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]

Thursday, May 31, 2001

• 1149

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): Welcome.

Before I begin, we've just come from the Canadian Association for Community Living press conference with Dalton Camp on behalf of parents with children with disabilities, in terms of their response to the uneven court of public opinion on Latimer. I promised the people at the press conference that we would express our concern in terms of the clemency movement, and that I would bring you personally their wishes that the Government of Canada uphold the Supreme Court ruling.

So that is where we've come from. It's certainly not the views of the committee, but I promised the group that I would bring that message personally to you, mesdames le ministres.

Welcome, welcome, welcome to our tiny, perfect committee. We would love to hear what the departments are up to.

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues. It's a pleasure to be here.

I'd like to introduce, of course, someone who needs no introduction, Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Secretary of State, who will also be presenting with me today; Margaret Biggs, Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for nationally delivered programs in Human Resources Development Canada; and Deborah Tunis, whom I'm sure you're all familiar with, director of social policy development in our department.

• 1150

I would just begin by saying that I am happy to be here to give you an update on recent developments on the disability file, particularly recognizing that this is National Access Awareness Week, a timely opportunity to be here with the committee, Madam Chair.

Before going any further, I do want to convey, as I have before, my thanks to all the members of the committee and to you, Madam Chair. The subcommittee has a well-established record of providing thoughtful and constructive advice that I believe has assisted in moving the disability agenda forward. We think back to the 1980s with the Obstacles report, to the inclusion of equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the latest tax measures through which the Government of Canada provides direct benefits to persons with disabilities and their families.

I particularly want to applaud the committee for the groundbreaking work of the recent round tables you've hosted. I've just had the opportunity to speak with some from the audience today who had their own opportunity to present their cases, their personal experiences, and their recommendations for the committee's consideration and for inclusion in any subsequent reporting.

By bringing together stakeholders, academics, disability experts, as well as officials from a cross-section of federal departments, all of whom are committed to making significant progress, you're highlighting areas of common concern and issues of shared action.

[Translation]

These are complex and challenging issues. They require the cooperation and efforts of many players: governments, the private sector, the voluntary sector, community groups, families and persons with disabilities themselves.

[English]

We're guided in our actions by the Scott task force, which laid out a blueprint, and the In Unison framework, which identified building blocks. Both of these documents have furthered our understanding of the issues, but more importantly, they've served to develop a consensus on common objectives.

We're now at a point where together we must advance our vision of a more inclusive society, a society where more than 4 million Canadians with disabilities can share equally in the benefits of our country's high standard of living and quality of life. We want to ensure that Canadians with disabilities have the opportunities to learn, develop skills, and participate in the knowledge economy. As a caring and compassionate society, we want to ensure that persons with disabilities are not left behind, that they can participate in the community as fully as possible.

The full participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of public life is fundamentally about citizenship and social justice. Canadians with disabilities are among the poorest groups in Canada, and all too often are unable to contribute their skills and talents to the community and the economy. Even when they do find jobs, they're concentrated at the bottom of the income scale: 54% of working-age persons with disabilities earn less than $15,000 per year.

The situation for aboriginal people with disabilities is particularly acute, with almost twice the disability rate of the general population. The Secretary of State will expand on this particular aspect of Canadian reality in her remarks.

With 4.1 million Canadians with disabilities, we must help them create the opportunities to fully participate in our society and economy. We know that disability issues must be tackled on two fronts simultaneously. We need to take focused action with specific disability initiatives, but we also need to integrate disability considerations into all our priority agendas.

The Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's response during that debate noted several commitments specific to disability: to increase support for the development of new technologies and other strategies to assist Canadians with disabilities; and to work with the provinces and territories and other partners toward a comprehensive labour market strategy for persons with disabilities. At the same time, we need to ensure that disability issues are factored into the work we do on early childhood development, on innovation, and on skills and learning.

Given that this is a horizontal file that crosses departmental lines, we're also responding to your suggestions for coordination structures and an accountability framework. This includes reporting on federal programs and services for persons with disabilities and developing a lens to ensure that legislation, policy, and program development is inclusive. Departments are working together on the first comprehensive federal report, for release next winter.

[Translation]

Before talking too much about the future, I would like to take a moment and talk about what we have done to get us to this point. In 1996, First Ministers identified persons with disabilities as a collective priority for social policy renewal. Since then, work has progressed on a number of fronts.

• 1155

[English]

At the federal level, we've increased investments to support research and employability measures, as well as tax measures that provide direct assistance to persons with disabilities. Some examples include the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey in 2001; a sustained source of funding for the Opportunities Fund; and enhanced tax credits and deductions to provide direct benefits to persons with disabilities and their families.

At the federal-provincial-territorial level, we've worked together to identify issues, provide information, and support employability. For example, under our Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities program, we provide $193 million for cost-shared programs with provinces and territories to support employability. We have jointly published In Unison 2000, which builds on the In Unison 1988 framework, demonstrating the continued commitment of federal-provincial-territorial ministers to raise the profile of issues facing persons with disabilities.

We've also launched Disability WebLinks, an inclusive website that provides the first interactive source of information on programs and services in all jurisdictions across Canada. I hope that, together, governments, the disability community, and this parliamentary subcommittee, we are developing a consensus of the priority issues for action and what needs to be done.

As your round table has focused on disability supports, employment, and income, today I'd like to discuss two of those priority areas, particularly disability supports and employment.

The disability community has told us, confirmed by the subcommittee, that the highest priority for action is disability supports. We recognize that technical aids, devices, and human assistance make the crucial difference so that people can participate in everyday activities across life situations in learning and work, and in community life. We also recognize that many people are going without these disability supports. In In Unison 2000, we were told that 53% of working-age persons with disabilities report that they need more help in everyday activities, or receive no help at all.

I met two weeks ago in Halifax with social services ministers, and I'm convinced there's a strong consensus and readiness to take joint action in this area. I was delighted by the degree of commitment and sense of momentum at that meeting. Social services ministers are already sponsoring joint work on a feasibility study of a disability supports tax benefit, due this fall, but my provincial and territorial colleagues and I have made it clear that we want to move beyond studying, to establishing an action plan. We've instructed our officials to develop policy options in the coming months so that we can take real and concrete decisions.

The other critical area where we are focusing our attention is employment. Having a job can be pivotal to independence, improved income, and a higher quality of life. But Canadians with disabilities have not fared well in the labour market. Only 42% of persons with disabilities are in the labour force, roughly half the rate for persons without disabilities. They also experience unemployment rates that are almost double those for persons without disabilities—15% in 1995 compared with 9% for those without disabilities.

In many cases, low-cost workplace and job accommodations are not available to them that would facilitate their inclusion in the workplace. The Government of Canada has made a strong commitment to work together with the provinces and territories and other partners to address these issues. Ministers responsible for social services have tasked officials with the development of a labour market needs analysis for persons with disabilities. Work is under way, and representatives of the disability community are providing input to this process.

[Translation]

As our work continues, we welcome your views as well. We expect that this work will lay the foundation for further policy development work in this area as we move towards our common objective of improving the employment situation for persons with disabilities.

[English]

There's also growing awareness that in today's world, inclusion means ensuring access to education and the opportunity for ongoing learning throughout people's lifetimes. The 21st century global economy is a knowledge-based economy that needs workers who can raise their level of skills to keep pace with change. This means it's a people-centred economy that depends as never before on individual skills. It's people and their knowledge that lead to innovation.

People who have more skills generally have better access to jobs. They enjoy a higher standard of living, a greater sense of dignity, and achievement in their work. Therein lies the challenge in Canada. According to our census data, people with disabilities are more likely to have lower education levels, are more likely to stop their education after the primary level, and are less likely to attend university. This is cause for national concern.

• 1200

For example, 46% of women with a disability have not completed high school as compared with 26% of women in the general population. Furthermore, the Government of Canada understands that, in addition to inclusive employment and inclusive communities, a barrier-free world must include equitable access to education and training. Skills and knowledge are an important element of inclusion and equality.

I've been consulting with Canadians, including those with disabilities, through a series of national round tables about how best to design a national skills and learning agenda that will ensure the full inclusion of all citizens. I recognize, however, that people with disabilities face special barriers.

We are committed to action. As the Speech from the Throne stated:

The Government of Canada will work with the provinces and territories and other partners toward a comprehensive labour-market strategy for persons with disabilities.

Madam Chair, we all share a common goal—the full inclusion of persons with disabilities. Many individuals and organizations have contributed to important efforts to identify the issues and assess where we can make progress. We each have distinct responsibilities and unique contributions to make.

This subcommittee has demonstrated the valuable part it can play by bringing all the partners together to work toward common goals. I'll look to your committee for continuing guidance on the horizontal management of this initiative and our overall progress. I think we can all agree that we have reached the point where we're ready to act in meaningful and effective ways. The disability community has emphasized the importance of disability supports and employment.

[Translation]

I am confident that our commitments, in the Speech from the Throne and in our federal-provincial-territorial work, will enable us to make meaningful progress on these and other disability priorities.

[English]

I look forward to hearing the experiences of other nations in creating a truly barrier-free world at the international Inclusion by Design—World Congress, being held in Montreal tomorrow. Finally, as we continue to move the disability agenda forward, I'm optimistic the 21st century will see a more inclusive society in Canada, a society that cherishes the contributions of all its citizens and challenges us all to live and work to our greatest potential.

Thank you for giving me time to make these comments. I would ask the Secretary of State to add additional information.

Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and Youth)): Thank you, Minister.

I want to thank the chair for the opportunity to discuss disability issues, with an accent on the needs of aboriginal people with disabilities and, of course, a deep and abiding concern for children and youth with special needs.

I want to thank Minister Stewart for her presentation and for the perspective that was given to the committee. I too would like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee members for their dedication to the disability issue.

Looking back over the years, I have a sense that we have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the disability issue in this country and that we are beginning to establish the political infrastructure, with provinces and territories and aboriginal organizations, that will allow us to move ahead with some tangible progress. Certainly some important steps in consensus-building on disability issues have occurred, including a key focus on issues for aboriginal people with disabilities. The federal-provincial-territorial report, In Unison 2000, is a recent example.

Because we are reaching out across the country to aboriginal people with disabilities on isolated reserves or in the inner city, it is an immense challenge. It means working through aboriginal and Métis communities to assist disabled persons who may or may not have status. It invariably involves the provinces and territories, and it means working through a range of federal departments.

Madam Chair, what aboriginal people with disabilities are really asking for is the opportunity to create their own solutions in a culturally sensitive manner that respects the family and the community.

• 1205

Minister Stewart has touched on the gravity of the problem. The overall disability rate in the aboriginal community is twice the rate for the general population. Within the young adult population, 15 to 34, the rate of disability, at 23%, is three times that of their equivalent, which is a tremendous barrier for a group with so much potential.

The higher rates of disability are often linked to socio-economic conditions that can contribute to a greater risk of injury, diabetes, fetal alcohol syndrome, and so on. Compound this with isolated situations on reserve, where no infrastructure is in place to offer support to a disabled person or the family, or in isolated communities. The alternative can mean transfers to the city, where a child or an adult can feel culturally alienated and alone.

There are complex and challenging problems, but in the Speech from the Throne the government has expressed its commitment to tackling the pressing problems facing aboriginal people. For example, the government has committed to work with partners to improve and expand early childhood development programs for aboriginal children, to help those with special needs, and to reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome within the next decade.

Such initiatives are highly relevant to disability issues for the aboriginal community. I look forward to continued input to the Government of Canada's work on disability through the Aboriginal Reference Group on Disabilities Issues and the FPT Aboriginal Technical Working Group. Together, along with the work of this subcommittee, I am hopeful we are moving towards concrete change for aboriginal people with disabilities. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go to questions, starting with Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to thank both Ministers for their kind words for the Committee. As I am not a regular member of this Committee, I am in a good position to say that it works very well and very hard indeed.

Throughout all our hearings in the past weeks, when we heard from various groups, we were clearly told that there is not enough money to help people with disabilities. You may have the best plans in the world, but if you do not have adequate funding to implement them...

During one of those round table discussions, we were told among other things that people would like money to be transferred to the provinces so that they would set up programs which would complement the existing ones. There is some funding already.

Does the government intend to make more funding available and to give the funds to the provinces? Basically, the ongoing responsibility for people with disabilities rests mostly with the provinces.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Crête.

Indeed, the issue of support, whether it be for income or services, is one that challenges us in this area as well as many other areas. The Government of Canada invests about $7 billion a year in supporting Canadians with disabilities through different avenues, whether it be the Canada Pension Plan Disability, transfers to and support for the provinces through EAPD, the $30 million a year that's there for the Opportunities Fund, or associated uses by Canadians with disabilities of labour market funds that have been transferred, by and large, to the provinces.

But there is indeed more that we can do. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the one area where Canadians with disabilities say we really have to turn our attention to is the area of disability supports. As I noted, we are now waiting for a report to be completed by the Caledon Institute. Sherri Torjman, someone who is well known to this committee, is doing an assessment of the best strategies in the context of tax measures. I'm going to be interested in the work and the reporting from the subcommittee on that. The ministers of social services are extremely anxious to bring focus to the question of disability supports.

I must say, I was quite frankly thrilled by the tenor of the discussions around the federal-provincial-territorial table last week in Halifax. The meeting prior to this meeting was more of a disappointment when it came to issues facing Canadians with disabilities, with many provinces not wanting to—quote—“raise expectations”. That was the tone of the meeting.

This meeting was quite different, and there's an increased energy around finding the right strategies to support Canadians with disabilities, particularly getting the services they need to engage in more education or in social participation or economically.

• 1210

I'm hopeful that our officials are going to bring forward some concrete recommendations in the fall for us to make decisions on. That, of course, will increase the investments, whether they be through tax measures or other measures.

Additionally, as we look at the work we're going to do on the labour market side of our joint work plan, I would expect that we will thoroughly assess the investments we have been making, look at their results and practicality, and find appropriate ways of continuing to build assistance. At this point, those are the priority areas that I think are reflective of the immediate needs of community members.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Minister, I find that figure of $7 million a year quite interesting. Last year, the federal government paid off $15 billion of its debt. It paid out $15 billion on one side and $7 million on the other. We were told that the approach was to be balanced. If we had used half the additional surplus to repay the debt, we could have kept $7 billion for other things.

If we really want to take meaningful steps for people with disabilities, would it not be proper for the government to make a clear commitment and undertake to make this one of its priorities and to assign a reasonable and significant share of whatever additional surpluses it may have to the needs of people with disabilities?

I find it almost immoral that we did not have a debate on how to use that $15 billion, because people have been telling us that the basic issue, the heart of the problem, is money.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: I would make a number of points. First and foremost, I think there is agreement that paying down the debt is an appropriate thing to do. With the almost $35 billion that's been paid down the last few years, the Government of Canada, the people of Canada, have an additional $2 billion that isn't going to interest to use precisely for developing new strategies, policies, and services on behalf of Canadians.

I've looked, too, to the considerable new investments that have been made in the recent past, not the least of which is the huge increment to the Canada health and social transfer, the over $20 billion that has been allocated to the provinces for consideration and investment in a number of priority areas, which can include Canadians with disabilities, and the additional $2.2 billion that was identified in new moneys for the early childhood development agreement.

Again, those are moneys from the Government of Canada, going to the provinces, for them to make decisions about and investments in our children, including Canadian children with disabilities. So I think there has been a balance, Mr. Crête.

That said, I think another thing that is important for us and that is going to be useful are the data that are going to be available to us as a result of the PALS post-censal assessment. One of the things that comes up time and time again in our discussions with stakeholder groups is that we don't have good information. We know there are 4.1 million Canadians with disabilities, but we don't have a good profile of who these citizens are.

With that information, and then I hope a more structured framework for investment, as we've been able to do with the health accord and with early childhood development, I would see a continuously sustainable strategy for investment that will be useful. And that will all come out of, as I say, the original work—from the Obstacles report to Andy Scott's task force, which some of you were part of, and the continuing work of the standing committee—to help inform appropriate investments and then measure the results of those investments.

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I want to thank all of you for coming to see us today. It's a pleasure to hear you.

We've been very privileged to hear many groups who've come before us in the last month or so, basically helping us to focus on the issues that we need to be approaching in this Parliament. Income support for persons with disabilities is very high on the list, along with disability support.

But the fact is, persons with disabilities are living with income that is substandard, below the poverty level. One of the first acts of the 36th Parliament was to make it more difficult to get Canada pension disability payments. Eligibility rules were tightened up. It really has become a nightmare, which every single MP will attest to. Every office, almost 60% of the time, is dealing with trying to put people who are incredibly challenged, with many disabilities, into a system that somehow will not recognize their disabilities.

• 1215

You know, this government has made it harder for persons with disabilities to get income support. My question is, will you be revisiting those restrictions? We're a couple of years down the line from that legislation. Will you revisit CPPD? Will you revisit the regulations and try to make it easier for persons with disabilities to get adequate income support?

Ms. Jane Stewart: There are number of things I'd respond to here, Ms. Lill. First and foremost, the Canada Pension Plan is under review. There are triennial reviews. In fact, this is the year of the review, and the review started in January. So a number of aspects of that program will be considered.

I think another question we have to ask ourselves is, what are the right pieces of the puzzle? We hear continuously about a complex matrix of supporting frameworks for income, whether it be CPPD or whether it be the provincial social assistance strategies. An issue that comes up time and time again is the amount of restrictions programs can place on individuals. There isn't a flexibility to take with them the services and supports that perhaps go along with certain programs. These are areas that the federal-provincial-territorial table is trying to deal with.

I think one of the initial first good things that we've done is the Disability WebLinks site, where all the sources of information across governments are now provided in one place for Canadians with disabilities and others to access.

Too, when we look at the CPPD and what it's there for, it fundamentally is there for citizens who will not be able to work. That's the defining boundary around that. In that context, I think we do have to recognize that there are certain citizens who are not going to be, at least as we understand it today, able to be gainfully employed, but we would have said that there would have been far more of them even 20 years ago. Technology, our understanding and point of view, and the context of citizenship.... I think that overarching focus that has been brought to the discussion by so many stakeholder groups is an important one.

So our area of consideration now, and I think it's the right one, is on the supports that will allow citizens to engage more fully at the community level or in employment and employability, looking at the employability structures and the landscape and identifying if there are things we can do that are more productive.

We have been, as you know, looking at CPPD and recognizing that there needs to be some flexibility with that program to allow recipients some flexibility to test themselves in the workforce, not to fear trying, not to have some maze of bureaucracy that will stop them from supporting themselves. So there are things that are being undertaken.

I think we really have to look at it in terms of individuals and their needs, recognizing that, by and large, more and more Canadians with disabilities can do, and want to participate, not in passive ways, or not solely through passive income support, but with support that allows them to augment their earnings and capacities in society.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, I'm glad to hear that CPP is being looked at and that this area is going to be under review this year. We offer our expertise in any way we can, as the subcommittee on disabilities, to help you with that.

Certainly we agree that the whole idea, that the CPP is there to help people who can't work, is not always what people with a disability want. It shouldn't simply be that they're either working or they're not. Thousands of persons with disabilities are working, and are able to work, and they need certain amounts of assistance for other parts of their life.

• 1220

I want to ask you one other question. As our role as a watchdog on issues, and your role as the lead minister for persons with disabilities, it has been brought to our attention by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities that they are extremely concerned that VIA Rail has bought some very inaccessible rolling stock. They were promised by Minister Collenette that they were looking at buying some new, very exciting, and accessible rolling stock for our rails, but instead it looks like the opposite has happened. It looks as though we've moved backwards in terms of the specifications of this rolling stock. It was built for the Chunnel between England and France. The corridors are 18 inches wide, not big enough for wheelchairs. It's astounding the kinds of choices that seem to have been made that are really going backwards. VIA seems to be churlish about it. They seem to be taking the disability advocates to court.

All of the wrong things are happening here. Quite frankly, we are very concerned about this, as a committee, and want to know if there's any way you can get this back on the rails—

Ms. Jane Stewart: No pun intended? Or every pun intended.

Ms. Wendy Lill: —no pun intended—or intervene with the Minister of Transport on this issue.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Interestingly enough, I met with Mr. Knox yesterday, and he raised this very issue, amongst other things, as he'd done with you at the committee. I committed to talking with the Minister of Transport, and I anticipate that the committee will also include that in its report.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Minister, you've talked about tax measures, tax incentives, tax credits, etc. That's fine if you have an income to apply it against. We have the Opportunities Fund, which assists people to obtain employment, but sometimes they have difficulty maintaining that employment and need assistance to continue to do so.

Are there any thoughts of extending programs, such as the Opportunities Fund, to assist those who lose jobs? If they've lost their jobs often they don't quality for EI because they haven't put enough hours in. Is there any thought of extending the Opportunities Fund to cover a larger area?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I'm not sure what the right tool will be, but certainly we'll be interested to see the recommendations that come forward in the framework paper being done by the Caledon Institute on the value and use of the tax system in support of Canadians with disabilities, for income, in the context of negative income tax, that sort of thing. We recognize that to benefit from certain tax measures there has to be income. There are other suggestions out there—for instance, instead of using non-refundable tax credits, making them refundable. A different number of strategies are going to be recommended in that context.

Beyond that, though, are some other strategies that we might want to be thinking about, and in fact are thinking about. At the table of social services ministers, conversation led to looking at the national child benefit, for example, and the relationship the Government of Canada has with the provinces in helping to bring down the welfare wall, providing income support for the provinces, who then can increase their investment in services. It led to looking at the early childhood development model, where the Government of Canada provides new funds and the provinces and territories, under an accepted and agreed-upon regime of investment, can increase the number of services and supports.

We're looking at a number of different things, focused primarily on providing a platform for Canadians with disabilities so that they have the supports they need to move into issues and areas of employability, where they can.

So I think there are a number of different possibilities on this, Mr. Maloney, and our commitment is to look at different tools and measures and try to understand them in the context of their impact on individuals.

Mr. John Maloney: In the Speech from the Throne as well as in In Unison 2000, reference was made to a strategic labour market strategy. We seem to be spinning our wheels on it. Do we have any time targets as to when you think this may be implemented? Where do we stand? What is the status?

Ms. Jane Stewart: In fact this was a significant topic of discussion with social services ministers. For our next fall meeting we've asked officials to come back to us with an assessment of our current programs and strategies—federal, provincial, and territorial—to look at where the meshing is, to look at where the “missings” are, in terms of a comprehensive framework of support for Canadians with disabilities who can and want to be part of the labour market.

• 1225

So work is being done across jurisdictions, and hopefully we'll have results to make decisions against at our fall meeting.

Mr. John Maloney: When a person applies for a Canada pension disability, the criteria for approval are such that the main evidence is the physician's medical statement as to whether it hits the criteria, whether it's a long-term disability or not, really the two areas.

Often the people who come in, I find, have been refused at first blush. You can't understand why, because they're obviously disabled, and you read the medical reports, and yet the physician really hasn't addressed those. Is there any thought, perhaps in the application, to giving physicians direction, to asking, for instance, whether the individual meets this test?

I don't know whether they're not familiar with these forms or just don't have the time to really do it. They have a nice long form but they don't seem to zero in on those two areas.

Ms. Jane Stewart: On the real questions.

Mr. John Maloney: I think more direction might mean a lot less appeals, therefore saving you a lot in costs and less aggravation to the applicants as well.

Ms. Jane Stewart: This is an interesting suggestion. The committee might like to look at this a little further. I would just hearken back to my own experience, when I was Minister of Revenue, focusing on the disability tax credit. We found exactly the same issue. We worked closely with the disability community to say, okay, let's get a tool in place so that the doctors can be more effective in providing information that's useful in determining eligibility for the DTC. The same kind of thing might be helpful for us in the case of CCPD.

And there's a message here that says we're putting out a new physician's guide this summer!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Maloney: You're way ahead of me.

Ms. Jane Stewart: We'd better make that available to the committee so that you can take a look at it.

But I would agree with you, the more effective we can be in getting the information that's required by the....

Mr. John Maloney: Even on the disability tax credit form you have, there's a pretty comprehensive checklist. Often an applicant perhaps can meet the criteria, but because of the time it takes the applicant to do it, an employer would really look askance at this and say “I can't really afford to hire somebody who takes that long to do this”, or else “Yes, they can perhaps walk a certain distance, but how long does it take them to get there?”

I think the guidelines are good, but in any individual case, a person may be able to qualify, yes, but in reality—

Ms. Jane Stewart: The opportunities they're eligible for?

Mr. John Maloney: They're still prohibitive.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Again, the idea generally governing decisions of CCPD would be whether an individual is capable of work, not necessarily only the job they had prior to a disability or.... But the assessments are made against the requirements of the act, and the professionals selected to sit on the board respond directly, by and large, to the direction of the act.

That said, in terms of timeframes, my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Migus, was here. He spent quite a bit of time with the committee and talked to you a little bit about the undertakings we're putting into place, I think to make the system more humane. One of the things...you know, sharing the minister's dossier on individuals so that individuals know what our concerns or views are before they come to an appeal, talking with individuals directly and personally, as they are in this process, as opposed to just communicating through paper.

• 1230

We're trying to get some strategies that make the process more human and usable, and I think that will be of benefit to members of Parliament, whom, as Mr. Crête points out, probably see their constituency work—mine included—as being significantly reflective of questions with regard to the Canada Pension Plan, particularly CPPD.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I have just a couple of questions. As you know, the Auditor General thought this committee was helpful in some way in terms of dealing with the horizontality of the file. Obviously, one of the things we have concerns about is how, in the silos of government, is the bureaucracy organizing itself to deal with horizontal issues?

You know, we had thought there was a committee of assistant deputy ministers that was supposed to look at these things. I think when we called all the ministers in the last Parliament, some ministers seemed to think this was their file, some didn't seem to be all that interested, some knew what was going on in other departments, and some didn't. Obviously, within government that is the function, quite often, of the bureaucracy, to be connecting all the time.

Whether you look at a VIA Rail situation, at a disability lens, or at a crown corporation, how do we in government talk to one another and make a disability lens effective? I guess I want to know, does that handy little committee of assistant deputy ministers actually meet? Who shows up? Who doesn't show up? And is there anything the committee could do to be—

Ms. Jane Stewart: Helpful?

The Chair: Could we be asking for reports on the meetings that take place and on where you're having trouble in terms of applying the disability lens in a whole-of-government approach?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Two things. First, I'm going to let Margaret Biggs, who actually chairs the—

Ms. Margaret Biggs (Assistant Deputy Minister, Nationally Delivered Programs Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Handy little committee.

Ms. Jane Stewart: —yes—talk to you firsthand about her experience.

Before I do that, I would just comment personally and say that probably one of the most effective and useful tools in managing the horizontality of this issue is this committee. When this committee chose to invite every minister to testify, it put the fear of God into many of them. So I would say the role of this committee in that regard is extremely important and very useful.

And I would encourage you to do that. There's nothing more useful than calling individual ministers and having them respond to your questions. It is probably the most effective. I know there are conversations as to whether there should be a commissioner for the disabled. There are pros and cons to that, but from my point of view, the most effective tool sits right here around this table—parliamentarians who are challenging ministers on this file, on any file, on a regular basis, ensuring a continuity of issue, discussion, and response.

I can tell you—Ethel, you were here, too—that was a most effective undertaking. In my experience as a minister, in terms of holding government's feet to the fire, in terms of moving the agenda, parliamentarians are very effective at doing that. And a committee like this is perhaps more effective than a commissioner, who can be kept, to an extent, more at arm's length.

But that's a personal point of view.

Margaret, perhaps you'd like to comment on the work you're doing in chairing the interdepartmental committee.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: Thank you, Minister.

There is an ADM steering committee for the 25 departments that are brought into the circle around disability issues. I do chair it. We meet three or four times a year. As a steering committee, we're trying to look at advancing the disability agenda in a number of key areas, again, now taking our guide from the Speech from the Throne.

Under the ADM steering committee there are about five or six working groups, which work at the director general and director levels across departments, in the areas of aboriginal issues, technology, supports, employment, and a very key one around accountability.

• 1235

I think that's probably one of the main deliverables for this interdepartmental effort, the work we're doing to try to pull together a federal report on disability where all departments' efforts will be pooled. Hopefully we'll have something drafted by the winter of next year.

So I think in all horizontal issues, individual ministers and departments are accountable in their own areas, but then we do have this pooled effort. We do feel that we're stronger and there is a great deal of momentum across the government system on disability issues. There's been significant interest from Industry Canada, from Indian Affairs and Northern Development, from Veterans Affairs, etc.

So I think we're working well together.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I just think we should thank Deborah Tunis for all the work she does in terms of interfacing with the committee and the work she's doing on the accountability file, which makes us all sleep at night more comfortably.

On accountability, there's $2.2 billion there in the early childhood development initiative. We know there's an agreement on report-carding that. What can we do, or what can the stakeholders do, to make sure that children with disabilities are included in whatever report card would be on early childhood development, the availability of infant stimulation programs, the availability of assessment on fetal alcohol syndrome and effects? How do we make sure that the report cards actually include a disability lens when it comes time to report on early childhood development money needs? It cannot just be on kids who are lucky enough to not have some special needs.

Ms. Jane Stewart: I would comment on a number of things. First, we're currently working with the provinces. As you'll know, in the context of that agreement, by September of this year we have to have in place the baseline investments that have been made, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, in key areas. So the information will be there in terms of current investments.

For September of the following year, we want to have agreement on measurable outcomes and the areas in which we want to measure outcomes. I think it would be helpful if, in the work of the committee and its report, there's a recommendation that we see outcomes for Canadians with disabilities, for children with disabilities. If you have some suggested measures, I would like to see them.

With regard to stakeholder groups, it's pretty clear at this point that now we have a structure in place where the Government of Canada identifies moneys, conveys them to the provinces through the CHST, and the provinces have to make their investments against the four priority areas. So conversations at the provincial level in terms of how that money is invested—creating new services, adding to services—are done at that level.

So the clarity now, in terms of the system, I think, is helpful. Because if stakeholder groups say “It's time for more money”, yes, you can come and talk to us, or another province as well, but talk to the federal government. If it's about specific investment strategies, go to the provinces. In effect, don't waste your time with me, because I don't have control over those services. The decisions are made at the provincial and territorial levels. So go to those jurisdictions.

We've tried to clarify this so that stakeholders can use their time wisely and effectively and bring their positions to the right level of government and understand clearly the different areas of jurisdiction.

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'd like to ask you a question that has come to us time and time again from advocacy groups such as CCD, CAILC, CCRW, and CNIB, and that's around the issue of their funding. You know, I don't envy the history of the last year for your department, which has been involved in enormous gridlock around controversial grants, employment grants. You've been under great scrutiny.

I think one of the side effects has been just that, a gridlock, and an inability for groups that are just working away in a very solid, productive fashion to get their grants on time, or else they're overwhelmed by paperwork. They have said time and time again that they've had to lay people off because they've not been able to continue programs that have been obvious successes in the area of supporting persons with disabilities.

• 1240

This issue is, can we make sure that advocacy organizations on behalf of persons with disabilities are not caught in the crossfire around departmental review? Another issue they raised is changing their annual funding cycle so that it helps them to better plan and deliver their services. Could we see that looked at closely?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I think we will find, absolutely, in the near future a better and more streamlined relationship with our partnering organizations.

In the context of grants and contributions, I need to make a couple of points. My department alone partners with 46,000 individual organizations, not-for-profit and others. I believe that's the right thing to do. I absolutely believe that partnering and entering into contractual relationships with community based groups to deliver our investments is the right strategy for the 21st century.

Where we don't have a good process, though, Madam Lill, is in our accountability regimes. That's where we're finding...and call it gridlock if you want, but I don't think it's that serious. It is a challenge for us to build this new accountability regime, and it's temporary. I'm convinced that we will build a system of modern controllership that supports our fundamental and principal belief that partnering and contracting with organizations is the right thing to do. So I'm convinced that's going to fix itself and sustain us into the longer term.

With particular reference to year-over-year funding and new strategies there, you'll be aware of the voluntary sector initiative that is under way now. One of the areas of principal focus is exactly the question of financing. There's a sense that rather than talk about core funding, the way we used to, we should be thinking about strategic investments and planning, because there are so many organizations we ask to help us do the work of government, to give us advice on such undertakings as the skills agenda or whatever. Where there are strategic requirements that we place on organizations like this, we have to recognize the impact it has on their capacity, and fund that in an effective way.

So that discussion is going on now in the context of the broader voluntary sector initiative. I'm hopeful that this issue of funding and financing is going to resolve itself in the near term, and in a very positive fashion. We're going to develop a system of controllership based on the commitment to working together, and one that recognizes, in the importance of the voluntary sector, the appropriateness of longer-term funding for strategic contributions made for the betterment of the constituents that an organization represents and for broader public policy development.

So, yes, I think we find ourselves in a transitory place, but also I think we understand the issues, which is very important, and are moving to implement strategies to deal with these issues. There will be a period, as there always is with change, of getting it right and working out the details, but it is a priority for my department.

The Chair: We just want to know how long that transitory time is.

Ms. Jane Stewart: I think we're starting to see ourselves through the window. But again, I need you to understand, it's a fulcrum thing, and getting it right is critically important. It is about a long-term relationship, and it's something fundamentally different. It's a new way of governing, if you will, if you want to look at it in its biggest context. We have to get the nuts and bolts right. And we didn't have it right. We're making the transition, and maybe move faster in some areas than in other areas, like getting a service delivery model in place but without the appropriate controllership structures.

I recognize the difficulty, and we're trying to respond to that as best as we can. We do want to move forward as quickly as possible. I'll tell you, though, getting the system in place and getting it done correctly the first go-round is going to be important, and it is a priority.

The Chair: If Wendy wouldn't mind, just adding to what she said, we heard from many organizations that...and the controllership obviously was what ended up in the paper.

• 1245

Ms. Jane Stewart: I wish it was the controllership that ended up in the paper. What ended up in the paper was the myth, rather, that it was money that was—

The Chair: Missing.

Ms. Jane Stewart: —yes, missing, and poorly spent. That's what was disappointing.

The Chair: I guess in terms of how much we count on those organizations to be able to deliver the programs in such a way that they have confidence that they can proceed, and aren't, on an annual basis, spending all their time filling out forms to get next year's money.... I think that's the theme Wendy's referring to.

At the same time, obviously there is a responsibility in terms of the clearing house coordinating role of sharing best practices, as we do with employment, sharing best practices in terms of getting adaptability or all of those things in employment.

What we heard yesterday in the family-to-family supports was that there may be some best practices that could be shared, that were also part of not managing, perhaps, but coordinating, facilitating, and optimizing the good ideas that are around. I guess that's sort of what we hope as we move through this, that this would be examined, while we're in transition, moving to the better way.

Wendy, is that what you...?

Ms. Wendy Lill: You know, time is of the essence, because many groups really are closing down programs. It's faint comfort to know that there is a process afoot to change the structure. It's not enough for them.

I guess we would like to know, is there some sort of emergency short-term system in place that will allow them to continue on as a transition is taking place?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I guess what I'd say is that we work very closely, as you know, with all the organizations, whether it's Margaret, or more likely Deborah, who's connecting with different organizations on a regular basis. If we find there's an absolute...well, we do find ways and means to work our way through it.

Go ahead, Margaret.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: I'll add just a few thoughts.

Many members of the voluntary sector have been in town yesterday and today as part of the voluntary sector initiative. The minister met with the senior members of the sector yesterday morning. I met with them through the day. Yesterday we had a meeting of the ADM executive committee on the voluntary sector initiative and the senior members who are steering the voluntary sector initiative.

This was, of course, one of their main items of concern, and all the departments represented are aware of this. We did undertake to do exactly what you mentioned—that is, while we're getting an agreed approach to more streamlined and appropriate funding practices in place, hopefully by the fall, we would have a way to put out an alert on any groups that might be at risk because things are caught in the pipeline. That undertaking was made by the government officials to make sure that nothing falls off the rails while we're getting the new measures in place.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney, last question.

Mr. John Maloney: I'd like to address a question to both ministers, perhaps.

Secretary of State Blondin-Andrew has painted a rather bleak picture of our aboriginal situation, with the lack of support infrastructure in remote areas and the alternative of going to perhaps larger urban centres, and the cultural and personal alienation this entails.

Could you perhaps elaborate on what in fact is being done to address that problem and what in your opinion could be done? Or what's not being done, and what could we do more of?

Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Thank you very much for your question.

The Department of Human Resources Development spends $3 million a year on integration into the labour market for persons with disabilities in the aboriginal community, and expends other moneys as well through the supporting organizations. To their credit, many of them venture into the more remote, most bleak situations.

For instance, the Association for Community Living is one that goes into the northern and remote parts of Canada to provide services that perhaps would be unreachable for governments to achieve. Their front-line community workers go right in and engage at that level. I'm not saying that government doesn't have anything to offer, but they do it best.

• 1250

We provide support for those organizations, but clearly there are gaps. You indicated earlier that tax benefits work only if you have a level of income that makes those credits accessible. The same would go for integration into the labour market, which would happen only if you have an economic situation that allows that to happen.

So poverty is a problem that basically befalls many of the persons with disabilities in the aboriginal community. The Office of Disability Issues is doing some survey research on the gaps that currently exist. In terms of services, I think that is going to be one of the pieces that really helps to bring together a lot of what is needed and what perhaps is not being currently addressed.

That said, within In Unison there are a number of groups, the reference group and the other group I spoke about, that work in engagement with other groups as well at the community level. We've had in Saskatchewan an initiative called the Clearing House, and it's served a very useful purpose, but they're time limited. We've had the B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, BCANDS. We've had that initiative and we have other groups across the country that also undertake work on behalf of their communities.

But those fundings are time limited as well. I think once we have completed the work on just exactly what the gaps are, that's going to help us significantly.

As to the issue of resources, well, we figure that we've dealt with, in some cases, accessibility and supports. Then we come up with a brand new dimension, a huge problem with FAS/FAE. Its incidence level was just unanticipated, and it's looming. So we have another major challenge that confronts both the government and the community. We go from one challenge to another.

What can be done? I think if anything is going to happen it has to happen in partnership with the aboriginal community. The programs we run, through aboriginal human resources development, are direct agreements, 79 agreements with the aboriginal communities, with disability components. That doesn't address all of the issues, but it's a very good start in terms of the fact that it's with the communities and their leadership.

I don't know if that answers all of your questions, but that certainly speaks to a lot of the challenges the communities are facing and what we're trying to do.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank both ministers. The collaborative effort in these sorts of chats, the two-way conversation about what's on our mind, what's on your mind, are really helpful, I think, and in some ways the more the better. We are just grateful that you've always been willing to come and talk to us.

We obviously have a big shopping list of things that we sometimes don't get to—family-friendly workplaces; workplaces for persons with disabilities; SUFA; and the transparency in outcomes piece, where we want to know what's happening in terms of that evaluation. I think as Mr. Maloney said, this whole thing around CPPD is really looming large. Could we be developing tools? Could we be working with stakeholders?

I know the MS Society and a whole bunch of people think we could be doing this better, in partial terms and in terms of all of those things. I hope we will be working together on these things that really do affect the quality of life of really all Canadians.

Thank you so much for your willingness to come today and for your honesty, as always.

Ms. Jane Stewart: I'd like to thank the committee for its work.

The Chair: Adjourned.