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, April 29, 1999

• 1523

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): I will call the meeting to order. As the minister has to leave at about 4.15 p.m., I'm asking the committee if we could do a little bit of housekeeping between 4.15 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. about next week's round table.

We are proud to have the Minister of Finance as our witness today, and the departmental official, Louis Lévesque.

Mr. Minister, we have heard from the disability community that they know that in your heart you have a very soft spot for the issues of persons with disabilities. We're pleased that you're here with us today.

The Honourable Paul Martin (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I indeed do have great concern in this particular area. And I'm delighted to see Andy Scott here, with whom I had the opportunity of working earlier on this.

• 1525

I have a brief statement to make, and then I could get into any questions you have. Is that how you'd like to proceed?

The Chair: That would be great.

Mr. Paul Martin: The first thing I want to do is to express my gratitude for the invitation to come here, and to simply give a couple of facts that I suspect you all know. That is, close to five million people in Canada have some level of disability; that's one out of every six Canadians. As a result of that, clearly disability is an issue that touches each and every one of us, either directly or indirectly. The only question we really have to address is how can we best help Canadians with disabilities take full advantage of the opportunity, the security, and the compassion that are in fact the defining qualities of Canadian society?

[Translation]

Your predecessor committee, Madam Chairperson, searched for answers, calling for a review of measures affecting persons with disabilities. This led to the creation of the Scott Task Force, whose hard work and co-operation with disability groups led to the report Equal Citizenship for Canadians with Disabilities: The will to act.

This process was an indication of the range and complexity of needs to be addressed and, by extension, the difficulty of developing a single approach or simple measures to respond effectively to all of these needs.

[English]

I understand that on March 4 Minister Pierre Pettigrew spoke to this subcommittee about policy developments following the task force report, including the recent publication of the federal-provincial-territorial paper called In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues. Among other things, In Unison highlighted the need for greater coordination between the two levels of government.

Clearly, then, the scope of the challenge we face today goes well beyond the purview of any one department—I think you mentioned that you have some eleven ministers appearing in front of you—or for that matter, any one level of government. Thus, how we respond to this challenge will speak not only to our capacity to be resourceful and innovative, but also to the ability of the federal system to respond to national priorities. Above all, how we address this challenge will be a statement of the values we embrace as Canadians, values such as compassion, dignity, and opportunity for all. For all these reasons, this multifaceted challenge is of extreme importance to me, not only as the Minister of Finance, but also as an MP and, as you indicated at the beginning, as a concerned Canadian. In my remarks today, however, I will focus on where this challenge intersects with the responsibility of the Minister of Finance—namely, the tax system.

At the federal level, a considerable part of the assistance we provide to persons with disabilities is through the personal income tax system, particularly through the medical expense credit and the disability credit.

The medical expense tax credit provides assistance for actual out-of-pocket expenses on medical and disability-related products and services. It has the effect of reducing such expenses by approximately 25%. The credit is available not only to a specific group of eligible individuals, but to all taxpayers with above-normal medical expenses—that is, defined as being above 3% of net income, or $1,614.

The disability tax credit is a flat-rate credit worth $720 in federal tax savings and about $360 in provincial tax savings. It recognizes disability-related costs that are not practical to itemize under the medical expenses tax credit. It is available to those with severe and prolonged disabilities.

[Translation]

The income tax system is by no means the only tool the federal government has. Indeed, and this is a point that I will come back to later, the tax system is not always the most appropriate way to deliver relief to a particular group of individuals in society.

As a government, we want to assist persons with disabilities as much as we possibly can within the limits imposed by the various fiscal, jurisdictional and administrative constraints that we face. It can be quite a balancing act.

Since coming to office in 1993, this government has introduced a number of tax measures that assist persons with disabilities and promote their well-being.

Broadly speaking, the tax measures that we have introduced are designed to help persons with disabilities enjoy an enhanced quality of life through greater independence and mobility, as well as through improved access to care, education and skills.

• 1530

[English]

In our efforts to improve tax assistance to persons with disabilities, we have benefited greatly from the advice of the Scott task force, as well as from our continuing dialogue with groups representing persons with disabilities. This dialogue has helped us to develop tax measures that are practical and that respond directly to the needs that have been identified. A case in point is the medical expense tax credit. Specifically, we have increased the number of products and services for which individuals can claim the credit.

I'd like to give you some examples, if I might, Madam Chair, of what we have done. First, an individual who needs to buy an air conditioner because of a respiratory problem can now claim 50% of the cost, to a maximum of $1,000. Twenty percent of the cost of a van adapted for a wheelchair can be claimed, up to a maximum of $5,000. Also eligible are expenses for driveway alternations to facilitate bus access. A person with a disability can claim the expenses of moving to affordable housing. A hearing-impaired person can claim sign-language interpreter fees under the medical expense tax credit. Allowable claims for part-time attendant care costs have been increased to $10,000 from $5,000. By promoting access to respite care, we provide at least some measure of relief to those selfless Canadian men and women who day after day bear the enormous responsibility of caring for disabled loved ones on their own.

Training costs for caregivers have been added to the list of eligible expenses. Also eligible is the cost of hiring staff to care for persons with disabilities living in a group home. And the cost of special therapies for persons with severe disabilities, such as autism, can now be claimed under the medical expense tax credit. For people with learning disabilities, we've extended eligibility for this credit to expenses for tutoring and talking textbooks.

In addition to these changes to the medical expense tax credit, the government has introduced a number of other tax changes that have been designed to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. For example, we eliminated the $5,000 limit on the attendant care deduction, which now gives people with disabilities greater access to the assistance they need in order to participate in the workforce.

[Translation]

We are helping individuals cover the cost of moving to an accessible home by allowing them to make tax-free RRSP withdrawals.

In addition, we have introduced a refundable medical expense tax credit for low-income individuals with earnings. By "refundable" I mean that, where an individual's net tax payable is lower than their credit entitlement, they receive a refund of the difference. This credit adds to assistance under the existing medical expense tax credit.

We have also introduced a caregiver credit. This is designed to help an individual look after her mother, her father, or an infirm dependent relative in her own home. The caregiver is entitled to a credit of up to $400, which represents a tax savings of $600 once the provincial tax component is factored in.

For the federal government, the total cost of this one new measure is about $120 million per year.

[English]

Madam Chair, when we add all of these measures together and look at how the cost has increased in recent years, it is clear that the government has been willing to devote significant additional resources to helping people with disabilities. According to recent tax expenditure estimates, federal tax assistance for persons with disabilities has risen from about $540 million in 1993 to approximately $850 million in 1999, an increase of 55% in five years. When the provincial tax savings from these measures are factored in, the total tax savings for beneficiaries grew from $840 million in 1993 to $1.3 billion in 1999. All told, this represents a $460 million increase in federal and provincial tax assistance for individuals with disabilities.

Now, Madam Chair, I wish we could have done more, and I know that you do and I know that the members of this committee do. However, to appreciate the full measure of this targeted tax assistance to Canadians, I'm sure you will bear in mind the fiscal constraints we've been burdened with during most of our time in office. It is only 14 months ago that we balanced the books. And although we have won the battle against the deficit, the size of our debt burden relative to the size of our economy is one of the highest in the G-7.

That being said, the needs of the most vulnerable are of such importance that we have brought in targeted tax relief right from day one. In short, Canadians with disabilities must rank very high on anybody's priority list.

• 1535

[Translation]

Madam Chair, there is much more we can do to help persons with disabilities realize the goal of full citizenship, as envisaged in the In Unison paper. It is essential that Canadians with disabilities continue to be given every opportunity to be full participants in the economic and social mainstream of this country.

What we have now is a broad vision in the form of In Unison. What we need are specific proposals for translating this vision into action. In addition, since we cannot do everything at once, the government must have a clear sense of which proposals are the highest priorities for early action.

[English]

I would now like to set out some key questions on which we would particularly welcome this subcommittee's guidance as you think about the ways for moving the country from what we have now to what we need.

First, what policy measures are the most appropriate for action at the federal level? This involves recognizing constitutionally established roles as well as the various pros and cons of national and local action. For example, a large portion of the assistance provided to persons with disabilities comes through programs like workmen's compensation and social assistance, which are administered at the provincial or the territorial level. This is because the enormous variety of disabilities and the potential range of consequences for the people who are affected often necessitate the sort of individual attention that can be provided only at the local level. That being said, Madam Chair, the Canadian government must play its role.

Second, how can we best ensure that federal measures complement the provincial and territorial programs rather than merely displace them? Given the variety of assistance programs at the federal and provincial and territorial levels, improvements in assistance will demand closer coordination of these programs to ensure that they serve the needs of persons with disabilities effectively. Without this kind of coordination, not only will the programs be working at cross-purposes, but there is a real risk of placing an unnecessary administrative burden on the very people they're intended to help.

The third question is what kinds of assistance can be effectively delivered through the tax system, and what kinds need more direct and frequent contact than the tax system provides?

[Translation]

The fourth question is this: How can we design measures that appropriately reflect the great variety of disabilities and disability-related costs?

There is no magic line that separates severe disabilities from those that are not as severe. Moreover, there is not necessarily a strong correlation between the severity of the person's disability and the financial burden associated with the disability.

[English]

This leads me directly to the fifth and the final question, on how to provide further financial support. Should we focus on reimbursements for actual disability-related costs, such as under the medical expense tax credit, or should we provide straight income assistance to those with disabilities, such as under the disability tax credit? Of course these are not mutually exclusive, but the issue is certainly one of where should the greater emphasis lie.

Madam Chair, in conclusion, these are some of the key questions the subcommittee might want to consider as it proceeds with its crucial work on disability issues. Let me assure you that the finance department will continue to look for effective ways in which federal programs and tax measures can be used to reduce the barriers that face persons with disabilities.

In the econmic and fiscal update addressed to the finance committee—you were there last fall—we said:

A secure society widens the mainstream. It expands opportunity. It allows each individual to act upon and to realize their own potential.

Through its work in promoting the full participation of persons with disabilities in Canadian society, this subcommittee has a crucial role to play in widening the mainstream and in securing our nation's role as model of compassion, dignity, and opportunity for all. We look forward to seeing the results of your work, Madam Chair, and we congratulate you and this committee for the initiative you're taking.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

There's an ugly rumour that there might be a vote in half an hour, Mr. Martin, so maybe you would take a couple of notes, and maybe I would ask the committee if we could go around just to make sure that if we only have half an hour, each of the members would have asked their question.

• 1540

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Didn't we only have half an hour anyway? Weren't you going to leave at 4.15p.m.?

Mr. Paul Martin: At 4.20 p.m., yes.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you, Paul, for coming.

I wanted to ask you, Andy, first of all, because you did such incredible work, whether your committee asked some of these questions already.

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Some. I have some questions for Mr. Martin.

Miss Deborah Grey: I noticed that there were TV cameras here earlier. Would you have had a problem with those cameras staying?

Mr. Paul Martin: No.

Miss Deborah Grey: Let me ask a few questions.

Mr. Paul Martin: Does any politician?

Miss Deborah Grey: I hadn't noticed that you were shy, up to this point anyway.

Paul, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I know we're tight on time here. You talked about taxes and tax credits and all these things. In order to do those, of course you have to have a job so you can pay taxes. I think that every Canadian doesn't mind paying taxes for services they get. But the recent HALS survey we have talked about in here time after time has said that of adults with disabilities, 43%, or 981,000, had an individual income of less than $10,000 per year, and 26%—that's close to 600,000 people—had an income of less than $5,000 a year. You and I would spend that much on supper out, and these people are living on less than this, and then we're talking about grandiose tax credits. Something is terribly discrepant there.

How much of a poor disabled Canadian's income of under $10,000 a year would you take out in federal tax? Certainly some.

Mr. Paul Martin: If I might, the point you're highlighting is in fact the point I highlighted, which is that the Income Tax Act is not the be-all and end-all here, that in fact we are dealing with very low-income people who require income support that may well not be provided through the Income Tax Act. That's the first thing. I would not disagree with your point.

On your second point, a number of the credits we provide are in fact refundable credits, so that in fact they do provide a certain amount of money directly in their hands. Also, there is nobody in the country with $5,000 in income who is paying taxes. It's conceivable that somebody who is physically disabled at $10,000 might, but I would doubt it.

Mr. Louis Lévesque (General Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance): Somebody at $10,000 claiming the disability credit would not be taxable. Also, these credits are transferable. Even if the person himself or herself cannot claim it, if they live with somebody else that other person can claim whatever is left after the tax of the person who is disabled has been wiped out.

Miss Deborah Grey: What is the net amount of money that disabled Canadians contribute to Revenue Canada? It would be interesting to know.

Mr. Paul Martin: I don't have that. If that number is available, we'll get it.

The Chair: Do you mean people who are claiming the disability tax credit? Is that how you usually define it?

Miss Deborah Grey: Not necessarily. What I think happens is that so many people are so confused by the Income Tax Act that they don't even know about the tax credits that are in there available to them. And I think maybe you might have made reference to this in your remarks, that there is a discrepancy in it.

Mr. Paul Martin: Yes, I did actually.

Miss Deborah Grey: I can't make sense out of the Income Tax Act, and I have two university degrees. I bless the Lord that I'm not disabled, but if I had that added thing, where do you start to try to make sense out of it?

I'm wondering truly how many disabled Canadians are contributing to Revenue Canada. Maybe they don't even know that they're....

Mr. Paul Martin: We will provide you with the answer, and I suspect we can, but the problem you've also highlighted, Deb, is that our numbers are going to be limited to those people who have claimed.

Miss Deborah Grey: Exactly. And, again, I think there's a huge discrepancy there between those who are claiming and those who maybe don't even know that those things are available to them.

Thanks. I'll defer, because I know we are short of time.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I'd like to focus for a moment on something you said in your opening remarks, something that surprised me. You stated that there was not correlation between the severity of the disability and the financial cost associated with that disability. Quite frankly....

Mr. Paul Martin: I didn't say the financial cost.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: What then?

Mr. Paul Martin: I said income level, and that's precisely the problem raised by Ms. Grey. All we're saying is that individuals with very severe disabilities do not use the credit system.

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral: Good, because I was very surprised. I have two or three brief questions for you.

Regarding the child tax credit, children with disabilities are treated like all other children. Do you feel that their particular status should be assessed and some adjustments made as soon as possible? Parents with disabled children face tremendous pressures. The mother may be forced to quit her job, among other things. If she does, she no longer earns an income and therefore cannot deduct certain expenses.

• 1545

Are disability credit eligibility criteria reviewed from time to time and is this done with an eye to the demands of those individuals directly concerned? There are a number of groups representing persons with disabilities with the right knowledge and expertise to be of assistance to you. Do you consult with these groups and if so, do you listen to what they have to say? In a letter received shortly after you tabled you budget, persons with disabilities noted that there was very little in the 1999 budget to improve their living conditions.

Mr. Paul Martin: Regarding the National Child Benefit, this is an administrative matter. Consideration must be given to the expenses incurred by a family with a disabled child, but is the National Child Benefit the best way to provide that assistance? This is an administrative matter and I think we've come to the same conclusion, namely that more thought needs to be given to the mechanism used.

As for your second question, the criteria are indeed reviewed. In fact, we revised them in the last budget. Persons with respiratory problems met with us and further to this meeting, some changes were introduced. We proceeded in exactly the same way in previous budgets. Let me point out that we did take some action, even though we were still running a deficit at the time.

Clearly, the focus of this budget is health care. All of our attention is on health. Our hope is that part of the funding provided to the provinces will go to help persons or children with disabilities. We are always attuned to the needs of this community and that's won't change. Moreover, we will be consulting with groups, most likely this fall, as we did last year and the year before that.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming before us, and we appreciate your invitation to put forward policy measures that we think are appropriate.

I'd like to just look at two things. One is that we are constantly told there are too many definitions for disabilities. You know, there are two big ones federally: there are the income support programs for disabled people, which is CPP, and then there's the disability tax credit. For people to try to fit into each one of these plans, or one or the other, it's a nightmare for them.

There is a lot of cost involved. In most provinces the patient has to pay a doctor for an exam that assesses their ability level, depending on whether you're applying for disability tax definition, which has to do with your daily performance. The CPP definition depends on your ability to work, so you have to go to a doctor, you have to find out what criteria you're going to be able to meet. The tariff for all this can end up about $200. A disabled person—and we're talking about people, as Deb says, who are making $5,000 or less—may end up paying $200 to apply for programs they require because they're disabled and broke.

So what is the wisdom in having two definitions? And why not have a universal definition of disability for federal government programs? I would say that would be something we hear over and over again, and can we not use our resources to come up with something that would benefit people?

Mr. Paul Martin: Yes. Louis may want to comment on this, but let me just say that, again, I suspect there are many of these questions. There's a reasonable degree of sympathy between all of us here. I can only tell you that I'm not sure.... Your point's well taken, but I'm not sure that a universal definition is going to be the final answer.

• 1550

My experience has been the following. There is a definition. The department has to have a definition of some kind. I've now been the minister for five or six years. All of sudden somebody comes along and says the definition is faulty. I mean, here's the problem. So I go to the department and say it makes a lot of sense. The department says, oh my God, you're opening up a Pandora's box. I say you have to do this, so we do it. We've opened up that, and the next time somebody else comes along.... We do have a definitional problem. Your point may well be right.

I don't think we should kid ourselves that we're going to come up with a universal definition that is going to be perfect. But what we should do is reduce the hassle in terms of this. If we can do it, we would be delighted.

Mr. Louis Lévesque: Just on your basic question, there are two definitions. I'm not an expert on the CPP, but the basic point for the CPP is to assess your ability to be gainfully employed. It's an earnings replacement program.

The definition on the tax side, on the other hand, tries to basically look at whether you really have a severe handicap and it stops there. The purpose is just that if you have a severe handicap, you probably have some costs that other people do not have; for example, you have somebody coming to do your house chores, or you have to expend more money on cabs, or you have to expend more money on some other things. We wouldn't want to say keep a receipt for all of that and claim that. We just say if you're severely disabled, from a tax perspective, we'll reduce your taxes by a certain amount.

So it goes back to the point the minister was making, that they serve a little different purpose. In theory, it would be fine to have a perfectly similar definition, but the diversity of disability is so great that it may not be possible. But we're certainly open, and our colleagues at Revenue Canada are open, in terms of any advice—

The Chair: The problem, when we look ridiculous as a government, is that we use the same word, right? So somebody whose sole income is CPP disability, who doesn't qualify for the disability tax credit, thinks this is a bit odd, right? Their only income is a disability pension, but they don't get the tax credit, so it is a....

It's just a bit of a tough sell in terms of the definition. I guess what I'm asking is whether we as a committee—because I think the disability community thinks there is a definition that would work for them—whether we could actually put forward a definition that would work for people. The people with cystic fibrosis, particularly, I think have been asking for a long time.... They spend a lot of each day trying to breathe. They may actually be able to go to work, but when I have to fill out that form for the disability tax credit, technically, unless you push it a little they don't technically qualify. Yet they are spending a huge amount of each day doing their breathing exercises and actually not being able to earn what they would normally earn if they weren't with this disability.

Mr. Paul Martin: If we can make it simpler.... There's nobody who would like more to make it simple and logical than we would.

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just would like to ask one more question, and it has to do with the fact that we're in the early stages of social union work, and according to the Auditor General, the first two programs within that framework are the national child benefit through the child tax credit and the employability assistance for people with disabilities program. So we have those two programs, and I'm concerned with our ability as parliamentarians to gauge the success of those programs, to measure their ability to meet their goals.

The Auditor General has, I think correctly, pointed out that the national child credit has failed to make reduction of child poverty a measurable goal for that program, and the EAPD measures success not by looking at the number of disabled Canadians who find work, but by counting the number of persons who participate in the various programs.

So do you support gauging the success of either the national child benefit or the EAPD by measuring the reductions in child poverty and the reductions in the 75% unemployment rate for disabled Canadians?

Mr. Paul Martin: I certainly think that with every government program you ought to make the best attempt you possibly can to be able to measure its outcomes.

I think for those of us who think it's important to be putting money into social programs, that is our best defence, the fact that they are working. I have discussed this with my provincial counterparts, and I must say there is pretty strong consensus on that issue. I think that's something we ought to be able to make work. Now, the proof will be in the pudding.

• 1555

The Chair: Andy.

Mr. Andy Scott: Thank you.

I welcome Mr. Lévesque, who travelled with us during the task force. Whenever we got in really big trouble with the community, we could always blame him.

Mr. Paul Martin: Why do you think he's here today?

Mr. Andy Scott: Now I don't feel so guilty for doing it. Thank you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Andy Scott: I'm trying to stick with your questions, if I could. They have to do with what the role is, and you mentioned the constitutional challenge this represents and so on. The community said very clearly that this is about equal citizenship as Canadians. Therefore, we have to elevate the debate beyond the provision of service and those kinds of things to a place around human rights and citizenship. These are clichés, but it involves fulfilment and so on at a level that goes beyond sustenance and dealing with looking after people to allowing people to look after themselves.

The first place the federal government was identified—and we're trying to be precise in saying what it is that the federal government might do—had to do with cost, both the actual cost and the lost opportunity cost related to disability. Both qualify. I think to some extent trying to choose between the two makes it impossible for the community, because you create one community of winners and one community of losers, and I don't think anybody wants to do that. So we really have to recognize that if you happen to be a Canadian with a disability, you will have actual costs and lost opportunity costs in terms of employment and other kinds of things. All the statistics bear that out.

I think to have to choose between income and actual costs becomes difficult. That's why we proposed a combination of the two tax measures and to make it refundable. You would then eliminate the problem that it was helping those at the high end more because more high-end people could actually pay for those things. I appreciate Mr. Lévesque's reference to tax and the fact that we wouldn't want to tax those costs and so on and so forth.

I would have to speak to the special opportunities grants that are available to students. This is a program where HRDC gives the money to the students on the basis that they have demonstrated costs associated with a disability, and then those grants are deemed to be taxable income. It is inconsistent with the other measures we're taking that say that, as much as we possibly can, we don't want Canadians with disabilities to have to absorb the costs associated within the limitations we face.

So it seems to me it's inconsistent, then, to provide a program that recognizes the costs and then takes the money back by way of taxation when it's provided. That's my point.

I appreciate how tough it is, Mr. Minister, to deal with the social union and with relative responsibility and to make sure we don't simply introduce a program and have the provinces use the existence of that program to then take away other programs. I think the community also would agree that isn't the intent.

It strikes me that because of our heavy emphasis on mobility in the social union documents, the national government has to deal with the issue of mobility. To this community mobility is probably one of the principal issues. Ultimately, if you're dependent on programming that only exists in a province, you don't have mobility. Therefore, there's a need for the national government to be the guardians of that national perspective. I would suggest that in the social union context we can position ourselves around that issue.

This speaks very much to the ideas around accountability contained in the task force report. The members of the public who appeared before the task force didn't care too much about which government it was. They were more interested in holding the government accountable. That's why so many of these reports don't get the play the community believes they should, because there's no real mechanism in place to hold the levels of government accountable for what it is they genuinely, I think, want to do.

So I think with regard to the social union, in the name of mobility the federal government can perhaps look at proposing some kind of social audit around the disability file specifically.

• 1600

Mr. Paul Martin: If I might turn this back, I think the Scott task force was really a very important event in this whole thing. I was involved with Andy, obviously not to the same extent, but Andy, I got the impression that there was a view that the provinces were really prepared to cooperate and that this was not going to be a problem.

Mr. Andy Scott: No, you're right. Actually, at the end of my diatribe I was going to offer my appreciation. I'd better do that now, just in case.

When the exercise was completed, we knew that was going to take some time, and we knew there were some resource questions and even structural mechanics of governments questions here that were going to take some time. I think what is really most important is for the community and the people who invested in this to know that there is a mechanism in place that will cause that to happen. That's where I speak of accountability. And since we're involved in the social union negotiations in any case, it seems that an appropriate way to do that is to say that one of the things we think the federal government can do is to put the framework in place, or at least begin to propose a framework in federal-provincial relations that would see us hold all levels of government to some level—I'm trying to avoid certain language here that I know is provocative—some level in the name of mobility. There's no other place in this country where mobility is as important, and since the federal government has to be the champion of mobility, I think it puts an emphasis on us.

Sorry for taking so much time, Madam Chair, but there is one more thing.

You mentioned what other things the government can do independent of tax. The department could support the HALS survey. When HRDC appeared, Minister Pettigrew committed $1 million to start, and in the same way that a whole bunch of departments came together to pay for the task force, if you recall, it seems that while HRDC is clearly the lead ministry, all departments of government get access to that information. They benefit from that information, and I think they could be called upon to support its collection. There's expense involved.

Am I running too long?

The Chair: It's okay.

Mr. Andy Scott: Well, he has asked the questions. I have only one more at this point.

The Chair: Fine.

Mr. Andy Scott: Also, as a part of the committee of ministers that are involved in this, there are issues that flow horizontally across the government, the labour market agreements to make sure that Canadians with disabilities are finding their place in those agreements. The community is fearful and I'm fearful that this is not happening. I guess you're quite familiar with the pieces on legislation, and so on, and I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: The minister did commit to the House, though, didn't he?

Mr. Andy Scott: I thought he did. He nodded.

Mr. Paul Martin: The minister listened.

I see no reason why not. I don't have any great problem so far, Andy. I just want to find out what I've agreed to.

Mr. Andy Scott: The students will be pleased, then.

Mr. Paul Martin: Yes, well, let me come back.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): One of the wonderful things about sitting beside Andy is that he has articulated extremely well the questions that I wanted to ask. Before he started, I had written down that I wanted to talk about the special opportunities grants and why they were taxable. Mobility is certainly something I'm very concerned about, and labour market agreements from all aspects.

Mr. Paul Martin: On the special opportunity grants, I have to say that this issue comes up on a lot of things. Scholarships to students are taxed. The reason is essentially the view that money that is given to somebody with a low level of income should in fact be treated differently than money that has come in to somebody with a high level of income. The way in which you do that is through the tax act, which in fact equals that out. Not to use the example here of the special opportunities fund, but for the sake of discussion, should a student from a needy family who receives a very large scholarship be treated the same as a student who, for the sake of discussion, receives a scholarship and happens to have a $100,000-a-year trust fund? Essentially, you would tax the one because of the other, and I think that's the reason.

• 1605

Sorry, go ahead, Andy.

Mr. Andy Scott: I think the special opportunity grant is linked to the student loan program, and your high-enders are already covered, in that the student loan program offers a cut-off. You're protected against a multi-millionaire getting at this.

Mr. Paul Martin: But isn't there still going to be income differentiation at some point?

Mr. Andy Scott: You're right that inside the Canada Student Loans Act there's income differentiation. But the reality is that the Canada Student Loans Act is in fact a needs-based program. Consequently, your concern to make sure that this isn't going out to people who are extremely wealthy is covered off by the needs-based nature of the Canada student loans program.

Mr. Paul Martin: Was that a bell I just heard?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Paul Martin: I know this is probably not the way this committee is going to work, but a couple of questions were picked out, and I'd just like to comment. I know you brought these ministers in front of you basically to get answers. Certainly, this minister—and I think a number of us—is very interested in the answers you're going to be coming up with, as much as hearing the sound of my own voice.

Perhaps I can just tell you a little bit about the way I see it. Every Minister of Finance who comes before this committee is going to say that he doesn't have any money, that he has constrained resources. That's always going to be the case. In fact, that is a reality.

A couple of issues have been raised. Your issue about the measurement of outcomes is by far the best answer to that question. If you can demonstrate that $1 spent today is going to in fact return you $7 in a decade, then that is money well spent. I think that's incredibly important. If you can't show that it's going to return money, you should be able to show that it is in fact improving the quality of life. The measurement of outcomes, I think, is absolutely vital.

That really is the first question that was asked, this whole issue of jobs. I have seen the numbers, and there is no doubt that where physically disabled people are able to obtain jobs, the return to society is enormous. The bottom line—and I'm doing this from a very narrow perspective, that of the Department of Finance—is this whole issue of what we can do to level the playing field for people who want to enter the workforce.

The second one is that we have to recognize that there are those people who simply will not be able to, and I think we really have to not treat the two the same. Everyone of us at this table knows somebody. I'm sure Andy would know of cases. The Heather Robertson case had a huge influence on me in terms of people who wanted to enter the workforce. This was a woman lawyer who had an accident. I have a nephew who is totally disabled.

The degree to which you can help us as a government grapple with this, based on this measurement of outcomes, I think will go a long way.

The Chair: I think it's a matter of struggling with it in terms of flexibility and seeing that it's not necessarily black and white. I think most people are highly motivated and would rather be working. It's my favourite saying. As a physician, I wished I had a stamp so that I could put it on all of the forms I had to fill out. Whether it's working full time or part time, we should do whatever we can do to make it possible for people to do what they can do, because, as you say, that reaps huge rewards in all kinds of areas, such as self-esteem. I haven't yet met anybody who'd rather be sitting at home getting a cheque. I just don't think those people exist, because they would really rather be out there.

I think this committee is keen to find some of the answers to your questions and to be able to come forward with some really positive strategies for making this possible in terms of, as you've said, people wanting to be able to realize their potential and that when it comes to them entering the workforce, we should be able to find incentives and ways of doing that.

• 1610

Last week at the collaborative government conference I was happy to participate on behalf of the committee in a little session they had on disability and the social union. It's quite clear that this group has felt for a long time that where there are jurisdictional issues, the greater tendency is to do nothing. And in the areas where there are even more jurisdictional issues, like aboriginals with disabilities, then you really do nothing, because it's tough.

That's what we are very hopeful about with the social union and with our round table next week. We hope we will be able to come back to you with some of the answers to the questions you've asked and be able to move forward on it, because, as you well know, we feel, as does the community, that we've been consulted to death and that we just need to actually have some real strategies we can move forward with. That's what's so great about this particular committee: every member of this committee is highly motivated and wants some results. So I thank you for coming.

Did you have another question?

Miss Deborah Grey: I'll finish up by reiterating that there is a real sense of urgency about this. We've talked in here about not just a sense of despair with us about how long is this going to go on, but in the disabled community. And I think of the hepatitis-C victims too. Since the deal was reached last year, hundreds of people have died. We don't want to see this where we say there's a sense of urgency and we're getting right on this, and how many people are going to die between now and when we can come up with some brilliant solutions? I think there's a tremendous sense of despair and urgency in the disabled community, not just us sitting around this table.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Paul Martin: Thank you all.

The Chair: I think we want to suspend.

• 1612

• 1618

The Chair: Maybe while we're waiting for the minister we'll ask Mary Frances to tell us a little bit about the show-and-tell next Wednesday night.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton (Chief, Assistive Devices Industry Office, Industry Canada): We have 22 Canadian companies, some from British Columbia, some from Newfoundland, and from all parts in between. They'll be demonstrating about 36 different kinds of assistive technology. We have technology for blind, technology for low vision, technology for hearing-impaired, deaf, mobility-impaired, agility, learning disabled, and then some general technology.

Most of the technology that's going to be on display has been developed in partnership with Industry Canada, but some it has not been. The industry leaders are terribly excited about coming and meeting with you and showing you what they have.

We have everything costed so that people will be able to know how much it would actually cost to do the accommodation, and we have lots of toys that people can actually play with. The way we're setting it up is that if you actually want to try the technology, it will be there for you to try. I'm really excited, and my industry sector is excited, and they're looking forward to meeting with you and showing you all the good stuff they have.

• 1620

The Chair: Is the minister coming?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: No, the minister is in Sweden. He was extremely irritated, and he said to me, “Why didn't you put it on a day when I wasn't in Sweden?” And I said, “Why don't you not go to Sweden?” But he didn't respond positively to that.

The Chair: That sounds great. Thank you so much. It represents such a huge amount of work.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: The other thing I wanted to say to you is that a lot of these companies are in the regions where you folks have offices. One of the companies that can't be here is an Edmonton-based company called Madenta. They would be more than happy to do the kinds of things Dr. Bennett has talked to me about, about having town-hall trade shows, mini ones. My office would be happy to work with your offices on doing that kind of thing. I'm working for one in Toronto with Dr. Bennett's office in May.

So it would be local companies and local technologies, but I think it would be quite useful for your constituents, and we'd be happy to help with that. As I said before, we're a very tiny office, but we're quite keen to get the message out. So if we can be of assistance to you, let us know.

The Chair: As a small example, we've decided to have a town-hall meeting in St. Paul's, and Mary Frances will put a little show-and-tell together for St. Paul's. In booking the place, we decided that I have the community school for the deaf in my riding, so we should have it there. We were just about to sign the contract and we found out it's not wheelchair accessible. I just about wanted to fall on my sword. It's an example of what.... Here is a school for the deaf without wheelchair accessibility. I couldn't stand it.

A voice: So it's somewhere else.

The Chair: Yes, we're moving it.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: Anyway, I thank you for your support in this, and I look forward to seeing you all next Wednesday night.

Miss Deborah Grey: I should tell you, Mary Frances, I just had a call from B.C.; the leader has dispatched me for a few things, and I'm not going to be able to make it. I'm very sad.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: We'll tell you all about it some other time.

Miss Deborah Grey: And I have a replacement from my caucus who is going to be helping out with the round table as well.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: Maybe we'll do another one just for you.

Miss Deborah Grey: It couldn't be as glamorous as Sweden perhaps.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: I'm sorry you won't be there.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you for the work you've done.

The Chair: She'll help you with one for your riding.

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, maybe I could have Madenta there.

• 1625

The Chair: Welcome, Madam Minister. As you may know, there are eleven ministers coming before this committee.

The Honourable Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Which number am I?

The Chair: You're number one.

Ms. Anne McLellan: At least in your hearts.

Mr. Andy Scott: You're the seventh number one.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I bet you say that to all the ministers.

The Chair: We're thrilled to have you here. As you know, we think the issue of persons with disabilities is a huge human rights issue, and we're glad you're here.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you for inviting me before your committee today. As Minister of Justice, I am here to account for my department's record in respect of disabilities issues.

My colleague Mr. Pettigrew is the minister responsible for issues relating to persons with disabilities. He has already appeared before your committee and provided you with useful information about the In Unison paper and about his vision of the federal strategy targeting persons with disabilities.

My department is committed to promoting greater equity and the full inclusion of persons with disabilities in all aspects of Canadian society, including the Canadian justice system.

[English]

Most of the legislation that falls within my ambit has already been reviewed. This would include Bill C-78, which amended the Criminal Code in 1992, and more recently and extensively, Bill S-5, which amended the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Bill S-5 came into force, as you will all remember, on June 30, 1998. In Bill S-5, the Canada Evidence Act was amended to allow for the provision of communication assistance in criminal courts for persons who have special communication needs, and to provide for alternative methods of identifying the accused, such as auditory and tactile recognition, as opposed to the more traditional means of visual identification.

Bill S-5 brought three main amendments to the Criminal Code. A new provision provides that a videotape, made shortly after the alleged offence, of a person with a disability that makes communication difficult can be admissible in court.

A series of amendments makes it easier for persons with disabilities to serve on juries, including a statement of general principle that a physical disability is not of itself cause for exclusion, if the person is capable of jury service with assistance. Related amendments deal with the presence of an interpreter or attendant who is assisting a disabled juror. For example, such an interpreter or attendant is required by law not to disclose jury deliberations.

• 1630

A new hybrid offence was created in respect of the sexual exploitation of certain persons with disabilities who may be particularly vulnerable due to a relationship of dependency toward the offender. Persons with disabilities who are abused by their caregivers, in either institutions or their own homes, would be able to rely on this provision, in addition to already existing Criminal Code provisions on sexual assault, to obtain justice.

Bill S-5 also contained amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. For persons with disabilities, the key aspect of these reforms was the express duty of accommodation.

Finally, as you already know, on April 8, 1999, I announced that a review of human rights protection in Canada would begin in this month of April. The review will consist of an examination and analysis of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the policies and practices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The review will address recommendations by the Auditor General in his 1998 report on the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that the human rights system be made more efficient in resolving allegations of discrimination.

The review will include an examination of the purpose and grounds, including disability, to ensure the Canadian Human Rights Act accords with modern human rights and equality principles; a determination of the adequacy of the scope and jurisdiction of the act, including an examination of its exceptions; a review of the complaints-based model and subsequent recommendations for changing the model to improve protection for individual and systemic discrimination, and to make the process more efficient and effective; and an examination of the powers and procedures of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal.

Persons with disabilities will surely benefit, along with all Canadians, from having a Canadian Human Rights Commission and a Human Rights Tribunal that will be stronger and more efficient.

I would like to point out that my department has not only reviewed legislation within my ambit with a view to ensuring the protection of persons with disabilities, but it has gone even further in applying a disability lens in the case of newly proposed amendments, less directly related to persons with disabilities.

For example, on April 15, 1999, I tabled Bill C-79 concerning victims of crime. This bill includes an amendment to the Criminal Code allowing victims and witnesses with mental or physical disabilities to have support people present and close by while giving testimony.

Bill C-79 would also allow victims to read their victim impact statements or present them in any other manner the court considers appropriate. This would allow victims who are deaf, for example, to present their victim impact statements in sign language, if they so chose.

Finally, I am looking forward to giving whatever support I can in the coming months to my colleague, Mr. Pettigrew, with respect to the development and implementation of the principles contained in the new federal disability strategy.

In conclusion, it is a pleasure to be here today and to give you a brief update on what we have done in the Department of Justice to respond in particular to the recommendations of the Scott task force on disabled Canadians. I want to acknowledge not only Mr. Scott's long-standing commitment to this area, but the very fine report he and others wrote, after lengthy discussion and consultation with disabled communities across Canada.

Speaking for the Department of Justice, we have tried to implement fully the recommendations made by the Scott task force directed at the Department of Justice. However, we know we are part of a team, and whatever assistance we can provide to others, including in particular Minister Pettigrew, we will do that. We are always open to suggestions as to how we can do more as a department to make both our department and those aspects of the Canadian system of justice within our jurisdiction more amenable and open to Canadians with disabilities.

Again, thank you very much for asking me to be here today. I look forward to comments, suggestions, or questions.

• 1635

The Chair: Thanks very much, Minister.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Chair, could I please say something first. I'll be brief.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I guess I'd like to raise a question of privilege. I want to thank the minister for making the effort to read us several paragraphs of her presentation in French. However, in my view, it's unacceptable to have a presentation by a federal Cabinet member almost entirely in English. The Official Languages Act is a reality and I have to say that this is completely unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. I understood what you said, because my knowledge of English is good, but that's not what the Official Languages Act is all about. Members should have had a presentation in both official languages. I regret that this wasn't the case. That's all I wanted to say.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, I'm sorry, this document was for my personal use. We provided it to the translators and to others here today because you requested it, but it is not an official document as such. It was for my personal use, and hence it appears the way it does. But by all means, I will be happy to ensure that copies of this document, my comments, are provided to you, because I quite agree. But I came today with these actually.... These are my personal notes, and we distributed them at the request of Ms. Grey. But certainly I'd be happy to make sure they're available in both official languages.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There's an unwritten rule we go by, namely that documents are, generally speaking, only distributed when they're available in both official languages.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, no I agree.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Particularly since I like you a lot.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: This was not intended to be distributed, and I apologize for that. It won't happen again.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

Miss Deborah Grey: Let me just jump in on this, Anne, because you used my name. I asked for a copy of this just as a matter of course, because generally they do give them out. But you had someone out there photocopy these things long before I asked. It was a matter of two minutes, when I asked if there were copies available, and you—or somebody from your department—already had somebody out photocopying. So it wasn't at my request that these things just.... The photocopying was being done long before I asked for them.

The Clerk of the Committee: I got five photocopies done for the interpreters in the console, so that was where the photocopies came from.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Sorry, I apologize. And don't worry, this won't happen again.

The Chair: As the chair, I think probably we should have taken it to the committee, in terms of what was intended, and the minister's remarks as to whether they ought to be distributed, seeing that they weren't in both official languages. They were distributed without the committee deciding.

Miss Deborah Grey: I'd like to ask, when ministers make presentations, isn't it a matter of course that notes get distributed? This is the first time I've ever seen ministers.... And you're free to use your own personal speaking notes, because I can take notes, which I did anyway.

Ms. Anne McLellan: As I've said, I will provide you with a copy en français.

The Chair: Do you suggest that when the ministers are asked to come, there be a request, or do you think—

Miss Deborah Grey: Ministers are going to every committee every day.

The Chair: Yes.

Miss Deborah Grey: Is that not a sort of unwritten tradition here?

The Chair: I don't believe so. But we can ask, if that's what you prefer.

We also welcome your officials—

Ms. Anne McLellan: They are Carole Théberge and Yvan Roy, both from the Department of Justice.

The Chair: Great. Thank you very much.

Deborah.

Miss Deborah Grey: Good. Well, notes or no notes, I think I'd like to ask a few questions.

You talked about the review that is being undertaken. How long do you think that might take? Do you have a timeline on that?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, indeed. The review is to be completed by April 1, 2000. That's one year—twelve months—from the time the review panel was put in place.

Miss Deborah Grey: Is that for sure?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, those are the terms of reference I've given them.

Miss Deborah Grey: Very good.

Regarding Bill C-79, the victims of crime bill that you brought in recently, I guess I just find it a little astounding that we would even have to write that in. It would seem to me that we could take that for granted if somebody needed help, an interpreter or whatever, to give a victim impact statement. Has that not happened up to this point? Do we see a need for legislation for that?

• 1640

Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. Roy, who is in my criminal law division, will answer the details of that question.

In fact, I think in a number of areas of the criminal law.... For example, if you look at the issue surrounding the ability of a disabled person to serve on a jury, our criminal law and our criminal justice system have not responded very well to the needs of the disabled so that they can fully participate in all aspects of life, including participation as citizens in the criminal justice system, for example, as jurors.

And again, in terms of victim impact statements, while the law at present permits for victim impact statements, they are written. But if one is to permit, as we are in our new victims legislation, the opportunity for those victims who choose to read their victim impact statements before the court, then our system has to acknowledge and respond to the fact that there are those, for example, who are deaf. And therefore we want to make sure there's no misunderstanding, so that if there is a victim of crime who is deaf, who wishes to provide a victim impact statement, we don't want any misunderstanding. So if that person wishes to come to the court and provide that statement through the use of sign language, they have the right to do so. They cannot be refused, nor can an objection be raised by defence counsel, for example, or whoever else—the crown, perhaps, but more likely defence counsel.

Mr. Roy, you might like to speak directly to the question of the support person.

Mr. Yvan Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Sure.

Miss Deborah Grey: Let me just ask this first. Are you saying that somebody you know of has been refused to this point?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In relation to what?

Miss Deborah Grey: In relation to the example you used of somebody coming and wanting to bring an interpreter because they want to make a statement through sign language, for instance.

Ms. Anne McLellan: As it relates to victim impact statements, up until the proposed changes to the law that we just introduced, individuals were not able to read their victim impact statements.

Miss Deborah Grey: So they were refused.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Nobody was allowed.

Mr. Yvan Roy: The problem with the code the way it is right now is that the language being used is extremely precise. I would not want to be taken, and I'm sure the minister would not want to be taken, to be prohibiting judges right now from allowing persons who want to use sign language to present their case before them by saying something to the effect that this cannot be done. But the way the code is written, it is extremely precise, and there is certainly a very good argument to be made that it would be difficult for these people to present their case.

What the amendment to section 722 will do is make sure the language is flexible enough for these people to have an opportunity to make their presentation before the court. Right now you cannot read your statement before that court, let alone appear before the court and make it by using sign language or something that's going to allow the court to understand you, whatever your disability is.

As for the support persons the minister referred to in her earlier statement, right now it is clear that with respect to disabled people, they cannot have the benefit of support people because the section is constructed in such a way that it's only for children under the age of 14. The law will be amended and needs to be amended for the purpose of allowing this. This is what the minister has proposed in Bill C-79.

Miss Deborah Grey: Does it seem a little late in coming? You don't want to gripe about timelines and stuff, but as the minister responsible for the Canadian Human Rights Act.... We have spoken a long time about human rights and disabilities. It seems we're a long way down the road for bringing this in. I congratulate you for bringing it in, but I just wonder how many victim impact statements we could have heard over the last few years, through sign language, that might have made a difference in a case. And we're just thinking of it now. It's a tragedy, isn't it?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, I think it's fair to say that our criminal justice system has not always been as responsive in attempting to include those who have disabilities. But we acted, I think, with all due haste after the Scott task force. I suppose there are those who could say it was too bad that in a whole range of areas we had to wait for an opportunity to put a focus on the challenges of inclusion for disabled Canadians, but I think we must take heart and hope for the future from the Scott task force. I think what you're hearing is that for many government departments it was an important catalyst in terms of moving forward in so many different areas.

• 1645

I certainly do not try to justify past exclusion of disabled Canadians from aspects of Canadian life, including the criminal justice system, and I think it is important for us now to act quickly, which is why we did what we did in Bill S-5, which is why we've put the provisions that we have in our victims legislation. Therefore, I think we are radically improving the situation for disabled Canadians in terms of ensuring their full and equal participation in Canadian society. But it will be an ongoing challenge, and that's why I am always interested in hearing from people who have disabilities, in terms of the very day-to-day practical barriers to their inclusion in the justice system, because it helps us then understand how we can change the law.

Miss Deborah Grey: Andy, when did you table your task force report?

Mr. Andy Scott: I have to look at the date. It was October 1996.

Miss Deborah Grey: Well, if that's all due haste, I can understand why the disabled community is.... We were just talking with Paul Martin about the sense of urgency and the sense of despair that not only our committee feels, but disabled people themselves are feeling.

Anne, when you said we are doing this with all due haste, I understand that it takes a while to work through the system, but October 1996 just seems—

Ms. Anne McLellan: Bill S-5 came into force on June 30, 1998. It has been in force for almost a year. In fact, had we had more cooperation from all parties in the House, we would have passed it a lot faster.

Miss Deborah Grey: She said.

I've finished.

The Chair: Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Minister, Bill S-5 which requires the courts to take into consideration the specific needs of persons with disabilities came into force one year ago. Can you tell us if there have been any tangible improvements on this front? One year isn't enough time to collect this kind of data. Judging from your reaction, I can see that this is not the case. Is there some kind of mechanism you can use to assess the impact of this legislation? You mentioned that it sometimes takes a fair amount of time to pass certain kinds of legislation. How long will it be before we know if the recommended measures adequately meet the needs expressed?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: That is a very good question. Keep in mind that the legislation has been in force only one year, and there are different ways we can assess the extent of the problem and how successful we are being and the law is in terms of rectifying the problem. One is of course through complaints to the human rights tribunal. Another is through the work of the commission, its education and information services. It meets regularly with groups such as disabled Canadians, and they are a means by which we can receive information, and through their annual reports. Of course they just published their annual report for last year.

That all helps us in terms of understanding the challenges for disabled Canadians and whether the duty of accommodation is being addressed with all due speed and attention, be it by us as a government or the federally regulated private sector.

I do think, however, your point is a useful one in terms of attempting to develop perhaps some mechanism within our own department as opposed to through the commission itself, which is, of course, independent, an arm's-length organization from the government, and is seized with the overall function of assessing how the human rights legislation is operating and whether it's meeting its objectives, and if not, where the problems are.

• 1650

I take your point that probably with new legislation, it's useful—for us as well—independently of the commission, in a more systematic way than we do presently, to get a sense from disabled organizations and individual disabled Canadians about how well, or if at all, this legislation is changing their ability to gain access to employment in certain situations, to gain access to other kinds of recreational services, or whatever the case may be, keeping in mind that we operate only within federal jurisdiction.

So I think your point is a good one, but in fact it will be the Human Rights Commission that takes on much of the responsibility of ensuring that Bill S-5, the amendments in S-5, are meeting their purpose, and alerting us to the fact if they are not.

Carole, do you want to add anything to that?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Théberge (Legal Adviser, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Yes. During our consultations leading up to Bill S-5, we looked to the testimony of those who expressed their needs to us and we sought to meet these needs. However, no one was able to provide us with statistics, and we therefore had to rely on what people told us. When the time comes to assess the impact of the legislation, we'll have to take a somewhat similar approach.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: A survey is planned for 2001 to assess the mobility of persons with disabilities. Could you include in this survey some questions which would give you data on the problems these individuals are encountering in dealing with the justice system? It's only a suggestion. Perhaps this isn't possible, but then again, perhaps it can be done.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Sure.

The Chair: I think that's what is of interest to the committee. Clearly, the difference in the Americans with Disabilities Act is pretty well what we have in the charter, in terms of a case-by-case way of going at things. I guess what we, as a committee, have found interesting is whether there is a way to do a proactive kind of audit on whether Canadians with disabilities are being accommodated, like Bill S-5, without it having to be a case-by-case kind of situation. How would we design such a situation? Would something like good questions in the House survey be just a beginning of identifying the penetration or the real incidence of problems? Then it might actually give us reason to be trying to do an audit kind of office.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The incidence of problems.... I think we could also take it from the other end, for example, and look at employers, be it the federal government or others in the federally regulated private sector, and ask them also for their attention to the amendments to Bill S-5. What have we done, as departments, as key employers—probably the largest employer in Canada—and what are we doing to ensure that the commitments in Bill S-5 are being lived up to?

The Chair: Is there something in the mandate of the review to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would allow them to explore any sort of audit? Is there anything in the mandate—

Ms. Anne McLellan: The Human Rights Commission can choose any number of mechanisms or methods by which they determine whether the Human Rights Act is meeting its purpose. There are very few restrictions on the commission in terms of its ability to issue reports and do audits, or all sorts of other things, in terms of how they determine if the existing Canadian Human Rights Act is hitting the target.

The Chair: So that could be a part of the review—

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

The Chair: —of the identification of whether there's a need for a proactive...?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, yes, absolutely.

• 1655

The Chair: Wendy's next. Wendy actually had an example, I think, of the embarrassment within even the House of Commons of....

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think this is terrific stuff we're talking about. The idea of the whole complaints-based model that people can, on an individual basis, complain and complain and complain.... I think that during the Scott task force there was one member—I wasn't there—who in fact went through her entire time within the hearings running into one obstacle after another. We don't want our disabled citizens to have to make a lifestyle of complaining.

I think the idea of turning it around and just.... Maybe there should be a three-strikes-you're-out situation. I don't know. How can we make sure we're not going to just find the same—what is the word?—a person who continues to just violate a person's rights, whether it's a transportation company, whether it's a public institution, whatever? How do make sure they're not able to just continue to do that?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact the complaints-based system is one way to do that. That comes with some benefits, but also, obviously, some costs for those who lay complaints. The commission itself can play an important role in ensuring compliance, and in fact does play an important educative and information role with those who are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In fact we do that within our own department in terms of ensuring an educative and information role for those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Act. So it doesn't all have to be complaints-driven.

Ms. Wendy Lill: What do you say to people who simply have given up on the Human Rights Commission as being too slow, too bureaucratic, too impossible to penetrate, and in their daily lives who just don't bother? What do you say to that?

Ms. Anne McLellan: When you say they've given up on the commission, you mean in terms of laying a complaint?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Yes.

Ms. Anne McLellan: That complaint has to be dealt with. I would be very interested, actually—since I recommend appointments to the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada in terms of members for the tribunal—if there are complaints from individuals where they have not been followed up within a reasonable timeframe. I certainly would be more than willing to request information via the commission as to why this is the case, because I think one of the things we have to do is ensure that when complaints are laid they are dealt with in a timely fashion, they're dealt with in an efficient fashion, even if the ultimate conclusion is no, there is no actionable discrimination here. It's important for people to know. It's important for people to know that their complaint is being dealt with and handled with respect.

So certainly I would be very interested if you have examples where people feel their complaints haven't been dealt with in a reasonable time. The ultimate outcome is quite a different thing, and we have a quasi-judicial body that determines outcomes and appeal processes. I would be interested in hearing if there are those who feel that the present structure of the commission and the tribunal is not meeting their needs in an efficient fashion.

In fact I think the review will provide.... Over this next year I'm hoping that the review panel as it travels across the country has the opportunity to hear from Canadians who have views or experiences with the Canadian Human Rights Act, the commission, and/or the tribunal. I hope these people will come forward, either in person or in writing or whatever form they wish, to participate in this review and that this will provide the panel members with the basis of recommendations that I will then receive at the end of this year.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Do you have persons with disabilities on the review panel? Are there members who have disabilities?

• 1700

Ms. Anne McLellan: No. When I say no.... Very often, depending on the nature of the disability.... We know that somewhat over four million Canadians—is that the number, Andy?—are identified as having a disability of some sort or degree. But many do not self-identify, and that is a matter of privacy for them. In other cases it's quite clearly obvious. I would say not to the best of my knowledge, but I don't inquire about those things in terms of people's personal circumstances.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm just raising that because we are always hearing that persons with disabilities are not involved in the decision-making process, that we continue to forget to actually include the people whose lives are being talked about all the time.

I actually had a very interesting visit last week—and maybe some of the other members did as well—from a member of Parliament from Uganda who was a disabled member. They have affirmative action members, they have disabled members, they have women members, they have labour members. It was quite interesting that they actually did have.... I'm not saying I believe in that model.

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, but it's an interesting model. It deals with representation issues in a different way.

Ms. Wendy Lill: It's a very interesting model when you consider.... What he said was that it in fact is a way to sort of kick-start and get them up to speed very quickly on the issues, because they feel they are behind. It's just an interesting observation on how you actually get a really fast reality check on disabilities.

I have lots of questions, but I'll just ask you one that interests me. One of the most difficult problems I know of is our ability to deal fairly with people with mental disabilities within the criminal justice system, especially for alleged young offenders. I was just wondering what considerations you have given to young Canadians with mental disabilities in your recently announced changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, I'll let Yvan deal with this in more detail, but I think it's fair to say that for young people who are suffering from some kind or degree of mental disability, one would hope—and that's why prevention is one of the three pillars of our new youth justice system—that one identifies young people who have such a disability very early on and that you work with the family and the young person, so that with intervention, with support, with care, the young person does not run afoul of the criminal law. I think that has to be our goal, especially in circumstances where you have a young person who is suffering from a mental disability, for example, FAS. It's very important to identify that young person early. It's important to work with that young person and their family and try to prevent the involvement of that young person in the criminal justice system.

However, where young people with mental disabilities are in fact charged.... And I'm not suggesting that doesn't happen. I actually don't know how often that happens. Maybe Yvan can comment on that; I don't know. Again, we are dealing with the criminal justice system, and in the criminal justice system generally mental competency is very, very important. If one is not found mentally competent, then there are a whole set of things that kick in and are part of the criminal justice process to acknowledge the fact that this person, while having committed harm or having hurt someone in some way, was not mentally competent at the time the act took place.

Yvan, do you want to say some more on that?

Mr. Yvan Roy: The minister is of course completely right.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It doesn't happen very often.

• 1705

Mr. Yvan Roy: There is absolutely no difference in the system, whether you are an adult or a child, as to the competency you may or may not have if you have to be tried by a court, whether that be the young offenders court or the adult court. The same rules will apply.

If the child, at the end of the trial process, is found to not be mentally competent to stand trial—that's certainly a possibility—or after having stood trial and at the time the offence was committed the person suffered from a mental disorder, that person will be treated accordingly. That means the person is not incarcerated—far from it. The person will be treated by medical staff in order to bring that person back in our community to be a regular citizen. Efforts will be made.

Do very many of those charges end up in that fashion? Thankfully not, but once in a while pleas are made on behalf of some of those young offenders. You will see that in cases where the crime is particularly egregious. I have a few in mind where parents, for instance, were murdered by the child. If the child at the time of the murder thought he was acting on behalf of God, that person would obviously get the same kind of treatment.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Excuse me. I'm not talking about people with mental disorders, I'm talking about children or adults with mental disabilities. So we're not talking about somebody suffering from schizophrenia and having delusions; we're talking about people with mental disabilities, such as Down's syndrome—various forms of mental and intellectual disabilities.

Mr. Yvan Roy: The same rules will apply. You need to have the capacity to commit that offence. If the person suffers from Down's syndrome, for instance, and it is shown before a court that this person, as this is understood in law, did not know what he or she was doing, this person is going to be declared innocent, not guilty, by reason of mental disorder. It depends on the mental disorder we're talking about.

If it's an emotional disorder, the likelihood is the person will be found guilty, as an adult will be. One hopes in those circumstances that the authorities—and I know this is the case—holding that person for the offence that has been committed will also see fit to give the person the kind of treatment they need in the circumstances. This is taking place.

Ms. Wendy Lill: It is an interesting area, given the fact that there are an awful lot of disabled young people who are in effect dumped in school systems now that they have been deinstitutionalized. We are now educating all disabled children within ordinary classrooms, and the services aren't there.

So the kinds of problems I anticipate more and more—and we're not talking about the kinds of problems we have just experienced in high school the other day—are rage, lack of communication, all of the things that occur because of lack of services and being unable to communicate in the world. I just flag that. What is the role of the state in terms of providing the supports needed to keep these kinds of time bombs out of the courts?

Ms. Anne McLellan: A large part of that would be within provincial jurisdiction. The provinces have primary responsibility in the areas of health, social services and education. We obviously are very respectful of that fact.

Federal involvement in those areas is largely through transfer payments and things like the Child Tax Benefit, where lower income working families are provided with additional resources, so if a young person needs treatment there are additional resources in the family. If the young person needs a special kind of schooling not provided by the public system, through things like transfer payments, the child benefit and other mechanisms, we do what is within federal jurisdiction. But the provision of services in these areas is almost exclusively a matter for the provincial governments.

• 1710

I know the provinces are acknowledging these challenges. For example, the three prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have begun a very important program to first of all prevent FAS births and then to put in place programs of support and therapy for babies born with FAS. They've put in place an education or information program. They will also be doing longitudinal study work to trace those kids over an extensive period of time to see how the system deals with them, whether they get the services they need, and in some cases, whether they come into contact with the criminal justice system and how. Those are the kinds of preventive social services strategies more and more provinces need to do. I congratulate the three prairie provinces for really taking a leadership role, in relation to that kind of project.

The Chair: Deb has a quick supplementary question, I think.

Miss Deborah Grey: Regarding this FAS, do you think there's any role for the federal government to legislate something, rather than saying these kids are being born with FAS and we're going to study them for the next several years? Since it's a provincial jurisdictional power, someone with a serious drinking problem could say “Okay, I'm in Manitoba and that's taboo now. I'll go to Ontario.”

Is there any role for the federal government to try to prevent someone being born with FAS?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Probably not. There's jurisprudence from the province of Manitoba that dealt with a pregnant woman. The law that was challenged there was a provincial law. We know the results of that. It's unlikely there would be any law the federal government could put in place that would be upheld as constitutional, either because of distribution of powers, provincial jurisdiction, or charter rights, individual rights.

Has my colleague, Allan Rock, been here?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The Department of Health has a number of important prenatal programs. In my own city, I know of a program in the inner city that is delivered by a non-profit agency and geared at inner-city young women to help them understand the risks if they become pregnant and continue to drink or do drugs. That program is funded in part by the federal Department of Health.

So there are roles for us, but they are the kinds of roles where we work on the prevention side, whether it's in health or in the criminal justice system. So much of prevention of crime is about the identification of root causes such as health, poverty, lack of education, and a sense of hopelessness.

So we are working within the federal government in a more integrated way between departments, like the health department and our own, and HRD. Then the federal government is trying to work in a more integrated way with both the provinces and non-profit agencies in all our cities and communities to deal with education, information, prevention and support for families. I think that is the most useful way to go about trying to target some of these problems.

The Chair: Are you aware of anything in the Crime Prevention Council that has anything to do with mental illness or persons with disabilities, in terms of root causes?

Ms. Anne McLellan: There's nothing specifically. The first phase of this second phase of crime prevention has identified three areas of key concern: young people; women, and in particular domestic violence; and aboriginal people. Within each of those categories there could very well be programs and initiatives developed that deal with the challenges of mental disability.

Those are the three target areas, and within them local communities all over this country will develop crime prevention initiatives and strategies. There is nothing at all to prevent the development of strategies that speak to prevention activities geared at young people who suffer from FAS, for example.

The Chair: Okay.

Judi.

• 1715

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm actually very upset to hear that the review panel does not include someone with disabilities. I guess if we're looking at someone's human rights, who better, particularly in areas where disability, the whole idea.... It's not just your human rights, but the protection of dignity. I've talked to so many people in my constituency office recently who tell me that we've made giant strides in terms of accessibility and mobility, but that we're still very far behind in terms of protecting one's dignity, even just going through security at airports. It's a horrendous experience for someone with a disability who in view of any number of passengers are subjected to very uncomfortable searches, and those kinds of things.

So I guess if we're looking at setting up a review panel, we wouldn't think in this day and age of setting up a panel that was talking about racial diversities that didn't have a good mix of various representation. Here's one where I think the whole area of disabilities has just been sort of an adjunct, and yet it should be a focus. So I'm concerned about that.

I'm wondering how we choose people for this panel. I mean, what expertise, what criteria, particularly when this particular one is set up and says that there's an examination of the purposes and grounds including disabilities to ensure...? We've recognized that it's something we have to look at.

Further, we've talked a little bit about the Crime Prevention Council. Is there an inclusion of people with disabilities on that council? And if not, how do we apply the disability lenses?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well in fact there is no such thing as a crime prevention council any more. It no longer exists. The Crime Prevention Council was the first phase of the government's crime prevention initiative, and in fact it issued three reports, as Mr. Scott knows well, which we then based phase two on. So in fact there is no crime prevention council.

The original council was established by my colleagues, then Solicitor General Gray and then Minister of Justice Rock. I do not know the total membership. Mr. Scott tells me there was someone on the Crime Prevention Council from the disabled community. But that body no longer exists.

In terms of the review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, as you might imagine, one tries to the greatest extent possible, obviously, to have a representative panel. But at the end of the day, I think it's fair to say that I was looking for people who brought a diversity of perspectives, but who also had, in all cases, I think, a very thorough sense of the structure of human rights acts and codes; the developments over the past twenty years; different models by which one can pursue the protection of rights, whether it's a complaints-driven model or something else. And therefore we chose the four people we did, all of whom have distinguished records in terms of dealing with the rights issues.

For example—I'll just mention one person—the former Mr. Justice La Forest was 25 years ago instrumental in the drafting of the original Canadian Human Rights Act. He understands for a whole variety of reasons the nature of the issues we must now review 20 years later in terms of human rights protection and whether we have the right mechanisms in place to in fact ensure that people are treated respectfully, whether it's a complaints-based system or not, and to ensure that their complaints are dealt with in a timely fashion and efficient way and all that kind of thing.

Another member of the review panel is Mr. Bill Black, from British Columbia, who did a major review of the B.C. human rights code some years ago. That led to major changes to the B.C. human rights code.

So I am convinced that we have very able people who will conduct this review, and people who understand the challenges in the area of human rights extremely well. Having said that, I am not suggesting for a minute that they're the only four qualified people in the rights area. In fact that's not true; we obviously have a very energetic and vibrant rights culture in this country. But what I would say is that I did my best to ensure that the panel was representative to a significant extent and had the background and skill sets that will help them do the work I asked them to do.

• 1720

The Chair: This committee is particularly concerned that women with disabilities are very disproportionately victims of abuse and violence. Is that a lens that is there in the crime prevention phase two?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Indeed. In fact, as I say, local communities.... We do not determine. We determine the three priority areas. Then it is up to local communities to determine what kinds of crime prevention initiatives they want to bring forward. We have a wide variety of programs and initiatives.

The Chair: Maybe I could suggest—Andy has a good question—that you give us a little menu of the ones that might have anything to do with particularly women with disabilities for any crime prevention local program that has to do with disabilities.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Sure. We can give you examples of the kinds of programs that are being developed by grassroots local communities.

Again, if it's a domestic violence initiative, the local community may not single out women with disabilities as a sub-set. But we all know, as you've just said, that if you're dealing with domestic violence, chances are that some of the women who will be helped by whatever that program is will be women with disabilities. But we'll give you whatever we have.

The Chair: Yes, I would love to see it.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It's all public information.

The Chair: Andy.

Mr. Andy Scott: I have to say, Madam Chair, that I feel very optimistic about one of my applications now. But I swear to God that no one here knew that. There is a wonderful application from the New Brunswick mental health under the crime prevention program. We'll all have a chance to review it, I'm sure.

I can't defend the fact that there wouldn't be somebody with a disability on the panel, but I will quickly come to the defence of Judge La Forest in the context of his capacity in this and his significant familiarity with this issue. I'll leave it at that.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, I understand.

Mr. Andy Scott: I wanted to mention that.

I think the other thing is it's important for everybody to understand that when the disability lens was talked about in the task force report it intended to have the outcome, the exact outcome, that was reflected when the victims impact legislation was passed. The ability to appear with assistance and the ability to appear without assistance happens concurrently.

The capacity to appear without assistance did not exist. So when the government decided the action should be taken that you could appear, the ability to appear with or without assistance comes at the same time. That's what the disability lens was designed to do. I offer congratulations, and I'm sure the community would, because that's exactly what they wanted the disability lens to do.

I would also throw in, on the duty to accommodate—we've offered thanks to your predecessor as Minister of Justice, Mr. Rock, so it would only be fair, I think—

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you.

Mr. Andy Scott: —but I would like to explore on the jurisdictional side, the social union exercise.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mr. Andy Scott: We've talked an awful lot about how we can exercise the intentions of the charter and so on. The community was quite outspoken on this point; they're tired of complaining and they're tired of evoking their charter rights and they would like to the government actually act proactively. I see, for instance, a review of human rights legislation around disability as that kind of activity.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Right. Yes.

• 1725

Mr. Andy Scott: We had a discussion with Mr. Martin just a while ago that around the social union discussions the opportunity exists to put some of those mechanisms in place.

The community's accustomed to hearing very positive things from governments in provincial and federal reports. Jurisdiction things get in the way. Money gets in the way. It's not just jurisdiction between levels of government—jurisdiction across governments. Let's face it, how many ministers are appearing before us—eleven? This becomes very complicated.

So all of those complexities mean we never really live up to our own intentions. There aren't very many people who are against people with disabilities, consequently this is an area where we probably can get a high level of federal-provincial cooperation and pursue some kind of audit process that would be accountable to the Canadian public, rather than to either level of government.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I couldn't agree more. I just happened coincidentally to bring my social union framework with me. When you look at section 3, “Informing Canadians—Public Accountability and Transparency”, one of the things I think all federal and provincial ministers who negotiated the social union framework were very committed to was a much higher degree of accountability for outcomes—not to each other, but to Canadians.

That is one of the things we as a federal government argued very strenuously for during the social union negotiations. There were two areas where we felt it was most important to make strides on behalf of all Canadians. One was mobility, which is—

Mr. Andy Scott: Critical.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —also related to the challenges of disabled Canadians. The other was in the area of accountability, and making sure governments were accountable to Canadians, not the federal to the provincial or the provincial to the federal. Therefore, I couldn't agree more with you.

Allan, who was here, may have talked to you about the various kinds of work in information-sharing across provincial boundaries, to provide the knowledge base to develop a truly integrated health care system, to compare outcomes across provincial boundaries, and to make more informed choices about what works and what doesn't and what we can learn from each other.

So that's a very important part of the social union framework. You could call it a social audit, or some other accountability mechanism. It will vary, depending on the nature of the program. But I think that kind of evaluation of outcomes is very important.

In a way it goes back to your first question. How do we ensure that when we change a law like the Human Rights Act, although it's not a program, and talk of the duty of accommodation, it is actually changing the quality of life of people? As you know, Andy, there is a high degree of cooperation between federal and provincial governments, and a shared commitment to disabled Canadians. We need to develop accountability mechanisms together in most cases that work for Canadians and provide Canadians with the information that permits them to assess whether things are actually getting better—whether the quality of life is improving for disabled Canadians. If not, they have every right to ask why not.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We thank you too for your good work on the social union. I think the disability community sees it as a sort of light on the horizon—a beacon of hope for the future. With the In Unison document already there, we're very optimistic that is the best part of a sectoral agreement. In the race to the top, we hope the disability issues will be right there, as something that's ready to go.

• 1730

I think we also feel strongly that in setting those objectives, we want to make sure the community is involved in that. You can't actually set up performance indicators or accountability structures until you've decided what it is you want to measure. I know you will be there to support the fact that the way those objectives are set has to be inclusive and consulting Canadians in that very important part of the social union.

Ms. Anne McLellan: When Minister Pettigrew was here, he probably shared with you his enthusiasm about the fact that the shared federal-provincial work for disablied Canadians is a wonderful early example of making concrete the principles of the social union framework, where governments were able to work together on a shared vision. I think it's that degree of cooperation and moving away from perhaps the older, more confrontational, standing on guard for one's jurisdiction.

Within the social union framework, we respect each other's jurisdictions, but we bring them together in a way that we hope provides integrated programming that maximizes the use of resources. Therefore, all of us, but Pierre I think especially, see the good work he and his provincial colleagues are doing in the area of disabilities and Canadians with disabilities as perhaps an early paradigm example of how we should be doing business in a wide range of areas.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure, as always.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Bye-bye.

The Chair: We will suspend and go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]