SPER 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 DISABILITES

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 25, 2001

• 1757

[Translation]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): On behalf of all my colleagues of the committee and on my own behalf, I wish you a very warm welcome to Ottawa. We are really very glad to have the opportunity to hear the representatives of various national organizations whose mission is to improve the quality of life for persons with disabilities.

[English]

I apologize for my Liberal colleagues. Andy Scott is coming. Karen Redman is still in the environment committee meeting. It's just more of the same in terms of all of these committees and not enough people. But they all eagerly look forward to hearing your contributions this evening.

Hopefully, we are going to come away tonight with good direction after eagerly hearing what you've been up to. As we just explained at the environmental round table, in this complex federalism where the witnesses complain about the silos of government and then the levels of government, we always hope that the disability community is so organized that you're moving all of these challenges forward in outcomes and indeed in improving the quality of life for people with disabilities in Canada. We can't thank you enough for taking up the challenge and keeping government moving forward.

We will have a reception afterwards to thank you.

The Centennial Flame award winner was not able to come tonight, as we had hoped.

We will make an announcement about our three series of Library of Parliament round tables. The one next week is about future action. This is a series of round tables sponsored by the Library of Parliament, Treasury Board, Statistics Canada, and the Auditor General's Office to look at societal indicators and how we could better use Parliament and parliamentarians to measure and then develop policy around the measurements.

• 1800

The last round table is Monday morning, and Deborah Tunis will be giving a disability example in terms of developing indicators. We would welcome any of you who are able to be here Monday morning.

This leads to tomorrow morning when our tiny, perfect subcommittee will be a witness at the meeting of the HRDC committee, which is our parent committee. We would welcome any of you to come and participate in that round table. We are being called to appear before the parent committee to say what we've done and what we'd like to be able to do, together with the other subcommittee on kids. As well, if there are jobs the parent committee would like to do, we will make sure that all the work gets done. The parent committee will be meeting tomorrow at 11 o'clock in room 371 of the West Block.

The meeting on Monday morning from 8:30 to 12:30 will also take place in that room.

I think that takes care of all of the housekeeping matters.

One of the purposes tonight was to help the new members of the committee get to know you guys, but some of them aren't here. However, it's a fantastic reunion opportunity, and we are thrilled.

We have chosen to include the people who have developed positions on a full range of disability issues. We know you've done a lot of thinking on these things, and it's always important that we know what you're thinking so that we can help in whatever way you suggest.

Obviously, we would be very interested in the supports and services side in terms of your discussions at the federal-provincial meetings in Toronto, together with some of the employment issues and the stuff that ends up being largely federal, which is the income supports.

As some of you have explained to me, you're aware that HRDC as a department seems to be increasingly aware of the issue of accountability. We'd like to hear from you as to whether there are things you would like to see in place in terms of accountability instruments and how we can help that. If there are some things around that issue that you want us to report to the parent committee, you could mention them to us during the reception. That would be fantastic.

In terms of future directions and a federal disability strategy, we would love to hear what you see as the strengths and weaknesses, what you see as the short-term must-sees and the long-term goals, and what you've been up to since we last met.

We could do a tour de table beginning with Monsieur Crête. I think you all know them, but I just thought the members of the committee could say hi.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du- Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Madam Chair, should we have a round table to introduce ourselves?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Paul Crête: I am Paul Crête and I am the spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois regarding human resources. Of course, this is a very large department. This evening, I am replacing Mr. Lanctôt, the member who usually takes care of this file, but who unfortunately had another appointment.

• 1805

I am very interested in matters concerning people with disabilities. I am more specifically interested in the issue of respect for family members or people who accompany or help people with disabilities. I think that this sector is perhaps poorly organized in Quebec and in Canada, and it would need more resources, original ideas and things of that nature.

I also have another concern. Ms. Walters, who is here, represents the Canadian Association for Community Living. In my riding, there is an independent living centre that is doing rather extraordinary work in helping people with disabilities gain more independence. All these questions are of concern to me.

I also have a concern with auditing. Do the funds that are allotted for people with disabilities really reach those people? To what extent do they reach them? We must be sure to get the maximum effect. I do not mean at all to say that some people might be pocketing money along the line. The issue is, above all, to ensure that in our system the maximum amount be received by the people who are in need of care.

The last matter I wish to raise, is, of course, that we must avoid redundancy between Quebec's accountability which is assumed by the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, and the efforts made by the federal government.

These are the things that I am mainly interested in. Of course, I am open to whatever you will tell us because those things should guide the work of this subcommittee.

The Chair: Mr. Crête is also a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Is that correct?

Mr. Paul Crête: In fact, I am the veteran member of that committee.

[English]

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm Wendy Lill. I'm the member of Parliament for Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and I'm the New Democratic Party critic for this subcommittee, the subcommittee on persons with disabilities.

Thank you.

The Chair: Would you mind introducing yourself?

Ms. Traci Walters (National Director, Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres): Hi, I'm Traci Walters.

I'm with the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres, and our national umbrella organization has almost 25 members. We have 24 plus one new centre developing in Montreal. The national office is here in Ottawa.

Mr. Frank Smith (National Coordinator, National Educational Association of Disabled Students): Hi. My name is Frank Smith, and I'm the national coordinator of the National Educational Association of Disabled Students.

We represent post-secondary students and graduates with disabilities across Canada. Our national office is here in Ottawa, and we have a board of directors that represents each of the provinces and territories. All our board members are consumers, students with disabilities. We also have a network of campus organizations and accessibility committees on college and university campuses across Canada.

It's good to be here.

Mr. Laurie Beachell (National Coordinator, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Hello, I'm Laurie Beachell. I'm the national coordinator of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

Mr. Paul A. Young (National Chairperson, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Hi. I'm Paul Young, and I'm chairperson of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

I'll just briefly tell you a bit about the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, CCD. It is an umbrella organization of consumers, and we have eight provincial organizations and six national consumer organizations. They're involved with CCD, and CCD has been around for 25 years this year.

[Translation]

Mr. François Bélisle (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Paraplegic Association): Good day. I am François Bélisle. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Paraplegic Association,

[English]

the Canadian Paraplegic Association. The association has offices in every province of the country as well as a national office here in Ottawa. It of course represents people with spinal cord injuries in Canada.

Mr. Neil Young (Vice-President, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): My name is Neil Young. I'm the vice-president of the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work, the CCRW.

Our primary mandate is to locate and match up persons with a disability with employers in order to provide those individuals with full-time work. The jobs we try to match employees up with are not the usual McJobs, where governments like to throw a few dollars at something to create a job for three months, and then the job is gone and so is the employee. Our role is a bit different from that. Our interest is in locating permanent jobs for those individuals so they become independent members of society.

• 1810

[Translation]

Ms. Joan Westland (Executive Director, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): Good evening. I am Joan Westland and I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work.

As Mr. Young just said, we are a national association and we have partners in every province and in the territories. There are probably more employers in our membership, but union representatives are also beginning to join our management board. We are recruiting partners who are concerned with employment and economic development. They are concerned not only with job creation, but also with creating job opportunities for persons with disabilities. Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Pauline Mantha (Executive Director, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada): Good evening. My name is Pauline Mantha. I'm with the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. I work at the national office here in Ottawa.

Our network includes one association in each province and in two of the three territories plus a network of approximately 140 community chapters across the country. We work with children, youth, and adults who have learning disabilities, as well as with their families. The vast majority of the work accomplished through our network is done by volunteers.

Ms. Fran Cutler (National Chair, Canadian National Institute for the Blind): Good evening. I'm Fran Cutler. I'm the chair of the national board of directors of the CNIB, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

We serve over 100,000 clients out of 60 offices across the country with approximately 1,200 staff and 20,000 volunteers. About 25% of our clientele is in the workforce. The rest are children, preschool and school age, and over 70% of our clients are beyond working age.

Mr. Bill Mates (National Council Member, Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council): Good evening. My name is Bill Mates, and I come from Tillsonburg, Ontario. As I've been telling people lately, because we're moving from tobacco into ginseng, it's the only place in Canada where in the same farmer's field we grow tobacco to kill you and ginseng to heal you.

I am currently employed by two organizations, the international Duke of Edinburgh's awards and the Ontario Special Olympics.

I am here today representing the Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council and a subcommittee of that called the Persons with Disabilities Commissioner Committee.

I am also a member of the Ontario Association for Community Living, where I'm on the provincial board of directors, and I'm a past member of the Active Living Alliance for Canadians with a Disability and the Moving to Inclusion initiative. Most importantly, I'm a parent of a 19-year-old who has cerebral palsy and a developmental disability.

It's a pleasure to be here today. Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council continues to be a strong voice across the country, working through all their provincial chapters with a very large, very broad cross-section of children, youth, and adults with disabilities. I'm very pleased to be here representing them today.

The Chair: First, I'd like to congratulate you on... just as we were coming to this meeting... it sounds as if you've won your first one-step Internet site for persons with disabilities. Minister Stewart has sent out the press release on... that was I guess announced at your meeting in Toronto. Did you know that?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: We knew it was going to be announced very shortly. This is something that's been part of the FPT working group's Disability Links initiative.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: We knew it would be announced very shortly.

The Chair: It says it's been developed with help from all of you, so this is...

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Yes.

The Chair: Now that we've introduced ourselves, maybe what we should do is see what the members of the committee would like. Would you like an opening statement from each of them in terms of what the real priorities of their organization are or what you see the... if they've changed... and if there's a consensus... Are there priorities that you would hand to us as the federal subcommittee, knowing that you're working at the provincial level in terms of what you really need from us.

• 1815

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Dr. Bennett, I have one brief comment. First of all, we're all pleased to be here again. We've been here before, and we are here again, and we want the committee to know how important this committee is for our community. I think you should pat yourselves on the back for the fact that, consistently, for a number of years, this committee has been able to bring other players to the table and hold their feet to the fire to some extent to ensure the disability agenda does not get dropped. That—your reports, your calling before you ministers and department officials to outline what they are doing on disability—has been a tremendous benefit for our community.

Frankly, we need to have continued champions. We need somebody within government, members of Parliament, to champion the cause because the cause often gets motherhood statements and nice platitudes said about it, but often that's as far as it goes, unless somebody puts some heat on to create some action. So your reports, which have gone back as far as 1981, the Obstacles report, and moving forward... You'll notice today that we actually have recruited some former members of this committee to sit on the other side of the table; that's the confidence and trust we have in the committee members.

The other factor is that the committee has played a very non-partisan role in discussing issues of disability, and that has been of tremendous value to our community, because you as a committee have spoken with one voice, and that has also been really helpful in moving forward the agenda. I wanted to open with those very few comments, to say—and I know some of the new members are not here—that this committee and its functioning is important to our community and has helped us greatly in the past.

We have not had a great deal of time in preparing for this for caucus, should we say, and to prepare our presentation, so in doing the round table, each of us has some issues and there may be some overlap. Joan Westland, François Bélisle, and myself have just spent the last two days in Toronto with the FPT working group, the federal-provincial-territorial working group, on disability issues, where there were representatives from all of the provinces plus the federal government looking at the issues of disability supports and employment. I think we can provide you with some comment on what came out of those meetings as well.

The Chair: Do you want to begin, Traci?

Ms. Traci Walters: Sure. I'm going to begin to enlighten the committee on the difficulties that the HRDC scandal has caused for our community, and I'm very glad Mr. Crête is here; I'm sure he's very interested in this.

I don't really know if you understand the terrible negative impact it's had on our community. Basically, to go back to the beginning of the year, from January, February, March of the previous year, many of our organizations had absolutely no money to work with. There was a total freeze on funding. I know at the end of our organization's fiscal year, HRDC owed CAILC—our national organization, our member centres—half a million dollars. It's hard to figure out how they actually think we can operate without any working capital, but they seem to think we have millions of dollars to do this.

I know that the Association for Community Living had $800,000 owed to them last March 31. Actually, the best way to describe it is with an article that was in the Ottawa Citizen in December, for which the headline says, “Charities victims of HRDC scandal: Crackdown delays funding, pushes up operating costs”.

Canada's poor and disadvantaged are being hurt by the snarl of red tape created by the massive federal crackdown on how grants are dished out. Basically now, bureaucrats are trying to micromanage everything. Apparently, I was just told by Joan, HRDC has sent memos saying there is a zero tolerance policy for any mistakes. They are pushing up our costs; they are not giving us money for increased staff hours that are required to keep up the paperwork. I know for us, we have to collect receipts nationally, constantly, and keep faxes going all the time, but there's no additional assistance for that. It's undermining our ability to be efficient.

• 1820

There's a take-no-risk culture. They're stifling new ideas, innovation, and creativity. Instead of spending our time working on disability issues, supporting people with disabilities, we have to spend our days constantly being harassed and treated like criminals from a number of departments at HRDC.

Even though the scandal was really focused on the job creation fund, the attitude right now is especially rampant among the Opportunities Fund. Something that is supposed to be opportunities for people with disabilities is no longer that. Actually, they have forced many of our organizations to teeter on the edge of bankruptcy. I know literally right now a number of organizations, including ourselves, who are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. People with disabilities work for these organizations across the country. We cannot keep salaries going. We cannot keep benefits intact. So for a department that is supposedly to be the lead on disability issues and setting an example for other government departments, it's a very scary thought.

HRDC is definitely a barrier in itself currently. It's very sad what we have to go through.

I'm also going to talk a bit about the social development partnerships program, which is a very important program to this community because it funds our groups, the national organizations, to survive, and there is project funding for innovation, some capacity building, etc.

This money was there years ago and then in the 1995-96 era of Mr. Young, when he tried to cut all this and devolve it to the provinces, the—

The Chair: Not you, right?

Ms. Traci Walters: I have two Mr. Youngs here, sorry.

The Chair: Fortunately, it's not either, right?

Ms. Traci Walters: It's not Paul and not Neil. I mean Doug Young, the previous Minister of Human Resources. It was the Liberal Party, thank God, that initiated the task force to investigate this. We know there was a task force report. Basically, we did save some of this funding through that report. It's not very much funding; it should be $5 million, but right now it's about $3.5 million that goes to national organizations. That has eroded over the past few years, just to let you know. There should have been about $4.7 million for projects throughout the country and that has eroded to about $4 million right now, if not less than that.

Because the criteria that were first announced in the 1997 budget have been watered down within HRDC, many of the organizations are not... Of course, we never get increases and we're all operating at 1995 levels. But many of the organizations, like CCD and many of the groups here, had to lay off staff.

So at all of these committees we attend—and even today, you have to remember where this came from—how do we have the ability to do it? We don't have very much ability any more. Much of the group's time goes to represent issues at the transport committee, all the different justice committees, etc. Our capacity to even engage, be with politicians, and act at the national level is diminishing as we speak. It continues to diminish.

The department had a three-year mandate for which they were supposed to adhere to the criteria, which they didn't. They've now selected five people from the community to sit and review the criteria. The five on the committee have basically said that what is needed is more funding to have the capacity for citizenship engagement with the federal government. There's something right there that is very important for this committee to do: to write a letter to HRDC and to the Minister of Finance, saying if you value our input, it's really critical that there be an investment in our ability to be here even today, as we speak.

It's very difficult to put the five people in this group to try to figure out how to cut things within that amount of money. Of course, we need more money. We can't fight amongst ourselves; we need your support to go to the Minister of Finance and HRDC.

The Chair: Do those five people have a capacity to represent everybody else?

• 1825

Mr. Laurie Beachell: There was a larger group of about 14 national organizations that put forward nominations. Out of that, a group of five was selected, and we report back to the larger community. So the task falls upon us as community representatives to do some feedback to the larger community.

Ms. Traci Walters: So again, support from this committee for the expansion of the social development partnerships program is critical to increase our ability to participate to influence policy-makers, government, and business.

On the weekend we were in Newfoundland. We somehow were able to kidnap the Minister of Finance from a business meeting, and he actually met with our group. He kept saying he definitely wants to do something in this year's budget, and he's very anxious to hear about the ideas that the community and HRDC want to put forward. He had all kinds of ideas about what we should be doing.

Sometimes our frustration comes because there are no ideas put forward. I think Mr. Martin is serious about doing something—a lot of us do. If this committee could act as the advocate and somehow get HRDC to move forward with their ideas, if this committee could go to Finance and help us present these issues...

It seemed there was a lot of willingness. So I think your role in helping us present these ideas to Finance would be really appreciated.

Basically, that's about it in a nutshell, and just so Mr. Crête knows, the organization that you represent in your riding hasn't had any money and hasn't been able to meet payroll for about four months now.

The Chair: Traci, are you available tomorrow morning?

Ms. Traci Walters: I'm going to try to figure how to do it. I had an appointment at 11:30 a.m., but I would love to be able to get there.

The Chair: I think it would be important to present that problem to the main committee, particularly when we know that the minister will be coming to that committee on estimates. I know Mr. Crête will take your concerns forward, but it would be great if someone were able to give that message in terms of the—

Ms. Traci Walters: Okay, I would love to. I'm going to do my best to try to be there. It's critical. If you allow us to be there, that's wonderful.

The Chair: On the other question, as a member of the finance committee whose job it is to harvest good ideas in terms of the prebudget consultations, I hope you'll get all your good ideas ready for us on that committee, because sometimes that gets around some of the blockages.

Ms. Traci Walters: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Crête, do you have a question for Traci?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, Madam Chair.

Last year, we heard a great deal about the problems of turnover within the Department of Human Resources Development. I would like to know if things have improved because, in fact, from one week to the next, it seems, or from one month to the next, if I do not want to exaggerate, we are not dealing with the same persons. I would like to check whether that situation has been corrected.

You said that Human Resources Development Canada is offering some resistance. You said that last year, when the scandal broke out, the Prime Minister said, at one point, that he was considering the possibility of splitting up the department and that he would perhaps separate the sections that deal with social concerns into a group distinct from the others. Do you think that this might be a useful solution, as we are expecting a ministerial shuffle and reorganization in June? Have you any suggestions for us regarding this matter?

[English]

Ms. Traci Walters: First of all, staff turnover is still not good.

I know just through the Opportunities Fund, in one year we've had five program officers within our project and three different chiefs of the program in one year. The other departments might not be as bad, but in the Opportunities Fund, it is certainly bad.

I don't think we've really strategized on how best to do it if HRDC were to split up, but that's something we could work on as a community.

The Chair: Joan, do you want to comment?

[Translation]

Ms. Joan Westland: Let me just answer the question regarding the feasibility of splitting up the department because we know that previously, four departments had been merged into one. In our opinion, this is not merely a matter of regrouping, dividing or reconfiguring things in order to reassign responsibilities for the services provided to associations; the problem lies within the internal functioning.

• 1830

The problem lies in the infrastructure within the department. Thus, even if we multiply, divide or set up three or four departments, nothing will be changed in the basic problem with managing policy development programs that do not answer to the needs of people with disabilities. We must go deeper than that. It is an oversimplification to think that this is just an issue of changing hats. What really creates problems and obstacles is the internal functioning.

[English]

The Chair: Before we move to Frank, maybe you would like to introduce yourself, Karen.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you. I'm Karen Redman, and I'm very interested in this subject area. I'm currently the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment. My apologies for being late, but I was across the hall at an environment meeting.

The Chair: Frank.

Mr. Frank Smith: I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for hosting the event this evening. On behalf of the National Educational Association of Disabled Students, I offer congratulations to Marg Ruttan, who I understand is the recipient of this year's Centennial Flame Research Award.

Considering that there's limited time, I will keep my remarks fairly brief this evening. The timing of the release of In Unison 2000: Persons With Disabilities In Canada at the end of March is important to our discussions at this meeting. In Unison 2000 involved a process of consultation with disability organizations over the past year. Members of our board were involved in those meetings. This report makes clear the importance of educational attainment to participation in Canada's labour market.

The document also indicates that persons with disabilities are participating in greater numbers in post-secondary education. At the same time, the report cites disparities in the delivery of programs, funding, services, and support to persons with disabilities across the country and that this can lead to inequities.

For NEADS and its members, post-secondary students and graduates with disabilities across Canada, there are several key issues that are the focus of our work as an organization. While more disabled persons realize the benefits of education for their futures, accessing sufficient funding to pursue college and university education is still a problem for many. Accessible post-secondary education begins with a commitment of funding through enhanced federal transfer payments, an allocation of resources to colleges and universities from provincial governments, and a commitment by individual schools to support and enhance physical access, services, and accommodations for all students with disabilities.

In the area of financial aid, the Canada student loans program and its Canada study grants provide grant funding for disabled students of up to $5,000 per loan year. But this funding is for disability-specific educational supports, and it is only available to those who are eligible to receive a Canada student loan. In fact, disabled students need to have access to more grants than loans to participate equally in post-secondary education considering the extra costs of disability while in school and that it often takes longer to complete a program of study because of disability.

Students with disabilities also need to have access to education programs that may not be available to them in their home province. These students must be able to receive the best and most appropriate education regardless of their geographic location. Supports to students should be fully portable, and students with disabilities should retain the right to move from one province to another in order to obtain an education. This is often not possible with restrictions in funding eligibility.

The issue of portability is addressed in the In Unison report. In fact, with the implementation of the EAPD program, the employability assistance for people with disabilities program, and its focus on employability, support for post-secondary study in many jurisdictions is less than it was under the previous VRDP program. Ontario, for example, does not support individual students to receive funding for their post-secondary education under its ODSP program.

• 1835

So what are some of the current problems that particular groups of students face in this country? There's now a crisis for deaf students in the post-secondary system. There's a lack of qualified sign language interpreters in this country and insufficient funding to cover the cost of interpreter services. There's no government funding for sign language interpreters and captioners in private vocational schools. Deaf students are still facing the imposition of a federal tax on the cost of their disability supports for in-country and out-of-country study, as are other students with disabilities. This is an acute problem for those students who incur very high costs to pursue an education. It is also becoming increasingly difficult for deaf students to receive financial aid to study at excellent American schools such as Colladete University and the Rochester Institute.

Learning disabled students are now the largest group of students with disabilities in colleges and universities, yet they are faced with huge costs for diagnostic assessments, which are only partially covered under the Canada study grants program for those students eligible for CSLP. Also, in Quebec, which has an otherwise excellent bursary program for disabled students, learning disabled students are still not recognized for support by the government.

These are just a few of the issues that members of this committee should consider today and in its future initiatives. The National Educational Association of Disabled Students and its members will be pleased to work with you to address these areas to ensure that persons with disabilities in Canada have an equal opportunity to succeed in post-secondary education and to make the transition as full participants to the employment market. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. Bill just brought to my attention that the main committee will be doing two big round tables on post-secondary education. We will mention to the clerk, and I'm sure Monsieur Crête will remind them, that your group needs to be represented there.

Next is Laurie and Paul.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: There are two issues in particular that we want to talk to you about today, which relate to the federal-provincial-territorial initiative In Unison.

I'm going to speak to the issue that the community generally has identified as the priority. That is the issue of disability support. The concern across this country is that we have varying levels of support in a range of jurisdictions. First ministers and ministers of social services across this country have identified people with disabilities as a priority issue. The community has said to them that disability support is the priority issue, for without supports in place, all of the other issues around access to community life will be lacking, be it employment, participation in the community, acting as a volunteer, or education.

The federal-provincial working group seems to be exploring the feasibility of using the disability tax credit as a mechanism for addressing disability support. This is something we support, but only as a first step. The tax tool is a blunt instrument. Yet when you talk about the need to address disability support, you talk about flexibility and creativity. Frankly, it is somewhat difficult to do all of those things with a blunt tax tool.

Similar to the children's agenda, an initiative came forward using the tax system as a way of providing greater benefit to poor families. We believe that the tax system can also be used as a way of offsetting additional costs of disability and providing greater support for families and for persons with disabilities, as a first step.

Coupled with that is the requirement for a programmatic initiative. The message we hear clearly from provincial governments is that if we are going to get greater supports in place and if we are going to be able to create new initiatives, there are going to have to be some federal dollars on the table. There are going to have to be targeted initiatives for disability support within either transfers through the CHST or separate program initiatives that federal-provincial ministers agree to under SUFA. It is an onerous process to line up all the partners to agree at the right time and not have anybody facing election or turning over in their grave over this issue.

• 1840

So we have this whole new mechanism of creating social policy. We agree that the federal government has to provide leadership. One of the ways of doing that is through the tax system. Our community would be supportive of using the tax system as a first step in addressing some of those issues. But that is only the first step. If there are no program dollars, expanding the tax system too much could actually prohibit provincial program development. If you can offset your attendant care costs through tax, for example, why would provincial governments continue to build good universal attendant care programs that are not income tested?

The second thing you must realize about a tax benefit is that unless it's refundable, it has no benefit for those people living in poverty who do not have a taxable income. In particular it has no benefit for aboriginal people, who, because of their first nation status, have a different agreement in relation to taxation in this country. Recognizing that the aboriginal community has a huge population of persons with disabilities and that the incidence of disability among the aboriginal community is continually growing, a tax solution to this is somewhat problematic for that community. I think that has to be understood and recognized. However, if it is a phased-in first step, I think it's important.

The other initiative that is being talked about, which was announced in the throne speech, is a comprehensive labour market strategy for persons with disabilities. The work on this initiative at the FPT stage is less developed than the work on disability supports and the tax measure. So I think looking at some of the labour market concerns may be an area of study for the committee.

I'm going to turn the discussion around employment issues over to my boss and the chair of CCD, Paul Young.

Mr. Paul Young: Thank you, Laurie.

Before I get into that, I want to say that this is a real pleasure for me. This is my first time at a committee sitting like this as chair of CCD. Many years ago I had the opportunity to watch Neil and a bunch of other people listening to a colleague of mine ramble on about the issues of his council and then COPOH. Unfortunately, not much has changed. Different faces, same issues, on and on, as I'm sure Neil can relate to.

I'd like to talk about employment because it's one of my concerns.

Before I do that, I know my friend Wendy knows my story, but for those of you who don't, I want to tell you that 35 years ago I was in a shelter workshop doing the typical things a mentally handicapped person might do. I met some wonderful people who put me into private radio. I got a job in Sydney, Nova Scotia, as a radio technician at CBC. I spent more than 18 years there. I won't say they were wonderful years because I met a lot of strange people who I would have met in institutions if my mother had had the wisdom to put me there.

But I made a lot of money. I paid a lot of income tax in the last year I worked at the CBC, which was three years ago last March. It was about $36,000.

About 15 to 20 years before that, I had a pension of $175 and was on family benefits or social assistance, whatever the label was. Since then I've rented a couple of apartments, bought a lot of furniture, learned how to drive, bought three cars, and paid off a mortgage. In this day and age, when you have great parties such as the Alliance saying that we have to be fiscally responsible and the bottom-line dollar is all that counts, it seems to me that people with disabilities don't have the supported opportunity to get a job.

I just mentioned the financial end of it, and that's all wonderful and good. But what it really did for me was give me a sense of worth. I was no longer a disabled person who attended the Special Olympics. I was an employee of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a radio technician. Nobody saw me as having a disability, and certainly my bank didn't think of me as having a disability. They liked my money coming in the door.

• 1845

If you want to get down to practicalities, I think you need to think about employment, because a great percentage of the people I have the honour to represent have no jobs. What provides people with the ability to have transportation, housing, and accessibility is a job. I have my own transportation because I bought that. I paid for it myself.

Later on, I'm going to be talking about another issue of CCD. A really important issue is Tracey Latimer, and how people were controlling. Nobody controls my life any more. Before, there were counsellors, social workers, workshop managers, and my parents looking after poor Paul, who couldn't take care of himself. I'm now self-efficient, self-determined, or whatever you want to label it. I am the conductor of my own life, and I want to see that for other people in Canada. I want to see the intellectually disabled people, the paraplegics, or whatever their disability is, having control of their lives, because quite frankly they don't have control of their lives, whether it's financially, spiritually, or whatever. Their lives are run by other well-meaning people who don't think these people can do the job.

One thing I'd like to talk about with you around that issue is that employment gives you status in the community. The two things that connect people to community, in my opinion, are going to school or going to university, and getting a job. When you meet somebody strange on a plane, train, or whatever, you talk about weather and you talk about what you do. That identifies you in the community.

In the Community Inclusion Fund, and through CACL and People First of Canada, for which I am a past president—and I'm sorry that People First of Canada is not at the table, but I understand you have to learn; you don't know what People First of Canada is, but someday you'll learn—we talk about what the identifiers are, what makes people part of a community and what makes them not. I think the national body came up with isolation and poverty. People with disabilities are definitely isolated in a lot of ways, and they live in poverty. Until that changes, this committee will never be out of work. The object of the game is for you, this committee, to be out of work.

The Chair: That's what we'd like.

Mr. Paul Young: That's what I would like.

My tenure at CCD will probably be about vision, because I always talk about vision. What does CCD want? What does People First of Canada want? What does CACL want? We want into the community. We want to be part of the community. We want to be valued citizens. That's what it's about. That's why we're here.

We can get into all kinds of best practices, all kinds of issues, all kinds of bureaucrat things, saying do you know this committee, do you know that committee, and do you know a member of HRDC? All that changes, as I said. I had the honour of meeting Neil many years ago. Some things have changed since then, but not an awful lot. We need to get going and we need to get people out there to learn about what disabilities are and to try to forget about the charitable mode that presents people with disabilities in a bad light.

Quite frankly, you, as politicians, are not going to move unless the public says to move, right? You can pat yourselves on the back, pat me on the back, and say we're going to do something. Well, really, you're not going to until the public says it's had enough of this.

I have a personal idea that I shared at the Supported Employment Network Conference in St. John's, Newfoundland, on November 18, 1999. I gave my story about how I came from a sheltered workshop and all that to the CBC, and said what I'm doing today.

I said I think I remembered, as a young teenager, seeing an ad about ParticipACTION and how this 40-year-old Swede was in better shape than any Canadian. Those kinds of advertisements went on for years. I understand that, as of just last year, ParticipACTION is now closed because there's no need for it. But that sold people on being fit. Everybody jogs today... or most people jog today. Most people have jumpsuits, sweatsuits, whatever. They all have that. It worked.

• 1850

So I'm saying it's not the tokenism, not the Jerry Lewis telethon attitude, but showing people. And never mind market studies. We've done enough market studies to know people need money in their pocket to live. I'm talking about doing some work around promoting people with disabilities. Show the employers and employees that people can work with disabilities. And it's not a miracle; it's actually a fact.

In People First of Canada, we say people will do what they have to do because that's who they are—they're people. There's no miracle involved in any of this. The miracle is there because people don't understand people with disabilities. They look at the disability and forget there's a person inside. Everybody had me labelled as a person with a mental handicap, cerebral palsy, or whatever the case may be. I'm studied as much as Cape Breton has been studied—and that's where I'm from.

Everybody is trying to figure out what it is and if we can fix the problem. I'm sorry to tell you the problem can't be fixed. The way the problem can be fixed is to teach the public out there that we're no different from them, and that if they need employment, then so do we. We're not looking for special favours. We're looking for a clear, supported opportunity to work, to get over the baggage of being labelled, being devalued, whatever, and to get on with the job of living a life. These people want to be conductors of their own orchestra, just as I am conductor of my life right now.

I could have told you all kinds of things about CCD, but I understand most of you are not new to this committee. For those who are now here, I don't have to give a lesson, although I like teaching.

I don't know if there's anything else I have to say, unless you want to talk to me a little bit about Latimer, either now or later.

Ms. Laurie Beachell: Later.

Mr. Paul Young: Later? Then thank you very much.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Paul.

We know the best ammunition we have, as members of Parliament and people involved in the public policy process, is people's stories like yours. As we are able to move public opinion, it's so much easier for public policy to follow quickly thereafter, just as you've said. So thank you very much for your story. I wish some of the people who need convincing were here, but we'll make sure we get your story out. We'll see if we can, as you've suggested, find better ways of getting your story out from the Canadian government.

François.

Mr. François Bélisle: Thank you, and thank you to the subcommittee for the opportunity to be here today.

As Larry said earlier, we didn't really have a chance, or we didn't take the chance or the time, to concert, to strategize, and to say he would talk about this and I would talk about that. Chances are you're going to hear some of the same themes recurring over and over again.

In response to the question you posed on priority issues in the disability community, I had personally identified three or four that, time allowing, I was going to say a few words about. The first one was funding of disability organizations. I'd like to complement what Traci said earlier, that being that there is a real problem there, over and above everything she has said we all experience.

First of all, I think the funding cycle should really be re-examined. Proposals are being received by HRDC in February for work that is supposed to begin in the new fiscal year on April 1. Of course, it's just way too late. Answers on funding come in very late. We're almost in May and we don't have an answer on our Opportunities Fund request.

I'm new to this—I've been with the Canadian Paraplegic Association for only about three or four months now—but I'm told it's the same pattern year after year, and that we may not get an answer until some time in the summer. How can you run an organization while not knowing what your resources are going to be? I have people whose contracts have expired, and they want to know if they should stay or if they should be looking for another job. Of course, it's not very good for morale or for employee loyalty.

Also, as you probably all know, most of the funding tends to be for projects. Even though they are often the core of what we do, projects don't cover all expenses. We do have a number of what we call core expenses, or, if you will, fixed expenses in business talk, like rent, and electricity, and so forth, that are not covered through projects generally.

• 1855

So for us it would be important that funders like HRDC or other government departments provide a greater amount of core funding that is not just specifically earmarked for a particular project but allows us as an organization to really set our priorities, to establish our three- or five-year work plan, and move ahead with that.

By the way, that's what we're doing. We have a three- and a five-year plan. We submit this to HRDC, but the funding is for one year at a time, and when it comes in already you're one-third or one-half into the fiscal year in which you get the funding.

If I could sum up then, the recommendations I would make would be to, first of all, move the funding cycle so that we can get an answer early, either early in the fiscal year or preferably before the new fiscal year begins, so that we can really get on with our planning. Secondly, we need a greater share of core funding. HRDC does provide some but it's very small. Thirdly, we need multi-year core funding because this one year at a time business just does not allow us to do any real serious planning of our activities. I don't understand why HRDC cannot do this.

I used to work in foreign aid, and when I was director of the Coady International Institute in Nova Scotia, we used to get funding from CIDA for three years. Of course, it was not a guarantee for three years. It was always the usual caveat that, funding permitting, they would fund us for three years. But at least we had a pretty good idea of where we were going. So I say if CIDA can do it, how come HRDC and other ministries cannot?

The funding, of course, is critical because, as I said in the introductory remarks earlier, we're in the business of providing support to the thousands of Canadians with spinal cord injuries across the country. We provide rehabilitation work. We provide peer support for people who are newly injured. We provide education, training, and employment opportunities. Generally, we provide reinsertion of those people into their communities and, as Paul was saying, help them in rebuilding a life for themselves.

We can only do that in a quality manner if we have some kind of notion of what our funding is going to be, for how long, and for what kinds of things. It's very hard to live this day to day and have these arrears of half a million dollars or $800,000. Very few organizations can actually support that kind of a financial burden.

A second issue I wanted to talk about, but I will be very brief because I think Laurie has already touched on it, is that our clients need income supports, and income supports can take various forms.

As Laurie said earlier, we were in Toronto the last two days looking at the different tax system measures to provide a break to people who have the burden of the extra cost of being disabled. While that, as Laurie said, is helpful, it's not necessarily the best approach, and it leaves a lot of people out of the equation. A lot of people don't have a taxable income to begin with, so if these are not reimbursable tax credits it's of no benefit to them.

I also want to reinforce the point that direct supports to people with especially a high level of disability, a severe disability, are really things we cannot do without. Out of the millions of people with disabilities in the country, a large share, the vast majority, are people with mild or moderate levels of disability. Those with a severe level of disability really are the ones who should be targeted for income supports of various kinds.

I'll stop there because I'm sure this will be picked up again. The last point, if I may, would be that for us a priority issue is public awareness building. To that end, we have entered into a partnership with a young man, whom some of you who live in Ottawa especially may have heard of. Mike Nemesvary is his name, and he is doing the `Round the World Challenge at the moment. He left Parliament Hill here about a month ago and he is driving. He's a high-level quadriplegic and has very little mobility, yet he will be able to drive his vehicle around the world in an effort to raise awareness of spinal cord injuries and raise funds that we will administer on behalf of the `Round the World Challenge.

• 1900

Jean Chrétien came out that day. He was a bit late but I think he was being grilled in the House. He came out and met us. His picture, you may have seen, was picked up in the newspapers in Ottawa and around the country. That is very important to raise the level of public awareness of the kinds of issues and day-to-day problems that people with spinal cord injuries have to go through.

I have one or two final comments related to awareness building. This year we were fortunate in enlisting Ron Maclean, the Hockey Night in Canada man, to speak on behalf of the Canadian Paraplegic Association and on behalf of people with spinal cord injuries generally. Ron has been tremendous. He makes references in his programs. He has visited rehab centres across the country. He was here two weeks ago. We took him to the Ottawa rehab centre, where he spent two or three hours meeting the staff and the patients.

This does a lot of good to raise the level of awareness and, this being all interrelated, to try to break down the attitudinal problems that many Canadians have with respect to people in a wheelchair, for instance. But also it's related to the fund development activities, because the more you raise awareness, the more likely you are to be successful at fundraising, which in turn feeds the cycle of providing rehab services, peer support, education, and work support services.

Thank you very much again for the opportunity. I hope I didn't take too long.

The Chair: No, not at all.

Maybe we should see if the members have any questions for the first presenters and also whether any of the other...

We welcome Diane Richler, from the Canadian Association for Community Living, who will introduce herself properly in a little while.

François raises the point of core versus project funding, and long before this last HRDC blip there were questions about accountability. The explanation that's been given to me is that project funding is easier to be accountable for because you can actually set the goals and see if you meet them, and that's easy. The women's organizations come to the women's caucus and say the same thing. Do you think the community could help develop tools for accountability around core funding such that the government would be seen to be spending money wisely?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: I think the tools can be developed rather simply. In fact, there is a whole exercise called the voluntary sector initiative whereby government has committed significant dollars to defining a new partnership with the voluntary sector.

That sector has joint tables, with government representation and community representation, on things like information technology, on capacity building, and on an accord to finding roles and relationships between the voluntary sector and the Government of Canada. It has a working group on advocacy and it has a number of components. Over the next period of time I think we would hope that this process would move faster than it's moving, but it is a positive process.

It's reporting to I believe nine ministers and is coordinated through the Privy Council, and that will define a new relationship, we believe, with the federal government and the voluntary sector.

Frankly, my more cynical nature says to me that having given away the shop or the levers for establishing standards across this country in social policy, you are more in need of the voluntary sector than you ever have been before; it is the voluntary sector network across this country that can deliver the programs and have an impact at the provincial, municipal, and local levels. It is our networks that can assist in delivering a national message around citizenship engagement and the value of a democratic society and all those kinds of things.

• 1905

So there is an initiative going forward. We are a part of that. I sit on the advocacy working group. Other members sit on the information technology group, and so on.

The accountability mechanisms are there, are being developed, but let's hope we do not force communities to spend more money on accountability than the grant is actually worth. You can take this preoccupation to the point where it eats all the resource. It is being more accountable for my $25 expense claim to the point that the work to ensure I spent it appropriately costs $35 rather than the $25 that was spent on dinner somewhere. That's the concern we have.

The Chair: Are you comfortable that the disability community is well plugged into that process?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: We are somewhat plugged into that process and we have somewhat a separate process. Some of us are connected to the national voluntary organizations and the voluntary sector initiative, and others are not as connected. But certainly it is the larger process of which we wish to be a part.

The Chair: Traci has a comment, and then Mr. Crête has a question.

Ms. Traci Walters: As a comment about accountability, I am confident that all these groups, like our organization, have opened up their books time and time again and have always said “We are very transparent; come in.” This year actually HRDC had three audits. They can't find anything wrong.

It was not the disability community that had the problem; it was the government. Unfortunately the attitude is, well, we're going to go out and find something wrong with these organizations. They have tried and tried again, and they can't. We've always had very open books.

We also have to quit thinking that the total accountability is financial. It is the financial accountability, but what about us, the accountability for people with disabilities, and the services? There is absolutely no concentration on activities and supports for people with disabilities. There's never a question asked about that any more, which is really frightening. How are activities helping people with disabilities? There is total concentration now on trying to find that $25 expense paper trail, which we give time and time again but they still try to find some sort of misappropriation of funds. This accountability has to stop the focus on the financial so much and think about the lives of the people we're supporting.

The Chair: How open are your books?

Ms. Traci Walters: They are open at any time. We've always said, and I'm sure all the groups here will advocate the same thing, we invite people in; we've invited HRDC.

The Chair: So your annual statement from your annual general meeting—

Ms. Traci Walters: Everything.

The Chair: —is on your website. The people of Canada can look at it if they want.

Ms. Traci Walters: Yes.

The Chair: Joan.

Ms. Joan Westland: Just to clarify what the process is—and this was the process in place prior to the blip, as you put it, in HRDC—there were always random audits within any of our organizations so that at any given time, a point in the month, someone from the department would show up and say “Okay, I'm here. I want to review your accounting system. I want to discuss with you what your programs are.”

The flip side is that we are accountable to our membership and to our community as well, which is probably our bigger concern, and rightly so. In order to ensure that the kinds of programs and policies that an organization like CCRW develops are appropriate in response to need, we are constantly surveying and communicating with employers, with unions, with governments to get the feedback, to make the adjustments to the kinds of policies and programs that we design and deliver; otherwise we would be operating in a vacuum. So there is an accountability that's already built into the organization to ensure that it functions and operates efficiently and effectively.

The Chair: In all the accountability literature we're seeing in government, the accountability to whom, for whom, by whom, all of this, do you think that is something that's being dealt with adequately at the voluntary round table in terms of your responsibility to your membership?

• 1910

Ms. Joan Westland: I don't participate in the discussions around the voluntary sector, not because I'm boycotting it but because there are only so many hours in a day.

I think we're misunderstanding what accountability is all about. It's being discussed as though it never existed, as though we have to now find it and design it.

What we've been trying to explain, at least—and I speak in this case for CCRW—when we're talking to our funders is that we have an ongoing monitoring system in place. We're constantly evaluating our programs and services, and we're constantly assessing the effectiveness of our accounting system to ensure that I don't spend 90% of my time securing 40% of the revenue of the organization, for example.

So it's not just, do we have a taxi chit for the taxi drive you took, and did you really go from Parliament Hill to your office? It's also saying, is this the most effective use of your time as an executive director in terms of the payback to the organization and the membership it serves?

That process is ongoing, and it's built into our system. So what we really need to say to the government is, why don't you take the time to look at what we already have? Let's see how we can complement each other so that you get the answers to the questions you want and it doesn't impinge, or inhibit, or totally restrict the functioning of our organization.

There are certain things we need to know that perhaps are not a priority to you, and vice versa, but it doesn't mean we have to set up brand-new delivery mechanisms in order to make it happen. So we have to stop talking about accountability as though it doesn't currently exist.

The Chair: Paul Crête has a question first, and then Karen Redman, and then François has a comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I do not want to interrupt the debate on this issue, but I would like to make a comment. In fact, perhaps the scandal surrounding Human Resources Development Canada made the government throw the baby out with the bathwater, because there were probably other serious problems. Perhaps the way that restrictions were imposed closed the door for everyone. But your message is quite clear regarding this.

Let me speak about Mr. Bélisle's statement. I would like to tell you a brief anecdote. A few years ago, insurance brokers did not want any banks on their territory. The Canadian Bankers Association then launched what was perhaps the most expensive lobby in history, aimed at members of Parliament here in Ottawa. As for the brokers, they did not spend this much money; representatives of their associations preferred to meet with each member of Parliament in each of their ridings. And they won the battle.

The action plan that you all have and whose main points were described, is very good. However, I would like to know whether there is a lobby that is actively working with members, a well- planned and organized lobby, not necessarily here in Ottawa, but in each and every riding. If people went out to meet them once a year, accompanied with persons with disabilities, or brought them to visit premises occupied by persons with disabilities, I think that it could have considerable impact.

The members of this committee are, in general, concerned by this question. But they must also then convince people from Finance and other departments. In the end, when you have...

Caucuses also have an influence. If the chair or Ms. Redman speaks to the Liberal caucus about this issue or if I speak about it to the Bloc caucus, or if we speak about this to caucuses of other parties, it is important for the other caucus members to listen attentively. You can rest assured that if they have been approached in this way in their ridings, at the right time of year, while the budget is being planned, there will be an impact.

And I would like to know if this kind of action is planned on a local level, if a lobby is being planned. Because, basically, everyone substantially agrees on this matter; you have an extraordinarily powerful set of arguments.

My question is for Mr. Bélisle, but it is also addressed to everyone. Is there anything in particular that we can do in that respect, and what has already been done?

Mr. François Bélisle: Unfortunately, regarding the organization I represent, I cannot say that it has an organized lobbying plan. We do some lobbying, but it is really on a case-by-case basis. However, I took note of your suggestion and I think that we should really pursue that. On the other hand, it is not always easy. In the riding where our national office is found, we tried to get in touch with our MP. We had set a tentative date, but then he called us back to say that there would be a two-month delay because he really did not have time to see us. We had important issues to discuss with him, but it was not possible.

• 1915

I think that members do not consider this as a priority. They are very busy and they think that they can delay any meetings with organizations representing people with physical disabilities. This has been my experience up to now.

Mr. Paul Crête: Let me tell you that we are aware of many issues. We often consider people with disabilities as exceptional cases rather than as being part of a general situation. A friend of mine recently became a paraplegic, and you can be sure that I know more about what happens in such cases than I did before his handicap. I think that this could be promising.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have a comment?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Mantha: Very, very good. In fact, one of my dreams would be to do this with our members all over the country. I do not want to exaggerate the things we already mentioned, but my organization, for instance, does not have the means to do that kind of thing. That is really the biggest problem for organizations like mine. As I said, one of our dreams would be to do that. We do this from time to time on an ad hoc basis, when we have members who are able to make a good presentation of the key problems. This is basically an issue of ability.

Mr. Paul Crête: This sector could perhaps be funded by the federal government through national associations.

Mr. François Bélisle: We are often told that funds should not be used for this kind of lobbying activity. That is not what it is for. It is meant for our clients. For instance, we want better services for people who have medulla injuries.

Mr. Paul Crête: We are consulting you to see what your priorities are. If you tell us that that is important, we should...

[English]

The Chair: Laurie's going to get all those rules changed at the round table, right?

You're going to get all the advocacy rules changed?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: We're going to change the legislation and the charitable number status so that more groups can do advocacy. The voluntary sector accord recognizes the role of advocacy.

The Chair: Absolutely.

Joan.

[Translation]

Ms. Joan Westland: Let me say a few words about Mr. Crête's opinion. This is one reason why our association recruited a former member of Parliament to help it out, to counsel it regarding the way it should communicate with members of Parliament and regarding the best political strategies.

As Pauline just said, we must recognize what our capacities are and where we need help, and find the people with the needed expertise rather than to constantly wonder whether we have enough money to do all this. In a few years, we might come knocking at your door.

[English]

The Chair: Karen Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: If I could just make an observation, you certainly don't have to come to Ottawa to lobby. I would tell you that some of the most effective lobbying that happens, happens in Kitchener Centre, where I'm from.

Very much the disabled community knows my door is open, and they come. Even lobby groups like the firefighters that were here yesterday on the Hill... It's much more compelling when you've got somebody from your community coming and telling your story. Even if you don't get the funding and get the rules changed right away, it's definitely worth going and knocking on some local doors.

I wanted to talk to something that actually Monsieur Bélisle struck on a little bit. The independent living centre happens to be one of the organizations that I've had a long association with in my riding. Not only is it the project funding that's the problem, but it's also the limited staff who are stretched so far by writing continual proposals all the time. What you said really had a resonance with me.

• 1920

I want to talk a little bit about the accountability, too, because I don't think it's just dollars and cents. One of the programs that was funded with Human Resources Development funds through our local independent living centre had an incredible success rate, even though they may have only gotten limited employment. I think one of the challenges about being a disabled person or even a temporarily able person—as we sometimes are referred to by our local independent living centre—is the fact that we put people in boxes. I think very often government is really difficult to... If you have a disability that is episodic, and some days it's okay, and you could work full-time or half-time, and there are other times that you can't, we tend to want to find a little file folder to put you in. Government isn't really good at being able to be flexible when people's needs change.

I look at children in our community and the fact that it's a much better use of resources and a better quality-of-life issue if they're in the home. Yet we're lacking that kind of respite care that's needed, whether you're looking after an elderly person or a middle-aged person or a child. I think those kinds of things we don't do well as governments at any level, trying to have that kind of flexibility for shifting needs.

I just wondered if anybody wanted to comment on that.

Ms. Traci Walters: Hi, Karen. I'm with the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres. We have often heard from Paula Saunders of your support, and everything that you do. It's very true to think that we spend so much of our time, year after year, just fighting to get our payments. You know that employment program that you talked about? Well, we haven't been paid for four months for it and are struggling to just make payroll. So anything this committee can do to change a lot of this... All our groups are facing this, so I could just comment. Thank you for your support for the independent living centre.

The Chair: I think we should start over on this side this time so we can finish with the committee alumni.

Bill.

Mr. Bill Mates: It's a pleasure to be here. As I was listening to Paul talk a little bit about his life, and as a parent of a 19-year-old who has a developmental disability, I remember when Ryan was born they suggested to us at the hospital that they put him in an institution at that time. We said no, we're going to take him home and love him just like our two-year-old son at that time. Ryan has grown up in a community and in a very inclusive school. He still attends high school. Two years ago he was the very first swimmer with a developmental disability to swim at the all-Ontario high school championships. So we know that inclusion works, and we know what the community can do.

Today Ryan works at a health club, coaches swimming, and works in a kindergarten class teaching. At 19 years old he has a meaningful job with a very meaningful life, and I keep thinking of the statement that I heard a few weeks ago. It was a quote from one of Stephen Covey's books, and it said the basic need of the human body is air; the basic need of the human heart is to be loved, respected, and valued; and remember on tough issues that slow is fast and fast is slow.

I keep thinking of that statement in terms of some of the things the people have said today. I just wanted to preface a couple of comments that way.

I know that with Ryan, if you ask him if he has a disability, he will tell you he doesn't. We always look at him as a person who has become a contributor of services rather than a consumer of services. He feels his life is on track, and so I just wanted to tell that little story to preface this.

Actually, I'm here representing Easter Seals/March of Dimes today. I had sent out across the country the questions that were sent to me by Mike. I will very briefly go through some of the things that were outlined. They will be reiterated by some of my colleagues here.

Under the first question about the current developments and significance in the disability area, I have nine, and I'll just very quickly go through four or five of them: inequities between provinces around programs available to persons with disabilities; lack of funding for accessible transportation vehicles; financial eligibility, as the base is too low for housing assistance; disability supports for employment have been inadequate in many provinces, which has already been talked about; gaps between school and employment are still not properly addressed. I know that transition planning, employment training, and meaningful work are still very much an issue.

• 1925

Under question 2, we talked about the priority issues in a disability community and what you could address and study, and the two that were sent to me were the cost benefit of rehabilitation services and technology and its impact on personal independence. So those are the two.

Lastly, I would just like to finish on question 3, and something that Easter Seals...

Laurie, I talked with a few people around the table about this whole concept of the federal disability commissioner, and I know we've met on this as well. So I'd just like to talk a little about that in terms of brainstorming and whether or not the idea would be feasible. I'll just preface it with a couple of comments, with your permission.

In June 2000, the Ontario March of Dimes and Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council hosted a reception in Ottawa for MPs and senators, their staff, and members of our national board. From ideas arising at that meeting, a decision was taken to establish a committee of Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council to assess the need for and the feasibility of the federal government establishing a persons-with-disability commissioner for Canada.

The Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council committee of nine, with representation from coast to coast, has met in person and via conference calls through the last seven months to put together a framework and a strategy to determine the steps required to create a federal disability commissioner. This included a meeting with Mr. Andy Scott, MP from Fredericton, on January 20 in Toronto, and we actually have an attachment that I can give you that is a result of the committee's work.

The Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council committee members believe that a disabilities commissioner will be able to improve the application and implementation of existing federal legislation and recommend new legislation where necessary. Such action will ultimately help persons of all ages and all disabilities, and all disability agencies and organizations, to reach their goals and objectives—in short, to improve the quality of life and equality of opportunity for Canadians with disabilities.

On this initiative, Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council has taken the leadership role to get things in motion, but it is our hope that all disability groups will work together on the development of this or something that would be very similar to this.

Over the last few months we have been sharing our proposal with over 300 organizations and agencies across Canada. This includes the 21 national organizations that took part in the Equal Citizenship for Canadians with Disabilities: The will to act, also known as the Scott task force, and I think everyone here was involved with that.

It is our hope to show support from across the country that a disability commissioner or something similar would be a good step in the right direction. Today we have had very positive support from across the country and are currently keeping a record of e-mails, faxes, and phone calls. We have also had varied comments on the proposal. These comments relate to the role of the commissioner being too broad and how the process should unfold to allow organizations the opportunity for input, and a sequence of events to move such a project forward.

We recognize that all national organizations bring to the table varied agendas. However, I've seen over the last five or six years, in my involvement at the provincial and national level, how our agendas are really becoming one and the same. We feel this is another opportunity to continue the follow-up with the Scott task force, the release of the In Unison document, and other ongoing work by the subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities.

On February 6, 2000, the Auditor General tabled his report in Ottawa. As you are aware, according to chapter 20 of the Auditor General's report, “Managing Departments for Results and Managing Horizontal Issues for Results”, the audit also found that the government does not effectively manage initiatives that span two or more departments.

Horizontal issues like the federal disability agenda are often key priorities of the government. The examination of these three horizontal issues found that they were not being managed for results. An example of what a disabilities commissioner or someone similar could do would be to monitor the development of a detailed reporting and accountability framework covering all the departments touching the lives of people with disabilities.

It is a privilege to speak with you today, and it is our hope to continue the dialogue on this subject and include all other disability organizations and agencies to become part of the process to move this project forward.

From the responses of the Easter Seals/March of Dimes National Council board members, the committee members, and myself, it is evident that we feel this is a wonderful opportunity to continue to improve the lives of persons with disabilities through the establishment of such a position. That will complete what I have to say.

Thank you for that.

The Chair: Thanks, Bill.

• 1930

Bill and I had met, and I think in the conversations that he's had with lots of other people... Clearly it's a different kind of accountability we're talking about in terms of audit, like the environmental commissioner, or any of those things.

How do we best audit what actually is happening on these very difficult issues that are horizontal across departments and are federal-provincial-municipal? Is there a place for our subcommittee to look at the need for that and then to decide whether that is a self-standing commissioner, whether it's a back office of the Human Rights Commission with audit capabilities, or is it a Canadians with disabilities act? How would you actually begin the process of measuring outcomes, and what's happening, and what's not happening for persons with disabilities? So there may be comments.

I want to just say that we would like to have Diane Richler, who is here, speak next. Maybe you would just introduce your guest, because we're honoured to have you with us.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Richler (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Association for Community Living): Thank you very much and thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce Ms. Rosalie Bassolé from Burkina Faso, Africa. She is the Secretary General of Inclusion Afrique, which includes more than 45 organizations all over Africa.

I thought, before this evening, that we were on the road to establishing good relations between Canada and Africa, but because of me, she missed her flight to Moncton, and I am very much afraid that if she were to miss the next flight, it would create an international crisis. Thus, with your permission, I will leave the meeting earlier to make sure that she does not miss another flight.

[English]

If you would permit me—

The Chair: Those were 45 disability organizations?

Ms. Diane Richler: Yes.

The Chair: Welcome. Bienvenue.

Ms. Diane Richler: If you would permit me to make a few brief comments before I go, first of all I would like to say that I was very proud that Madame Bassolé was in Canada at the time of the Summit of the Americas in order to see in the declaration arising from the summit a commitment to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, including those who are vulnerable, marginalized, disabled, or require special protection; and a commitment to the eradication of all forms of discrimination; as well as the promotion of equality and achieving the full participation of all persons in the political, economic, social, and cultural life of our countries.

I know that Canada took a lead in making sure that those words were included in the declaration, but quite frankly many of us—and Laurie was the one who pointed this out at a meeting last week—are afraid that Canada is in fact losing its place as a leader in terms of promoting the rights of people who have a disability. We're seeing other countries being much more responsive to what people with a disability are asking for.

I don't want to repeat things that others have said, so I thought I could just comment, particularly on issues affecting children, since that's so much a focus of our association. We've been very much trying to monitor the development of the national children's agenda to ensure that it will be inclusive and will move away from outcome measures that define disability as failure, which is really very much the way the agenda was first developed.

With the help of HRD—and I think it's important to say that we do receive funding for some very important projects through HRDC—we've been able to do a series of consultations across the country with families over the last year. I think some of the things we've been hearing from families are instructive. Three main messages have come through in terms of what's important to them.

• 1935

The first thing families are saying to us is how hurtful it is and how difficult it is to be part of communities that do not value their kids, that reject their kids, that do not see the humanity and the contribution of their children to their families and to the broader community. That's a message we just keep hearing over and over. Families feel beaten down because their children aren't valued.

The second thing they've said, in terms of what they're looking for, is that they're looking for the supports that will allow them to be ordinary families. They don't want the supports that are going to screen them into disability-specific programs. Mothers want to be able to work the same as their neighbours do. They don't want to have to give up their careers because they have a child with a disability, but that often happens. They want their children to be able to go to the neighbourhood school. They want to be able to take holidays as families. A lot of those things are not possible, and I think Ms. Redman underlined that in terms of some of the lack of flexibility.

One of the examples was given to us by a family in Manitoba. In their case, they're a farm family. Because the farm doesn't produce a lot of revenue, the mother works and the father's home a lot. During the times he has to be out in the field, they use all of their respite dollars in order to support their child at home. That means they don't have any of the respite dollars available to go to a movie once in a while, to maybe take a family holiday, or to do other ordinary things. They need that respite money just to be able to keep the family together.

So the flexibility isn't there and the support isn't there to be able to keep families together.

We saw a huge crisis in Ontario over the last year, and it's repeated in other provinces. Families are being forced to give their kids up to the child welfare system, because that's the only way to access services. There's something wrong with that picture.

The last thing families are asking for is really very simple. They want an opportunity to network with other families. They get a lot of support, not just from professionals but from the opportunity to just meet each other, to share common solutions, and sometimes just to share ways of solving problems. Unfortunately, when there are no organizations to support them and to allow a lot of that free-flowing activity to happen, that falls by the wayside.

One of the consultations we held that was a little bit different was with a number of national organizations of parents of children with disabilities. The parent from the Down Syndrome Society was extremely helpful because she also happens to be an emergency room nurse. She made an observation, and we're trying to get data to support it. She said that over the past little while, as supports to families have been withdrawn, she has seen a huge increase in the number of children with disabilities coming into the emergency rooms because their parents have just reached the end of their rope.

Often, the child is not really in a medical emergency situation. Maybe the parent hasn't slept for two weeks because of some problem, and there's nowhere to turn and nothing else to ask for. Often, having the child admitted to hospital for observation at least means that mom and dad can get a couple of nights' sleep. Unfortunately, a lot of those pressures on our health system, for example, are still invisible because of the pressures on families.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Diane. I think Wendy has a question for you.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Actually, I'm going to have to leave now. I have two other things I have to go to, but I just want to make a couple of comments before I go.

I have to say that what you've said spurs me on. I hear Laurie say we're an important watchdog group, but I'm also hearing you say we are falling behind other countries. That in fact is what got us going two and a half years ago. We heard that loud and clear, so we resurrected this committee.

As we know, there are still 45 unfulfilled recommendations from the Andy Scott task force report, and that is a big problem. I have heard people say that if we could just take that document and work on each one of those things and get them in place, we wouldn't have to be meeting like this every couple of months.

• 1940

But I have heard that there's a funding gridlock at HRDC and that you want us to work on that. We have the capabilities, hopefully, to really make a difference there.

I hear you say we need money for programs. Money has to come in to the advocacy groups. All of you need money to do the educational work, the advocacy work, and the creative programming that are going to create real jobs for people with disabilities, that are going to create real housing alternatives, that are going to create real income support programs.

As I think Paul said about the disabled, you just want to be like everybody else. You don't want to be programmed; you just want to be out there living and buying and having fun, and all of those things that are part of citizenship.

I'm so happy that you did come here, and I do hear very strong themes—I think we've all heard them. I think we have work to do, and I certainly don't feel at all like we've accomplished nearly enough or we don't have a whole lot of work to do.

I think I've heard you say, let's get more money from HRD; let's get more money from Paul Martin. Let's certainly look at structures such as a disability commissioner but also introduce a Canadians with disabilities act. I assume you were all part of this whole process of making these recommendations that went on for a year, which was very exciting.

I hear you, and I really will do whatever I can as part of this committee to move these issues ahead. Thank you very much.

Will you have a glass of wine on me?

The Chair: On behalf of all of the committee, Wendy, we thank you personally for being the catalyst to get this committee up and running again. Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Madame Chair, can I just ask a very quick question of Diane?

The illustration you raised, I think, is really significant because it's a rural lens. Is that rural lens being looked at when we look at the bigger issue?

Ms. Diane Richler: Not generally, but in a lot of ways I think looking at rural communities can help us to understand what natural supports are. Very frequently in big cities we come up with surface solutions. Even the families in cities are telling us that's not what they want but it's just so easy to organize those in big cities. You can't organize them as easily in rural communities, and I think maybe those are the communities that can force us to be more creative and come up with models that cities can learn from.

The Chair: Fran.

Ms. Fran Cutler: Normally, my colleague Angelo Nikies, our director of government relations, is part of this tag team. He's off looking after some of the international aspects of his portfolio, so you're stuck with me tonight.

The Chair: Welcome.

Ms. Fran Cutler: We were delighted to see in the Speech from the Throne the allusion to a comprehensive labour market strategy, and we're aware that some work is going on at the moment, certainly at the federal level, the HRD level, and presumably at the provincial level as well.

This is a huge undertaking, and it could very easily become mired in its own enormity. We, the people here who represent various organizations, will be holding a watching brief on all jurisdictions to make sure this actually emerges, I would hope early in the mandate of this Parliament. And we trust that you, the members of the committee, will also be helping to ensure that the interests of people with disabilities are front and centre in the new labour market strategy.

I have looked at trends in some of the existing programs, which you've asked us to do. The Opportunities Fund has created excellent opportunities for people with disabilities to find fulfilling careers, but we've noticed a disturbing trend, a jurisdictional conflict that has arisen.

For example, we had a federally funded program, nationally coordinated in CNIB, in which 34 well-qualified young people found jobs, were launched in careers with the adaptive technology that they needed to do the job. When we went for refunding we were told, sorry, youth employment is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Surely ways can be found of getting around this provincial and federal conflict. I'm afraid it's one of the things all levels of government can sometimes hide behind.

• 1945

The mandate of the Opportunities Fund we would like to see reinterpreted to include job preservation. It seems to make so much sense. It's such a win situation for employers to keep trained and loyal employees with skills, although they may have suffered loss in one or more of their sensory or motor capabilities, and for them to continue in a valuable role in a company. And it's certainly valuable for society to have somebody with a disability maintain their role as a contributor to rather than a recipient of public funds.

The problem is that job preservation, of course, is much more difficult to benchmark than job creation, but surely because it's so valuable, ways can be found to do this. With the advances in technology in the last ten years it should be a much easier thing to do to preserve jobs and work with employers, unions, and community groups to make sure people who develop disabilities can stay productive.

I'd like to move to disability supports. This is obviously a very key area. In Unison 2000 focuses on working-age adults. I mentioned that in our population skew in CNIB, 70% of our clients are over 70 and are not in the workforce. It's very important that they stay productive in many ways as contributors to society and voluntary organizations, their families, and just being good citizens. If you do not have the kinds of assistance devices you need, that can be very difficult.

To take a personal example, many of you with a normal range of eyesight will have noticed that I have some bizarre face furniture. This four-power telescope allows me to see if you're paying attention, to see street signs, and to have a far more independent quality of life. The cost is $2,000, not a lot for people in the workforce perhaps, but a lot for many Canadians. It's very embarrassing and distressing when I make presentations in six of our ten provinces, Atlantic Canada, B.C., a prosperous province like British Columbia, and Manitoba, and explain that there are no provincial supports for this kind of device and many devices for people with mobility and other sensory impairments. Ontario pays two-thirds of the cost of many devices, but other provincial programs are not as generous.

It is very important that the federal government and this committee take the lead in ensuring that standards are developed, uniform standards, so that people who are moving from one province to the other do not have to face loss of disability supports on assistance devices and that those in one province are not deprived of things readily available in other provinces.

I'm flipping through because I'm conscious of the time.

There needs to be a big effort in social marketing. The young woman, Melissa Rezansoff, talked about how communities write off people with disabilities. It's still happening all over this country.

By social marketing, I mean engendering behaviour and attitudinal change among employers and the wider community. That's expensive. That involves leadership from the federal government and provincial and territorial governments on the scale that has gone into in the last, say, 20 years things like combatting tobacco abuse and drunk driving. It takes a lot to change mindsets. It takes a lot of money and a lot of political will and commitment, and we're counting on you to keep that in the forefront of the larger committee, which, alas, I will not be able to attend tomorrow, and your ministerial and senatorial colleagues.

I think it's really important that this committee, small and, if you like, sometimes overlooked as it has been, but with very diligent people on it, continue the work of keeping our issues in the disability community front and centre in this country.

I'm sorry that I cannot be with you tomorrow, but I would urge you to keep up the good work. We will support you and work with you as best we can, because there are four and a half million Canadians, and growing, who have disabilities out there and who are counting on all of us. Thank you.

• 1950

The Chair: Thanks very much.

On Fran's comment on retention of employment as well as getting employment, some of the employment organizations in my riding have come saying that underemployment is also an issue. I think that's what Paul Young talked about, that there are people who could be trained to be doing much better jobs and that sometimes that's not in the contract that organizations receive from HRDC.

Would that also apply to CNIB, Fran?

Ms. Fran Cutler: Very definitely. Seventy percent of blind and vision-impaired Canadians of working age are not in the workforce. Those who are, in many cases, are vastly underemployed because employers see the disability and not the capability.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

Pauline.

Ms. Pauline Mantha: Thank you for the invitation to be here this evening. Given all the comments that have been made, I will keep my remarks very brief, I promise you. I fully support everything that has been said by my colleagues here this evening.

If I may, I will speak very briefly about children's issues, children with disabilities and their families, who, from where I sit, do not appear to be on the federal government radar screen whatsoever.

Two years ago, when the national children's agenda was announced, we were quite ecstatic and quite optimistic that the agenda would hold promise for children with disabilities and their families. We remained optimistic until we saw the documents, which made no mention of children with disabilities or their families. We were also disappointed by the public statements that were made regarding the agenda, which again lacked reference to children with disabilities and their families.

I was quite surprised by the response of government officials when we brought this to their attention, which was, well, of course children with disabilities are so much part of it that we did not feel the need to mention them—which I thought was an interesting spin.

As federal, provincial, and territorial governments move forward with the national children's agenda, and more recently, with the early childhood development initiative, the lack of reference to children with disabilities and their families is quite striking, and I would encourage this committee to help us change that.

I don't want to appear ungrateful. I think the national children's agenda is a wonderful initiative, and I do believe it holds promise. I also want to recognize HRDC's support of the National Children's Alliance, which is working very hard to mobilize networks across the country to advance the national children's agenda. However, again children with disabilities and their families are absent from this picture.

I will conclude simply by saying that in Canada children are often recognized as being the responsibility of provinces and territories, but I would suggest that all children are our collective responsibility.

In that light, I would urge this committee to help ensure that the discussions currently underway by federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for social services do in fact include children with disabilities and their families and that those discussions also include organizations that work with and for these constituents, and again, the question of capacity, that this committee help us to build our capacity to be part of those discussions.

The Chair: Thank you, Pauline. I think our committee was obviously also concerned with the national children's agenda and the wording around our wanting all children to be healthy and our concern that some aren't, or some will have special needs, which wasn't mentioned.

• 1955

Are you aware of or involved in designing the report card structure in terms of the federal-provincial... around the new money, around the children's agenda and the early childhood piece?

I think sometimes if we could get our hands on the report card structure—the kind of thing where if you measure it, it gets noticed; if it gets noticed, it gets done—we could start to make sure that structure actually includes children with disabilities as well.

Ms. Pauline Mantha: I'm not familiar with this report card initiative—

The Chair: In the premiers' deal on September 11, the new money for kids included with it an agreement by the provinces to report. What is in the reports, both on the health dollars and on the kids dollars, is still up for grabs and part of a serious negotiation. I would love to see as a children's report card issue how many families are spending more than 50% of their income on rent.

So whatever we could all be doing to make sure our issues are at least being considered in what would be reported on by the federal government, the provincial governments... As you know, we have responsibility for aboriginal children, veterans, and all those things. So it isn't big brother, the federal government, checking up on the provinces; as the agreement and the Social Union Framework Agreement said, all levels of government will report to Canadians on a regular basis on how we're doing on this stuff. We just need to make sure our issues are part of that reporting.

The other thing with you is, I'm sure, the needs issues around post-secondary education. I've certainly had representations on that, and I hope your organization will be part of the post-secondary round tables that the parent committee is doing.

Karen, did you have a question?

Mrs. Karen Redman: It's of a previous speaker, so I'll hold it.

The Chair: Okay.

Let's have Joan and Neil.

Ms. Joan Westland: I'm not sure whether I thank you for putting Neil and I at the end, but I thank you for inviting CCRW to contribute to the discussion.

I hope we'll be able to address, or at least highlight, some of the concerns and issues that we would appreciate the parliamentary subcommittee considering when you look at your own agenda.

As many of you know, CCRW is a national organization. Our mandate is exclusive to promoting employment for people with disabilities. We don't restrict that to type of disability or to type of employment.

As a national body, we don't deal specifically with clients who are seeking employment. We work with employers to try to ensure that workplaces are accessible; we work with unions so that they are part of that access to the work environment; and we work with educators, trainers, and community organizations to build up the capacity for those struck systems to better respond to the needs of the client groups they work with and the needs of employers to ensure that employees meet the skill sets they require.

In the process of doing that, there has been lots of trial and error and not as many successes as any of us would like to report on. But I would say that in the last four years we have really developed an approach to working with community, with employers, and with government that has demonstrated not only employment opportunity, but retention and promotion. In fact, we are starting to be able to measure access issues being addressed within the workplace environment. We have put this approach into a workshop context as well, as a training manual, so that we can work with community organizations at the local level to assist them in building the capacity to be more effective in negotiating with their employers.

All of that sounds like we should be well on the road to success. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. For all of the reasons my colleagues have articulated already, there is a real contradiction between what are policy issues, what are program criteria, and what in fact needs to happen at the local level.

• 2000

So the greatest challenge we have when we're dealing with employment issues for people with disabilities is to ensure that all of the barriers to employment, which have been identified and researched and analysed over and over and over again, have to be addressed within any one single program. You can't address one of them, or two of them, or a combination of them. You need to ensure that the design of your program in fact takes into consideration the whole range.

That, then, means time and money. So the resources that are available to you don't meet the timeline that is essential to ensure the effective delivery of a program that is designed to in fact embrace, include, and respond to all of those barrier sectors.

So the barriers we saw and identified back in the Obstacles report are the same barriers that have been identified by every parliamentary committee and every task force. They're the one constant that we can all look to.

So when I see even an In Unison document that talks about doing a needs assessment in terms of the labour force needs of persons with disabilities, I would say we are probably putting a lot of resources into a document that I'm sure will be very well written and contain a lot of information, but will not be very instructive in terms of helping us to address the complex issue of meeting employment or implementing the kinds of employment approaches we've seen as successful.

In other words, it's going to be very difficult to launch a federal labour strategy that has not already addressed the implementation factors and the... I'm not going to get the word out. Whatever, it doesn't matter. It's not going to work, is what I'm trying to say, because you haven't got the infrastructure to make it work.

In the efforts of organizations like CCRW and others around the table, we have networks across the country that do in fact build those infrastructures. But a federal policy in and of itself is not going to be implemented effectively if you have no infrastructure to make that happen.

So don't speak about a labour force strategy as though the design of that is going to be the panacea for addressing all of the barriers and all of the issues.

I don't want to go with this for too long because I know the risk of being one of the last speakers between yourselves and the wine at the back of the room. But I do want to highlight a few other complications that you need to consider when we're talking about labour force strategies and employment issues.

While the barriers have remained constant, what has changed has been the environment within which we operate. So we're not only seeing the kind of thing that happens when opposition parties identify some weaknesses within a process. We have also seen the change of relationship between federal and provincial governments—labour market agreements; the new, or what used to be the new, employability assistance program that has replaced VRDP. All of that has changed the environment in which programs and services are delivered. That has impact on our infrastructures.

There's a tremendous confusion at the community level about who's supposed to be responsible for what. Provincial people will tell you it's federal. Federal people will tell you it's provincial. Municipal people will say it might be; it might not be. In fact, most citizens, when they talk about employment services, still are looking for Canada Manpower Centres. So there's a huge problem in regard to clarity of roles and responsibilities, and this committee, I think, could be very helpful in assessing how these mechanisms, which have been put into place and agreed to by federal and provincial governments, in fact can be most effectively translated.

You can gain a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience from the organizations around the table that are working at all of those levels—federally, provincially, and municipally—to articulate for you what the experience is, what is effective, and where do gaps and problems still lie.

• 2005

I'm going to hand it over to Neil. I just want to take the opportunity to have one complaint—and I know I've got in fact many, so I'll congratulate myself for limiting it to one.

Before I launch into my one complaint, I don't want to leave the impression that this is the fault of a particular department in HRDC. And I know we certainly don't hesitate to point fingers at who's responsible or who should take the blame. I think we waste a lot of time and resources, in fact, pointing fingers and saying who should take the blame, rather than assuming some responsibility and determining which one of us is the best equipped, either intellectually or otherwise—and by intellectually, I'm only talking in terms of experience—to in fact resolve particular issues.

Certainly there are many people in HRDC whom we all work with who are very committed and have put in a tremendous amount of time and energy and expertise to try to work with us and try to mobilize a department that is just frozen in time, for a whole lot of reasons that have maybe very little to do with what they see as being their priority.

Having said that, when you made your announcement in the very beginning about Disability WebLinks—and I haven't seen the press release, so if I'm getting upset about something I shouldn't be, I'm sure you'll delete this from the record. When we first heard Disability WebLinks being announced at CCRW—and this is an example of how easily we can expend resources without taking the time to be thoughtful about the appropriateness of our policies and programs... Disability WebLinks came out... I'm not going to read this now.

Disability WebLinks was announced in the In Unison document, and the first response CCRW made was to meet with HRDC to ask them why a federal-provincial task force would come up with a recommendation to design a program that would in fact require the investment of considerable tax dollars when the government has already invested considerable tax dollars in the design and the delivery of an Internet virtual employment resource centre, which our organization delivers. It's managed in all 10 provinces, as well as the territories; it's a single one-stop shop window that employers, job seekers, service agencies, and others can access for a whole range of information about jobs, accommodation, and government programs.

Now we were told that they recognized the expertise that had already been developed and that we would collaborate with them because Disability WebLinks was really intended to include access to federal and provincial government information and services. So our understanding was that either we would move what we were doing over to Disability WebLinks, which would be fine with us, or somehow collaborate. We've gone through several different representations of people responsible for the design and development of Disability WebLinks, and up until about two years ago we had not heard from anybody. In fact, I thought the program had finally been shelved, so I was amazed when you made this announcement.

I think it demonstrates another flaw in the system. There is no need for this kind of thing to continue. So if this committee can help us start to be more efficient, because it means that time and resources on the part of our organization as well are being invested into a very sophisticated, labour-intensive Internet service that, by the way, on behalf of the Canadian government has received some international awards... and it's frustrating.

• 2010

We can't talk about accountability, effective community delivery, labour market strategies, and all of those things without really being conscientious and taking the time to say, where are we now? Where do we need to build from now? How can we make the most effective use of the knowledge and expertise we already have and in which we've already invested?

Thank you for the time for my little kick at the can.

The Chair: You'll be happy to know that because this is being televised, we won't be erasing anything from the evidence.

In the press release it does say accessibility; education; employment, which is your concern; health; financial and personal support; housing and residential services; tax programs, and transportation.

Our ongoing job, as is yours, is to sort out gaps in services and duplication. I hope you'll look at this and figure out where your organization fits. Then let us know, and we'll follow up. This employment piece obviously needs to work with yours or be yours. You will have a look at it and let me know, and we will let the committee...

Before we ask the alumni for the benediction, I think we should thank the officials who are still here at this time, our dedicated people from HRDC and wonderful Mary Frances from Industry Canada. We thank you all back there, and we're glad you're all here listening and are going to fix everything.

Neil, do you have some comments?

Mr. Neil Young: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have only one or two comments, actually. As someone has already pointed out, I had the privilege of working on the first standing committee report, the Obstacles report, which had 130 recommendations, as you pointed out. More importantly, those 130 recommendations came directly from consumer groups. Once that report was completed, the then chairman of the old COPOH organization, Allan Simpson, referred to that report as the Magna Carta for the disabled in Canada, and I think it actually was.

Part of that report pointed out the major problem that society faced then and that we also face today, and that is the lack of awareness within decision-makers. Every time you have a change in Parliament, obviously, you have a change in people, and you have to re-educate those people about the disability issues. I'm not sure if that's good enough any more.

I think this issue has been studied in this country more than any other—more than health, more than children's rights, more than anything else. As a result of all those studies—I want to be a bit positive—we have this document In Unison. That document has its flaws and its caveats, the usual thing. Everything is framed in “when the economy permits” or “when there are the finances”, but it's a major step that they're even saying that.

I think that document truly represents a political consensus in Canada that never existed before. You now have the federal government and provincial governments on side, and they're all singing from the same song sheet. They're all saying something has to be done and we're prepared to do those things.

Yet nothing has happened. I suspect that the reason nothing happens is because, even though the political will was expressed by the Minister of Finance when he appeared before your committee and by other ministers, something is happening at the bureaucratic level. It has been like that from day one.

• 2015

For some reason it's not viewed as being a sexy political issue. I don't really know what we have to do to make it a sexy political issue. The path we've been on for the last 25 years is one you can no longer follow. I don't think a Paul Young should appear before this committee and express the anger he did about the way he was treated in life. It is a political problem, and it demands a political solution, I think.

I heard the suggestion of a commissioner, which is a good suggestion.

In 1980 the standing committee suggested that a minister be responsible for disability issues. That didn't work. Government departments simply referred every disability issue to the minister responsible for disability issues. The then minister, Serge Joyal, had absolutely no power or authority given to him. So there he was, he had all of those issues dumped in his lap, and he couldn't do anything. Nothing happened.

Various other mechanisms have been tried. I have no disagreement with the suggestion of a commissioner if it worked, but I don't know what this person is going to do. There are all kinds of people around here with moral authority, and that's exactly what we'd be giving this person. The guy or the woman wouldn't even have legislation, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act. If you have a commissioner, at least he has a tool to work with. But to say we're going to create another position but we're not going to give you the tools to bring about solutions, I don't know what you do with that.

I've finally come to the conclusion over these years that it is a political problem and it demands political solutions. I hesitate to do this, as you called me the alumni and you can't be coming to force people and dictate stuff, but I really think the major job of this committee is going to be to hold those ministers' feet to the fire. You have to be very strong. You have to say to these people, we know you may not be up to speed on these issues, or at least not up to the level of speed we would like you to be, but that's not an excuse any more. You know what the problems are. They've been identified. Everybody agrees on what are the problems, and now it's time you started doing something. If you don't do it next week, we'll have you back next month to tell us why you're not doing it.

That's my contribution. I hope it has been helpful. Thank you for having us.

The Chair: Thank you very much. It is hugely helpful.

As we look at women's issues, rural issues, urban issues, all of these things that seriously require a whole-of-government approach, we need to be much better at sorting out the horizontality or the length at which we look at every single issue. I think we in this committee want to try to make that happen. Perhaps we could use this committee as an example of how that can happen.

I think that when we did call the 12 ministers, it began to get some sort of consciousness raised. But, as you say, the feet need to stay to the fire. It can't be ghettoized off in one...

I think we've almost agreed that a secretary of state position is just not good enough, in the same way it hasn't been on other things. Without a budget, an ability to make legislation, and those kinds of things, you can't move it.

This involves four million Canadians at least, and growing. This has to have a whole-of-government approach. How do we use the disability file to get whole-of-government approaches to everything, as well as the federal-provincial layers of government?

We say that if we can do aboriginal children with disabilities right, we could show that we are actually getting government right, because it is all of these things that fall through the cracks. This committee, I think, is totally committed to try to find the ways to do this. I think, Neil, what you've said is really important, because I think the institutional memory... I don't think any of us realized that Serge had that job and how even that didn't really work in terms of the cross-pollination and the synergies it takes to move this.

• 2020

I think we've heard a lot this evening about the need for a government committed to public awareness on this, and employers, and that this isn't something... What wasn't said in regard to the public service is that we also have to be walking the talk in the public service. We're turning down people for pensions who we won't hire, so we have to, again, be the exemplary employer in terms of best practices on all of this so that we begin to seriously set an example.

So merci beaucoup. Paul Crête, you could do the benediction en français.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Let me say that it might be useful to promptly prepare a record of this meeting so that we can use it as a working instrument. You are very patient; you come back every year. But within a year, I think that it might be useful to make a report card on what we have succeeded in doing regarding this matter. I think that this is a highly relevant information update.

I might have a specific request regarding what Ms. Walters said about the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres. There seems to be a real problem in making money available promptly. Others might also have the same problem, but this case was clearly identified. Let me suggest that the committee chair intervene with the minister involved to settle the matter as soon as possible. I would be very happy to see that the independent living centre in Trois-Pistoles gets enough money to pay its personnel.

[English]

Ms. Traci Walters: I'm very excited, and I'm sure the group is here, that we have the history and the experience of Mr. Paul Crête and Wendy Lill, and I'm really excited to see Karen Redman here because I know her commitment at the local level and all she does. But I think it's very important for people to know what Carolyn does in her spare time.

One night she had the opportunity to have a night off, and do you know what she did? There was a flyer on her desk—no formal invitation—for her to go to a Christmas party at the independent living centre in Ottawa. So she went there. It was in the basement, with about 80 people with significant disabilities and barriers in their lives, very disenfranchised folks with no family. She came in, nobody knew who she was, and they didn't really care who she was either, but she had dinner with everybody and stayed there. And I thought, boy, she doesn't even take a night off.

I wanted people to know your commitment to this issue—to get down to the grassroots and meet with people. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Karen.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Gosh, I don't want to ruin this lovely feeling.

I have another comment, and I haven't read all of the recommendations. I actually didn't think I was going to be able to shoehorn this meeting in, so I apologize that I haven't done the reading I might have.

The comment I was trying to make earlier, and it may be reflected in the recommendations and it may not be, is I've always believed the government is not only what it chooses to do but how it chooses to do it. What I hear from my disabled community and from the people who come in who are trying to get services or access to government programming, is that we need to be more porous, I think, when we look at the disabled community. We need to look at a continuum and a variable, because, as I said in my comment earlier about putting us in boxes, I really object to labels, but I also object to the fact that there are these rigid criteria.

I was really pleased to hear Joan talk about our Human Resources people in the communities, because I know in Kitchener we have outstanding representation. But I think Neil's point is very well taken: the politicians set the legislation and the people in the community who work for us simply implement those policies. So they are political decisions, and I think we have to very much look at how we deliver those services for the disabled community, and at how the walls and the criteria could be more porous so that you can access it when you need it and retreat when you don't, and somehow by getting employment you haven't wrecked your chances of ever coming back.

I wanted to ask Frank specifically about students with learning disabilities. Do you have representation on regular student unions, for instance, at the University of Waterloo or WLU, for the disabled? Would there necessarily be somebody there who represented the disabled student body?

• 2025

Mr. Frank Smith: You're talking specifically about the University of Waterloo?

Mrs. Karen Redman: No, just anyone. I used that as an example.

Mr. Frank Smith: Currently there are about 60 campus groups of students with disabilities and accessibility committees on post-secondary campuses across Canada. Unfortunately, there are more accessibility committees than there are consumer-driven campus groups. But there are a number of schools, particularly large universities, that have active campus groups that are supported by their student unions in many cases.

One of the problems we find as an organization in trying to address the issues on a campus level is that students with disabilities often don't get very involved in student politics because they're too busy addressing the day-to-day issues relating to accommodations and the extra time it takes to complete their programs of study, the funding issues and all the barriers. That's why it's very difficult, within individual colleges and universities, to have many of our issues addressed, because we don't have enough advocates in student government who are taking an active role in moving these issues up to higher levels within university or college communities.

But increasingly there are students with disabilities getting involved with campus committees, setting up organizations, much in the same way that independent living centres have developed across the country, although it's not as large a network. We're trying to work with these organizations, but also work with national groups like the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and CAILC and other organizations, to address the issues of our members on a campus level and also on a national level.

The Chair: Bear with me as the chair. I went to the University of Toronto law school symposium on disabilities as a human rights issue. One of the presentations was a historical presentation on the history of disabilities, part of which, of course, dealt with the soldiers returning after the war and going to university and the University of Toronto. They told an amazing story of this building where they took their classes. The veterans had to be carried up and down the stairs in order to get them into their classrooms. Then they were changed to a better building, but then that building was changed to the music department, and within the first term an elevator was put in, in order to get the pianos up and down. It told a whole story about how we set our priorities and how some people don't matter as much as the stuff.

I want to say thank you to all these fantastic people who have come to put the human face on public policy. My hero, Jane Jacobs says that good public policy is only ever made when the policy-makers can see in their mind's eye the people affected. Hopefully, that's the proper role of Parliament.

Bill sent around a little note. Otherwise just mention to me if you are able to be here tomorrow morning.

I want to thank my staff, and Mike, and of course Bill Young and Julie Mackenzie, as always. Merci beaucoup. I think it's time we moved to the informal discussions. Thank you so much.