, Ron Duhamel oversees the entrepreneurs with disabilities program, which is delivered to persons with disabilities in rural western Canada by 90 community futures development corporations. Western Diversification is currently exploring options to extend the program's operating funding.

The program ensures easy access to business services and other support mechanisms needed for persons with disabilities to consider self-employment as a viable option. Since September 1998 Western Diversification has contracted to deliver a similar initiative in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina and Saskatoon.

[Translation]

Other agencies are looking at similar programs they can undertake. FedNor has conducted feasibility studies for an employment initiative aimed at persons with disabilities, and the Canadian Tourism Commission has a project in partnership with Keroul, a Quebec-based tourism and recreation organization.

Another member of the Industry Portfolio that plays a major role in establishing equal citizenship for persons with disabilities is Statistics Canada.

Before this committee earlier this month, Minister Pettigrew spoke of the need to build a body of knowledge on disability issues. He pointed out that there are very little reliable national data to guide policy and program development.

As Minister responsible for Statistics Canada, I look forward to his proposals so that, together, we can ensure we have an up-to- date and accurate information base to use in the development, planning and evaluation of programs directed at persons with disabilities.

[English]

To conclude, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, in 1996 when Andy Scott tabled the report of the federal task force on disability issues he subtitled it “The Will to Act”. The exercise of that will needs to start in Parliament. Elected representatives must commit to act. This goal requires leadership on the part of the Government of Canada, and it requires that each government in its own jurisdiction remain aware of the impact of decisions that are taken in the public sector. As the report says, it requires each of us to apply a disability lens so that we can understand the impact of our actions.

• 1655

I congratulate this subcommittee for taking up the work begun by the task force. I welcome your recommendations and advice. I look forward to your questions, particularly the ones Mary Frances will be able to answer for you.

The Chair: Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you, John. You ended your remarks, and I suspect you have a speech here somewhere that we can refer to.

Mr. John Manley: I think it'll be circulated now that I've stuck to it, which sometimes I don't do.

Miss Deborah Grey: You talked about the impact. What would be the estimated impact—positive, hopefully—on the country's GDP if disabled persons were fully integrated into the workplace? You know that the job prospects are pretty dismal.

Mr. John Manley: I think that's hard to estimate without the work I referred to being done by Statistics Canada. We need to get a good measure of the extent and nature of disabilities and what their weight is in the economy in order to be then able to project what a measure of productivity provided to those persons could contribute. I think it's fair to say that with the number of people with varying levels of disability who are excluded from the workforce, if we could get even a small percentage of them into the workforce, that contribution could be significant in economic terms and in personal terms, of course, for those people, in the sense of personal worth and well-being that comes with that participation. Perhaps that's even more important.

Miss Deborah Grey: Would we be able to find out some of those statistics through a HALS survey?

Mr. John Manley: Probably so, I guess.

Miss Deborah Grey: Why is it that the last one we had was in 1991? What would the reason be that it wasn't conducted in the 1996 census? If it's that valuable, it's funny that it got knocked off.

Mr. John Manley: Usually it's cost. Every item that is added to a census is an additional expense. So undoubtedly in 1996 it had to do with the cost. In some cases questions are put on every second census if it's thought there may not be a significant change and that you can extrapolate from the overall numbers what a subset of numbers would be. But I think it's reasonable to assume that probably by the decennial census, you'd have it back.

Miss Deborah Grey: You just said that you were patiently awaiting statistics from Statistics Canada. Is that what you said? I didn't have your remarks to refer to because you didn't hand them out first. Did you say that you were patiently awaiting these statistics?

Mr. John Manley: No. This is the proposal from Mr. Pettigrew for additional information.

Miss Deborah Grey: Does it cost less now? I don't want to be facetious here, but we have to look at the short-term cost of what it's going to cost in the census or, if we're able to somehow amass that information, what the long-term costs are going to be.

Mr. John Manley: Statistics Canada can usually give an approximation of what it would cost for either a unique survey or to add a question to the census. It has a cost factor, but it's a more modest cost factor, and it's a more comprehensive result than you get from a survey. Most Statistics Canada numbers we see on a periodic basis are survey numbers. For that matter, in its own way the census is a survey, because only a certain percentage of the population gets the full intensive questionnaire.

It's not a question of whether it's going to cost less in 2001 than it did in 1996 but whether, firstly, it will be more affordable in 2001 than it was in 1996, which is probably going to be the case, and secondly, it will be deemed necessary. I can't answer that for 1996, given the existence of numbers and given that you can extrapolate from the larger population.

Miss Deborah Grey: We've asked witness after witness how many animal-assisted folks there are in the country, and I've just been amazed that they don't have a clue. We just had the transport minister here. How many disabled people are flying on airplanes and using rail? We don't have a clue. Nobody who has come here yet has been able to say, “We're not exactly sure but so far it looks like x or y.” I'm just baffled by this. You've just reamed off all these amazing technological devices, which are terrific, but it just seems amazing that we cannot somehow put some kind of a number down on paper so that we know what we're dealing with. It would be great.

• 1700

Speaking of these technological devices, for a federal employee who gets an assistive device—Mary Frances, maybe you could answer this one—do you have any idea what those numbers might be?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton (Chief, Assistive Devices Industry Office, Department of Industry): At last count there were somewhere between 5,000 and 7,500 self-identified public servants with a disability.

Miss Deborah Grey: Do they get some sort of assistive device if they need it in their work?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: I personally have a disability, and I have an assistive device that makes my job possible. So, yes, it was provided for me. In the most recent amendment to the Employment Equity Act, there was more “duty to accommodate” included in that.

Miss Deborah Grey: Now, what happens to the device if you or anyone else in that position were to leave their job?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: The device stays with the department. It's part of the departmental inventory.

Miss Deborah Grey: That would make sense. But we are hearing from people that these things are just sitting somewhere when you're finished with them. They're in a warehouse somewhere, and it just seems that maybe that's not the most practical thing.

Mr. John Manley: I know of cases where that has come to my attention and where accommodation has been made. Sometimes the devices are of general application, but sometimes they're very specific to a particular person. I think that Public Works, which deals with crown assets disposal, is usually sympathetic to finding a way to accommodate.

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, surely you could buy it—

Mr. John Manley: If the person leaving the public service uses a device that nobody else really could practically use, then they probably should pay something for it. But I think they try to make that accommodation.

Miss Deborah Grey: I hope so. That hasn't been the case for some of the folks we've heard from.

Mr. John Manley: No, usually there's a bit of a ruckus involved, but I think that normally—

Miss Deborah Grey: If the thing is just going to sit some place but it does that particular person some good, surely we can come up with some sort of—

Mr. John Manley: Some of them, of course, are going to be more general in application. For example, if it's a special phone to help somebody who's hearing impaired, that can be used by somebody else coming into the public service who is hearing impaired. It makes sense that they would retain that in an inventory. That's something Mr. Gagliano may know more about.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay.

We talked about this infamous report that was tabled before the election in 1993. Prorogation happened, and that was never responded to. There were 13 recommendations in that. John, I'd just like to finish up by asking you this. One of those recommendations was that the federal government should place disabilities high on a priority list at a first ministers conference. Do you know if that has happened since you formed the government in 1993?

Mr. John Manley: That I can't answer, no.

Miss Deborah Grey: If disability issues were going to be high on a list at a first ministers conference, surely you would find out about it from Industry Canada or perhaps Pierre Pettigrew.

Mr. John Manley: With regard to where issues go on the agenda for a first ministers meeting, generally speaking, the Privy Council Office will advise departments that are likely to be affected, making sure the Prime Minister has the information he requires or whatever else.

I'm rather proud of the stuff we've managed to do in the industry portfolio, but I would bet you that if you asked the PCO to list the portfolios that are important on this file, you probably wouldn't get too many of them fingering us as being the first people to go to. Is that not right? They probably should.

When you see the trade fair, you'll see why. This is the person who has done this work. She has created something that's quite amazing. It's done with rather little money and a rather low profile, but it actually makes quite a difference for people. I don't think they would have even told us if it were on the agenda.

Miss Deborah Grey: Is Industry Canada solely responsible for this show and tell that's coming up on May 5?

Mr. John Manley: Actually, as I understand it, the subcommittee is responsible. We're helping.

Miss Deborah Grey: Is there any private funding going into that at all with private industry?

Mr. John Manley: Companies that are displaying their wares are, of course, absorbing their own costs, but—

Miss Deborah Grey: So it's just like a regular trade show. They're paying their own costs.

Mary Frances.

• 1705

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: The trade show is being organized in partnership with the Assistive Devices Industry Association of Canada, the Public Service Commission and the Environment Canada Adaptive Computer Technology Centre. And we will be using public servants to demonstrate the technology, but the companies are in fact coming because they see this as a wonderful opportunity to display the things of which they are very proud.

Miss Deborah Grey: And make a few bucks while they're selling some of those, obviously. These are private entrepreneurs?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: Absolutely.

Miss Deborah Grey: That's great, we hope it goes well. I'm sure you've worked really hard on it and I hope it's a really good, valuable day for everybody.

Thanks.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madam.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you for being here. First, let me tell you that I am very happy, and I am sure that my colleagues are delighted as well, to hear you say that you intend to finance a Health and Activity Limitation Survey. We have heard experts from your department who emphasized the importance of that information.

I do hope that the questionnaire will give us a real idea of what those persons' needs are, their capacity and the way they see their social involvement. This is a wish that I make. We will know in 2002 or 2003 if the results from the survey actually meet those expectations.

Second, with globalization and all, one often hears that a lot of people will be able to make it by establishing their own business. You said in your speech that the new information technologies allow people to work at home, in an environment that could make things much easier for people with disabilities.

We know that to start a business one must have some capital. We also know that it is not necessarily easy to get funding. Are there rules already in place to help persons with disabilities access capital?

Mr. John Manley: There is no core program for them but there are programs to help them at the Business Development Bank of Canada. I think that we are trying to see if other existing programs could be extended in order to help them. I don't know if such programs exist within departments. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency also has programs aimed at small business people with disabilities. Those are examples of things that are possible.

I would say that we can do better, that more could be done.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You just opened the door for my next question.

Since 1997, since the beginning of this legislature, there is no longer a cabinet minister responsible for persons with disabilities. Yet, we know that it is a very important clientele. Many people are battling with disabilities and their number will go up. Would you be prepared to support in cabinet the nomination of a minister who would be truly responsible for them, and not just a sponsor? Mr. Pettigrew is a nice young man but he carries a heavy load. Don't you think that we should have a minister who would be officially responsible for the status of disabled persons and who would have weight within cabinet? Would you be prepared to support such a proposal?

Mr. John Manley: I do not want to avoid the question—

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, it's not true. I don't believe it.

Mr. John Manley: —but decisions regarding the nomination of ministers and the structure of cabinet belong to the Prime Minister. I will support any decision that he will make if I want to go on.

• 1710

I would say that there is always a debate going on. For example, there is a debate in my portfolio about small business. Some say that we should have a minister solely responsible for small business. Others say that it is important to have a minister solely responsible for science and technology. There have been such ministers in some cabinets but I find that a minister with very limited responsibilities is not considered a powerful minister.

If I was to give advice to groups of disabled people concerned with this issue, I would tell them that it is better to have a minister responsible like Mr. Pettigrew than having a minister solely responsible for persons with disabilities who has no important economic or social portfolio. This is a question that can be debated but I am not convinced. For example, groups concerned with small business say that they would rather have the minister of Industry deal with their problems instead of having a minister solely responsible for small business who is powerless. That is why I say that it gives rise to a debate.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If we were to ask the citizens of Canada or Quebec who they think the minister responsible for small business is and we gave them the list of ministers, I am convinced that 90% of them would say that it is the minister of Industry because it makes sense. If we were to ask citizens of Quebec and of Canada who they think the minister responsible for persons with disabilities is, they would have a hard time with the answer.

In my opinion, it is important to look into the need for effective coordination. I can understand the notion of “important minister”. Is the most important minister the one with the largest budget? Maybe but there are no doubt other criteria.

That being said, here is my fourth question. I will repeat the comment I made when Mr. Collenette was here. Given the number of ministers coming to see us—not because they are bored but because they find it important—might I be allowed to believe that in the Martin budget for the year 2000—I call it the Martin budget as it is very likely that we will have the same minister of Finance—large sums of money will be made available in order to better the status of disabled persons?

I did not see anything of interest in the present budget. I saw absolutely nothing and I asked Mr. Pettigrew if there were any provisions, for example, for disabled children. The answer was no. Therefore, I am asking you the question. We know that the minister of Finance, who is a very powerful minister, seeks advice. I think that he listens to his people. Are you prepared to do a bit of lobbying for disabled people?

Mr. John Manley: This depends on the work of the committee. If you could table a report—

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Demonstrate that it is necessary? Is it what you are saying?

Mr. John Manley: Yes, and present valuable ideas. In preparing a budget, one must take several requests into account. There are more requests than money available.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Of course, of course.

Mr. John Manley: Therefore the committee must present a very well structured argument regarding projects under the responsibility of the federal government.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You are absolutely right. You can count on me for that.

Mr. John Manley: If you present such an argument I am certain that if there are good projects they will arouse interest. Work has to be done.

• 1715

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You are fully aware that many studies have been done in the last ten years on the status of persons with disabilities. I think that the work has been done in a very correct, professional and serious manner. It was proven that there are people with disabilities and with real needs. It is fine to say that it is up to this sub-committee but in my humble opinion our budget is non-existent. We will do extraordinary things without any money but we will do the utmost and you will have to support our requests. However you don't seem too sure.

Mr. John Manley: It will all depend on the proposals. I am aware of the fact that a lot can be done within a small sector of the department like that of Mary Frances, which is having a profound effect. It is not always a question of money. The question is to know what are the responsibilities of the federal government and what are the best ways to come to practical solutions. I am very well prepared to support proposals that make sense. There is no problem.

Like I said in my introductory remarks, I am sure that we could contribute to the Canadian economy and to productivity if we could find ways to better integrate people with disabilities in the work force.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Merci.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me say again I am a visitor here, but it is a pleasure to serve with both of you again. It's like old times.

Minister, I'm going to pick up on a question that was raised a little earlier, and it is about when you talked about whether or not there ought to be a specific minister designated for people with disabilities. I think I appreciate to some extent your argument. My concern would be that other departments might then pass the buck, if you will, with one department saying, “It's not my responsibility; it goes there.”

Let me ask two questions on this. Given that there is a lead ministry, although not a separate ministry, does your ministry get the support it needs to fulfil its commitments to the disabled from the lead ministry?

Secondly, is there an integrated interdepartmental strategy for policies affecting those with disabilities in the country? Is there a communication mechanism to ensure that Industry knows what Transport is doing, which knows what other departments might be doing?

Mr. John Manley: As with other horizontal responsibilities, there are coordinating committees at an officials level that meet on a continuing basis so that there is coordination and exchange of information about what's going on. At a ministerial level, of course, that happens on an ad hoc basis. It wouldn't be a regular meeting, but under the coordinating responsibility of Mr. Pettigrew, he could call a meeting of the ministers with responsibility whenever he felt it was something that needed to be done. Much of that general work is obviously done at the officials level.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Do you get sufficient support from Human Resources Development to carry out the policies directed towards the disabled ministry?

Mr. John Manley: The things we do, as you can tell, are a little bit unique. They're focused in a couple of areas, assistive devices being one of the ones we consider to be really key. We implement that on our own. We don't need HRDC to do that with. On the things like setting the criteria for CAP sites to ensure that when those decisions are made—and they're done at arm's length—-access is taken into account, these are things that again we administer on our own.

So I can't say we've felt we were unsupported or that we weren't getting support we required. It's always true that the more money you have, the more things you can do. That's tautological. At the same time, on policy support, we had very good policy support when we did Bill C-32, the Copyright Act. I'm sure sitting here it seems obvious. Why would anyone object to a copyright exclusion for these purposes? I can tell you that in that contested area of rights' owners and rights' providers, it wasn't necessarily that easy. We're the only country in the world to expressly exclude copyright for those particular usages.

• 1720

Mr. Peter Mancini: Given that there is some support, and I appreciate the financial constraints, I've heard today at this table—and in fact the member who usually sits here is an MP from my own province and my seatmate, so we tend to discuss this fairly regularly—some reference to the 1993 report, Profitable Choices for Everyone and the fact—I think Miss Grey mentioned it—that there were 13 recommendations and 8 of those directly related to Industry Canada.

I don't expect that you could do this for me now, but if I were to table those recommendations, could you provide the committee with an update as to how many of those recommendations have been implemented or exactly where Industry Canada stands on that?

Mr. John Manley: Sure.

Mr. Peter Mancini: As a final question, part of your portfolio in Industry is that you oversee mergers. You oversee the Competition Act, which reviews mergers. And I'm thinking of how in my own area of the country, Atlantic Canada, there's a great deal of discussion right now about the possibility of phone companies, as an example, merging. Are there any specific steps taken by the Competition Bureau to determine the effect of mergers on people with disabilities, in terms of whether services are diminished by those kinds of mergers, or whether they're enhanced? Is that a criterion at all?

Mr. John Manley: First of all, as you know, the bureau acts independently with respect to merger proposals. Many people are misled on this because there's a specific provision in the act that gives the Minister of Finance additional responsibility when the merger involves banks, and so of course it became very prominent that Mr. Martin was involved in the bank merger. But that's by statute. In no other merger would I, for example, or any other minister I know of, have any responsibility whatsoever. The bureau reports to me on what their decision is and they take the decision. It's not a recommendation to me. They're the decision-maker. Their parameters are set out in the act, and the question is whether the lessening of competition is undue and they really look at competitive elements, including provision of services.

As for your specific question, I can't answer for you whether when they look at a merger, for example, in telephony, which is what some people are speculating on at the moment, they would particularly try to analyse it from the point of view of whether there would be a diminution in availability of services, particularly for handicapped persons. They will certainly look at it from the point of view of services available to consumers overall and the price consumers will pay. Obviously the policy direction behind the Competition Act is to ensure that consumers get the maximum benefit from the maximum amount of competition.

So mergers always raise that question. I can't really be more precise than that.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

The Chair: The question we keep having on this committee is, is there a disability lens on the deliberations of the Competition Bureau?

• 1725

Mr. John Manley: I'd have to put that question myself to the director—or as he now is, the commissioner of competition—in order to answer that.

The Chair: That would be great.

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being here. I'm sure that after the good work this committee is doing, there will be a disability lens in place.

Minister, I have a confession. I have sinned, Minister. The other day at another standing committee, I believe it was natural resources, I was accusing ministers of our government, without thinking, asking how they would claim we're providing great services to all of Canada, including remote areas. So I was very glad to hear you say, Minister, you were talking about rural and remote, because it's often been our concern at many committees. There's great mileage in it, and I want to look after all the people in the great white north—because it is white for 10 or more months a year—but we who live a little closer to the metropolitan areas see a great need.

Of course CAP has been a tremendous project and has been very successful across this country. I'm glad to hear that one of the points you include to the people who make the decisions about where the projects will go is the access for the people with disabilities. But CAP makes me think about computers, and of course telephones are all part of this whole story. The natural resources, along with the other caucuses and that, are making some progress on getting some private telephone lines in this country. Of course, the vice-chair of the CRTC is from Nova Scotia, so we know he'll do a great job with this.

But we have all these people in rural Canada on these party lines and it's very hard for them to have communications. Of course, many people with disabilities live in rural Canada, so I wanted to make that point.

These devices we will see demonstrated here on the Hill will be very exciting. I expect I'm talking to the wrong department in looking for tax relief or something for the people, but probably many of these devices will be very expensive, so it's something—

The Chair: You can come back when those ministers are here, Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, it's something we'll raise at another time.

But you know this committee is going to meet with many people on challenges and opportunities, but I want to take this opportunity when I think of it to put something on the record. As my colleague Deborah Grey said, some of this work has been done before, but I sense a good feeling in this committee that the time to make a difference is now, to do even more good work than what Mary Frances has done.

But we hear from these people, who in the world are one in seven, that they would like to have more opportunity to take control of their own destinies, they want to have more of their own responsibility. So I don't know where this fits in with Industry Canada, but I wanted to mention that. Certainly when I read the newspapers, I see that HRD has more money available now than they had in the past, so whether HRD and Industry Canada can work together with some of this....

But I do appreciate the minister being here and sharing, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I need to know, do you have a budget, in terms of research and development, for assistive devices and integrating persons with disabilities?

Mr. John Manley: The way we function is that the assistive devices project office has a budget. As I said, this work has been done remarkably inexpensively. But Mary Frances can maybe describe to you how we do this. This is quite apart from all of the other R and D stuff that's out there, which could also be applied for, but—

The Chair: But I need to know if an industry can apply for research dollars to develop something new.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: The budget that was directed to the assistive devices industry office for R and D support was not continued following the national strategy. But that was partly because the industry itself felt it no longer needed a targeted subsidy program, but rather, wanted to be able to participate in mainstream technology development programs. The assistive devices industry is welcomed and supported by the industrial research assistance program of NRC and by Technology Partnerships Canada, so they have full access to those R and D activities. My office is now working very closely with those R and D organizations to assist them in better understanding the industry, so that when the small business comes to them, they understand better what they're dealing with. We're providing them with some technology support on that, but the industry itself felt it no longer needed a target support program like it had in the past.

• 1730

The Chair: Are there dollars in your department for policy development and staffing and things like that. I assume there are, but what is the proportion? Unfortunately, you seem to be a well-kept secret. What kinds of dollars do we have there for public relations and letting the employers of this country know what's available? Are we secure that those dollars will be there, and how do we get you more?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: I like that question.

My office is small, but I think we do a fairly good job. We could always use more dollars, and that's partly why we're participating in the federal strategy development: to assist us in getting—

The Chair: In policy too?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: In policy as well, yes.

The Chair: Is that integrated through the whole department, or are you some sort of a tag-on?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: I am well known as the person on disability in Industry Canada.

The Chair: And you're everywhere?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: Yes, I'm not very popular many times, but I am everywhere.

Mr. John Manley: That's good.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: With his support.

Mr. John Manley: And with the deputy's support, for that matter, I might add, partly because the department tries to encourage entrepreneurship. We have a few examples of entrepreneurship internally. I would say the people who came up with SchoolNet and CAP are examples of that, but Mary Frances is also an example of that, and we try to encourage it.

The Chair: I think you've been cited as the department that has been proactive in this area. Obviously, as you said in your remarks, there are 4.2 million Canadians with disabilities. I think what we see in the aging population, and what all of us with half-glasses know, is that everybody will be there one day.

The whole idea of universal design is something that appeals to me. All computers ought to be able to drive an adaptive device. Are we getting to the point at which the makers of the computers know this is something that would be very good for them to be doing, that for all the seniors who need large print or need audio, or need this, it's almost de rigueur in design?

Mr. John Manley: Would you say so?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: We're pushing, and it's coming. Our colleagues to the south are doing some very good work in terms of procurement guidelines, and we're working closely with the U.S. government so that Canadian manufacturers will be able to sell to the U.S. government. If they're going to sell technology into the U.S., it's going to be accessible here too, because there's no sense in designing it not to be.

If I can just give you one quick example, the U.S. government has what's called the Television Decoder Circuitry Act, which requires that captioning be built into every television over 13 inches that's sold in the U.S. My office worked closely with the Canadian television manufacturing people to make sure they didn't dump their excess product in Canada when that act came in. And because the Americans designed it, we now have that accessible technology. So we're working closely, because it's really a North American market that we're looking at.

The Chair: Will we be having procurement guidelines?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: We're working on them. That's part of my work plan for 1999-2000.

The Chair: Okay.

My friend from rural Canada knows that I.... In our trip to Nunavut this summer—and this may not be just about persons with disabilities, but it is about the isolation of persons—we were quite concerned to find when we were up there that the only server for the whole of the north is in Iqaluit. Therefore, there are huge long-distance charges for these people. Is there any movement to get more servers out to farther-flung locations?

Mr. John Manley: The key to this is the sustainability of CAP sites, and that is largely working with the telephone company to make sure the affordability issue is dealt with. In some cases, like the much-spoken-of Rankin Inlet example, satellite is the source for Internet connection. In many of the rural and remote areas, special accommodations have been made for schools and community access sites to reduce the long distance charges.

• 1735

If I might offer a prediction, the cost of bandwidth is falling rapidly. These problems are real problems, and Mr. McCormick has mentioned the party lines. Your grandchildren are going to say “You mean they used to have party lines? What was that?” This is changing so rapidly. The cost structure and delivery of telephony services is changing at an amazing pace. That is one of the reasons I'm so enthusiastic about this area.

I believe that whether people are in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet or Cambridge Bay, if they have a product to sell and it's digital or can be displayed digitally, they will be as close to the market as if they were in downtown Toronto or New York. If there's information they want to obtain, whether it's from the library at Harvard or the British museum, it will be at their fingertips. The cost will just not be a factor.

I'll give you that prediction. It's not that far off, and the opportunity, as it pertains to your work, of providing that access as well to people in their homes means the barriers physical disabilities provide to people will be much more easily overcome. The kinds of devices you'll see at the trade fair will link a person to that amazing communications network that is the Internet, and will facilitate access to all of that knowledge.

Today libraries often aren't accessible, because even if you can get in the door, you can't possibly reach the books on a shelf, hold them or see them. This will end not in another generation but short years from now. So that's where the focus needs to be. That's where the great gains will be made.

As a temporary measure, I'm worried about party lines, cost of access in the north and other areas, and long distance charges. We need to work on those things. The CRTC is very preoccupied with them, but they are temporary problems. As the cost of bandwidth plummets, that'll be the case even in those remote areas, and we'll all benefit from it.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming, and we'll see you May 5.

The meeting is adjourned.