HUMA Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 2, 1999

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Okay, colleagues, we'll begin.

I'd like to welcome you all to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We went to some trouble to get this meeting on television in order to give some profile to the issues we're dealing with. I want to point out to you that although by that entrance this room is not accessible, it is in fact accessible by the door behind me, and security at the main door and various other points have been advised of that. So we are in fact in an accessible room. That's very important, but as I think we all agreed, it was also important that we should be on television, and we're in this room because this is where we're able to be on TV with these issues. That's one.

• 1110

Secondly, I would like to say something to our members, and I would ask the forgiveness of our witnesses for a moment. At the present time we don't have a meeting next Tuesday. It's my view that we should not. A week today we will be meeting with the minister. I would suggest that our Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk be able to take our time spot on Tuesday. I think there will be a good deal of interest in their meeting. I would certainly suggest that as many of our members as possible attend that meeting.

Because they likely will meet from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., the clerk advises me, in a round-table format, they have asked that they be able to provide lunch. As you all know, but as our viewers may not know, we need a motion to that effect. So I would like somebody to move that the committee authorize the chair of the Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk to take the appropriate measures to provide lunch for working purposes—this suggests, I think, that he will go and prepare it—for its round table scheduled for December 7, 1999, and that the cost of this lunch be charged to the budget of the main committee.

So moved by Carolyn Bennett.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I would repeat, although it's not a meeting of the regular committee, this is an important round table of one of our two subcommittees, and I would urge members to consider attending that round table.

I've mentioned already that a week today we'll be meeting with the minister. People know of that.

I'd also mention that, as I think you know, one of our colleagues, Bonnie Brown, who is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, her husband died recently. I know colleagues have written and corresponded with her individually, but I would like to suggest that the committee send a token, perhaps some flowers, to Bonnie. Again, procedurally I need a motion to that effect.

So moved by Larry McCormick.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On your behalf, I would express our regrets to Bonnie. As we all know, she's had a very, very difficult time for the last year or so.

Our principal item of business today is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a status report on the report Reflecting Interdependence: Disability, Parliament, Government and the Community. This is one of the important reports produced by a subcommittee of this committee. We've received the official response. I think we all have a copy of it.

We are pleased to have, representing the department, Susan Scotti, associate assistant deputy minister, human resources and investment branch; Victor Rabinovitch, assistant deputy minister, income securities program; Phil Jensen, director general, social policy; and Mary Glen, director general, social development directorate.

We welcome you all here. We are in your hands for the time being. I would assume you have a presentation of some sort. Would you please proceed?

Ms. Susan Scotti (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Good morning, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We very much appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

You've named the colleagues who are with me at the table. I'd just like to mention a few of our other officials who are in the room, and we can provide the exact titles to the recorder afterwards. We have Eva Berringer, Lula Fairfield, David Cogliati, Nancy Lawand, and Doug Taylor along with us this morning to help provide some additional technical information if it's necessary.

The Chair: Susan, we welcome all your colleagues as well.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for coming.

[Translation]

Ms. Susan Scotti: The Minister of Human Resources Development, the Honourable Jane Stewart, will appear before you on December 9 to discuss the response to your sixth report entitled: Reflecting Independence: Disability, Parliament, Government and the Community. She will talk to you about the general approach and direction of the government with respect to persons with disabilities.

• 1115

[English]

Today Victor and I have agreed to provide a technical briefing to you about where we've come from and where we're going on some key disability issues. I will therefore focus my opening statement on some of the developments around the government's disability agenda since the former minister met with the committee last March and since the report of the committee was released in June. Victor will also provide a few opening remarks on the Canada Pension Plan.

As you highlighted in your report, there have been numerous studies and recommendations on disability over the past two decades. These have helped shape the way we view disability and our approach to providing programs and services.

The 1996 Scott report of the federal task force on disability looked at the federal role and at the actions necessary to ensure full citizenship for persons with disabilities. This led to a series of concrete initiatives. To name a few, these include the opportunities fund, the agreements with the provinces under the employability assistance for people with disabilities initiative, tax measures in the 1997 and 1998 budgets that better recognize the costs of disability, and changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act and other legislation to add a duty of accommodation.

Perhaps more important, the Scott report set the stage for the work with provinces and territories, which led to In Unison, the vision and framework for government action on disability. In Unison is very much based on a vision of full citizenship. It recognizes that achieving this vision is a shared responsibility between government and all sectors of society.

Building on In Unison, Human Resources Development has been leading work with other federal departments and agencies—about thirty of them all together—to look at key areas where the federal government needs to take action to move forward on this vision.

The Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities played an important role in this exercise by focusing attention on issues faced by Canadians with disabilities. It highlighted some of the challenges facing public policy developers. It helped to coalesce the government's agenda around some strategic directions shared by provinces and territories, the committee, and the disability community. This agenda was reflected in the document Future Directions to Address Disability Issues for the Government of Canada, which was released by the former Minister of Human Resources Development last July.

So the foundation has been laid. There are strong legal protections. There is a program framework and there are investments to build on. There's a commitment to act by governments. There's agreement on a pan-Canadian vision and policy framework to shape those actions as they are reflected in In Unison.

The objectives of the government's agenda are very much inclusion and participation. The initiatives are designed to overcome attitudinal and systemic barriers, to develop a coherent approach to programs and services, and to plan and develop future action on key issues such as disability and income supports and labour market approaches.

The elements of the agenda include increased public accountability and improved policy and program coherence; the development of an up-to-date and comprehensive base of data and knowledge to inform public policy; stronger capacity in the community to meet the needs of people with disability; addressing the needs of aboriginal people, where the incidence of disability is twice the national average; improved employability; improved access to income and disability supports; and reduced injury and disease that can cause disability.

The government's intent had been to move forward as resources become available, but to avoid any loss of time, the minister asked in the spring that resources be reallocated within the department to allow work to proceed on research and data gathering, on accountability, and on disability supports. That work has continued, and, for example, preparatory work for the Health and Activities Limitation Survey that will be done by Statistics Canada in 2001 has been launched.

• 1120

Consultations were held with provinces, territories, disability organizations, and the private sector throughout the summer and early fall. Similar discussions were pursued with other government departments and agencies as well. There's very broad support for this survey.

Similarly, resources were made available so other longitudinal surveys could be strengthened to include disability—for example, the survey of labour and income dynamics, the national population health survey, the national longitudinal survey of children, and the aboriginal peoples survey. Together, these will give us a much clearer picture of persons with disabilities in Canada.

[Translation]

We are also continuing work with the provinces and the territories on an accountability framework linked to the In Unison report and on an Internet site which is named "Links—Persons with Disabilities—Handicapped Persons". In September, there was a round of discussions in Toronto with experts and representatives of the national and provincial associations of persons with disabilities, and with the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

[English]

It was indeed very helpful that a member of your research staff, Bill Young, who's with us this morning, was able to attend and to share the results of your round table on outcomes. The purpose was to discuss and further develop elements of an accountability framework, including regular reporting to the public on disability issues, access and inclusion lenses, and public engagement processes. All participants considered this a good session and a good beginning.

Ministers of social services approved these elements of an accountability framework when they met last October. They announced that disability links will be launched in the spring of 2000. Deputy ministers have tasked officials with the development of options for future work to achieve the In Unison vision. Complementary work is being pursued with other federal departments and agencies to develop a framework for reporting on federal programs and services for persons with disabilities.

On the question of disability supports, the government has issued an invitation to provinces and territories to conduct joint work to improve access to and portability of disability supports. We would also like to develop a labour market strategy with provinces and territories.

I'd just like to highlight very briefly some other specific program initiatives. Agreements for employability assistance for people with disabilities exist with all provinces. Under these agreements, $192 million is transferred each year to provinces to support their programs that are designed to help people with disabilities to secure employment. These are being implemented and a multilateral accountability framework is being developed to measure the outcomes and to highlight successes and best practices in securing employment.

Work with provincial and territorial colleagues and national aboriginal organizations continues on a national children's agenda that is broad and inclusive and that is designed to improve the well-being and development of all children. The government wants to identify opportunities to include children with disabilities. Representatives from national disability organizations working with children have been active in the consultations that have taken place to date.

Funding to the disability community for both organizations and projects is ongoing and represents about $12 million a year. This includes funding for the community inclusion initiative for intellectually disabled people. The Opportunities Fund was launched in 1997 and has been successful in helpful persons with disabilities prepare for, secure, and keep jobs. About 24,900 people have participated in the program. It concludes March 31, 2000, but we remain very hopeful the OF will be renewed. It is a key element in the development of a broader, longer-term, labour market strategy for persons with disabilities. Confirmation of renewal will have to await the budget.

Victor will elaborate in a few minutes on the measures that are being put in place under the Canada Pension Plan to help Canadians with disability return to work and improve the appeals process.

• 1125

I'm just going to conclude by giving you a picture of some of the work that is going on across the government to launch the government agenda as resources become available.

Treasury Board and the National Research Council have set up a task force at the level of assistant deputy ministers to look at how we can better use new technologies to support employees with disabilities in the public service. Health Canada is pursuing injury and disease prevention, particularly in those areas where the incidence is so high among aboriginal people. Fetal alcohol syndrome and diabetes are particular issues that are challenging us.

Initiatives are being explored and developed with the private sector to identify ingredients for successful integration into the workplace and to surface and promote the best practices across the private sector. Similarly, we are working with Industry Canada, regional and business development agencies, and entrepreneurs with disabilities to identify ways to improve opportunities and to reduce the risks for other potential entrepreneurs. Efforts are under way as well to better manage disability issues across government, as the committee has recommended and as reflected in the government's response to the committee's report. We will be focusing on the development of access and inclusion lenses and better public reporting, focusing first on improving existing mechanisms before turning to new ones.

I know there have been concerns around the scope and pace of the government's agenda. Significant strides, however, have been made and continue to be made. There has been very consistent ministerial support, and the role of this committee has been very helpful in sustaining the profile on the social agenda and could continue to do so as we focus on accountability and outcome measures.

As you know, real systemic changes can occur only in collaboration with provinces and territories, especially around disability supports, income and employment. So while the groundwork has been laid and will continue, the pace of implementing the disability agenda will continue also to be influenced by the availability of additional resources.

[Translation]

Now I'd like to give the floor to my colleague Victor Rabinovitch.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch (Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security Programs, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Susan.

Mr. Chairman, I appeared with my colleagues before the Sub- committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities last May to discuss with the members the CPP disability plan process and to explain how we were dealing with the high volume of appeals. I also provided, last May, information on the new methods that we were about to implement.

Today I hope to answer your questions regarding our efforts to improve service to CPP disability clients. I'd also like to share with you the plan for a more client-centred approach to the administration of the programs that we have developed. I think that this approach will improve the climate of trust among our clientele and stakeholders.

Allow me to give you an overview of the situation. I would like to draw your attention to the chart that we distributed before the meeting. This chart depicts how 100 applicants typically move through the various levels of the CPPD program. While the focus of my remarks today is not on numbers, but on quality, I know that for some of you this overview may be useful.

In terms of the scope of the CPPD program, it is now the largest disability benefit program in Canada. It serves 280,000 clients and makes payments of almost $2.5 billion per year. This year we will receive about 65,000 applications.

Some of you are aware that HRDC is responsible for the two initial steps: the application and the reconsideration stages. The reconsideration stage is the first level of appeal.

• 1130

The chart that we have distributed shows that over 90% of the applications are finalized within these two stages, which are managed by the department. Two arm's length bodies deal with appeals that go further. The review tribunal is responsible for the second level of appeal. The third level appeal is to the Pension Appeals Board, a quasi-judicial body made up of judges and former judges.

[English]

That describes the basic overview of the CPP disability process. Let me spend a few moments just describing the current situation.

There's no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the CPP disability program was facing some real challenges only a few years ago. In 1996 the Auditor General raised a number of concerns. Since that time we have made some major improvements to the operation of the program. You may have noticed that on Tuesday, when the Auditor General tabled his current report, he made some very positive comments on the progress we've achieved. The Auditor General's report says we have moved on all of the 1996 recommendations. While all of them are not yet fully implemented, we have made significant progress on all. Several—in fact the majority—are virtually fully implemented.

Let me mention some of the measures we've taken, not since 1996, but rather in the last six months, since my colleagues and I had the opportunity to be at the subcommittee meeting.

We have accelerated client service in this period, and we are making more contact with clients. We have done so by increasing the regional adjudication staff. We've been doing that over several years. In the last six months we have reassigned more experienced staff at the national level to be available to assist with the adjudication of claims. This results in faster service.

Since April and May of this year, we have also begun testing a new approach that emphasizes early personal contact with applicants, and also with appellants. Previously we had relied totally on written appeals. We are now dealing, through the pilot approach, with oral contact and verbal contact.

As a second significant change during this current year, the review tribunal is hearing far more cases. Additional panel members have been appointed to the review tribunals, and the average waiting time for a review tribunal case has now decreased from eight months to six and a half months.

I really want to compliment someone who isn't here today. Peter Smith, the commissioner of the review tribunals, and his staff have really done an excellent job on the administration side of the tribunal.

A third change and improvement during the current year is at the Pension Appeals Board. More judges have been added, with 10 additional judges announced just last week. The total number of judges now is 64, which is an all-time high. The judges at the Pension Appeals Board have begun a blitz process to deal with leave to appeal. Last year and during the current year they processed over 2,000 requests for leave to appeal. There, too, I think a compliment is owed to Judge Poulin, the chair, and Judge Rutherford, the assistant chair, as well as the executive director, Barbara Naegele. They have done a terrific job at the PAB in this recent time.

A fourth thing I would mention is that we have begun exploring and are developing plans now on the simplification of the appeals process. I would be glad to talk a bit more about that through the period of questions.

A fifth thing I'd like to mention is that we are taking further steps now to decentralize further the appeal process, particularly the process that deals with reassessment of individuals who are now on CPP disability. We pilot-tested that last year in New Brunswick and Ontario. The pilots were successful, and we're proceeding now with further decentralization of reassessment.

• 1135

A sixth point I'd like to mention is our work with partners and the sharing of information with partners, and particularly workers' compensation boards in five provinces: Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Manitoba. We have also offered to the compensation boards in all the other provinces that we would be prepared to get into information sharing with them. We also do information sharing on return-to-work initiatives.

Lastly, a seventh initiative during the current year is one that deals with quality assurance. We are taking new administrative steps to ensure the quality across the country for the disability program and disability appeals.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by just saying a few words about where we want to go. I think we have succeeded in laying the groundwork for changes in the way we do service delivery and for improvements in that service delivery. We recently briefed our minister, the Honourable Jane Stewart, about these proposed changes. She is very supportive, and she specifically asked that we share information with the members of this committee. We'd like to do that. And if you wish, we'd also be prepared to come back to the subcommittee on disability if they wish to get into much further detail about these things.

Basically, we want to talk about ideas before they are implemented and we want to get feedback before we proceed with the administrative changes. Our general approach is one of developing a client-centred, case-management system. We want to be able to deal with people early, in a personalized manner, as they first apply for the disability program, and we want to maintain contact with them throughout the process of that disability program even if they are not admitted into the program. Through personal contact, we then may be able to refer them to where they may be able to get assistance elsewhere.

Let me just say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that through questions here and perhaps questions at the disability subcommittee, we would be very glad not only to share information but to seek ideas.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you both for that.

As you know, we have re-established the subcommittee, and we look forward to further work producing material of the quality that the previous subcommittee did.

To my colleagues, I have a list here that already has ten people, excluding the chair, assuming that you can exclude the chair. I mentioned that I am quite willing to stay here until question period if we have to, but you realize that ten times five minutes is fifty minutes, so I'm going to try to keep the flow going.

Just so you know the order in which I have you down, I have Carolyn Bennett, Maurice Vellacott, Karen Redman, Wendy Lill, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Rey Pagtakhan, Jean Dubé, Bryon Wilfert, Judy Sgro, and Larry McCormick, in that order.

We now have the chair of the subcommittee, Carolyn Bennett.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure my colleagues will have lots of questions on the Opportunities Fund and CPP, so I will try to stay in the big picture.

As you know, we're worried in terms of these horizontal issues. All of the things that are multi-jurisdictional seem to have meant to Canadians that nothing happens. If it's all in your area, you do it; if you have to get consensus, it's much tougher.

Just describe the Office of Disability Issues to me. What kind of staffing do you have, what kind of funding do you have, and are you actually able to bash together the heads of all the other ministries to make sure something happens?

The second part is that it says in the Speech from the Throne that the issue of Canadians with disabilities will be put through the social union organization. How far ahead are we on that, and is that really going to happen? That would be my first little tiny question.

The Chair: Carolyn, there are two routes. One is that you could ask everything now. That, by the way, was a minute and ten seconds.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: That was pretty good.

From the committee's point of view, we obviously want to know more on the commitment of outcomes and Treasury Board, and that we're going to report to Canadians on how we're doing on these things. How are we going to set the outcomes or the performance indicators?

• 1140

As you know, we had some discomfort with some of the performance indicators that looked at how often people get a busy signal instead of whether they're income-secure. I think we want to know how you are going to be able to use the committee and use the disability community, which is extremely knowledgeable on this, to actually make sure that when we go to the business of setting outcomes and commitments and performance indicators, something happens.

The one other big-picture thing that I'm worried is percolating along is Judge La Forest's review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. What have you done to make sure that the disability community is included and that a really proactive result will come from that review?

The Chair: Susan Scotti.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Thank you, Ms. Bennett, for all those very good questions. Let me start with the first one, with regard to horizontality.

Government's a big machine, and it's difficult and challenging to pull all of the pieces together, but I think there is a very strong recognition amongst all of us, as public officials, that there are no longer single-bullet solutions. We have to work together collectively, in partnership, to really effect the most appropriate solutions to some very complex problems. So there is this mindset that we can achieve more if we work together and that is very supportive of the work we need to do on disability.

The disability issues office is one part of the department that really is responsible for coordination and policy support, but we draw on many other parts of the Department of Human Resources Development. The disability issues office is getting strengthened. We're adding staff, and we're adding staff who will have a particular focus on the outreach activities and the interdepartmental work that is going to be necessary in pulling the agenda together.

At the same time, we have a very active policy branch that works in partnership with us and the insurance program. The department itself is very conscious that it needs to take a very integrated approach to responding to disability issues from all perspectives, whether it's policy development or program development.

I'm going to let Phil Jensen continue—

The Chair: We'd like to keep the pace up, please. Just keep it moving.

Ms. Susan Scotti: I guess I'll have to talk a little faster, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm just warning people, because I know what happens at the end: there are colleagues waiting and they lose their turn. That's really what happens, Susan. Just keep the pace going.

Ms. Susan Scotti: I'm going to ask Phil Jensen to address the question of the social union framework and the development of outcome measures. We already are engaged in some discussions with our provincial colleagues on some of that work.

Before I turn it over to him, I just want to say that we recognize that we cannot do this without your help and without the support of the disability community. The work we are going to be doing is very much a partnership and collaborative exercise that will engage the community, the committee, and our colleagues in the federal-provincial arena in developing the most appropriate responses to the issues faced by the community.

Phil.

Mr. Phil Jensen (Director General, Social Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Susan.

Bearing in mind the chairman's comments, I'll try to be as quick as I can.

With regard to the background on the federal-provincial side, which is your question about social union, this was identified as a priority in 1996-97 by the first ministers. We then developed In Unison, the overall policy framework document. It's very important to note that, because before there was no policy document at all bringing the provinces and the federal government together. Now there is, and we can go forward from that.

In October, ministers approved two or three initiatives. The first was an accountability framework at the federal-provincial level. We're working on that right now. The second was Disability Links, a web-site-based process for information distribution of government programs.

With regard to the accountability framework, which is your outcomes question, we've had a couple of very good meetings. We had a meeting with the community and the provinces in Toronto in September. We then had a follow-up meeting with the federal-provincial working group last week in Toronto, where we had presentations on specifically how we might look at developing outcomes.

Since then, it's become quite clear to us that at the federal level, building on what Susan says, we clearly need the advice of the committee on outcomes and how to particularly engage citizens in this regard.

• 1145

We are hopeful that we can come to you in the next while to talk to you a bit about that, about how we could develop an ongoing relationship. We don't see this as a one-off type of thing. It's more coming to you at the start, telling you where we are, and then working together through the whole process.

I think the minister may talk a bit more about that when she talks to your committee in the next week or so.

The Chair: Witnesses, you'll find you can often return to some of these answers later. In all fairness, colleagues, the same thing. Bear in mind that the witnesses have to reply. As I've mentioned to you, we're now at seven minutes and twenty seconds.

Mr. Phil Jensen: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Times ten, that's seventy minutes.

I'm going to go to Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Phil Jensen: Just on the Canadian Human Rights Act, if I could have ten seconds—

The Chair: Why don't you come back to it, Phil, when you're answering Maurice's question. That's what they do in question period.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Phil Jensen: All right. Fair enough.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): With the blessing or in fact the promotion of the chair, I want to ask questions and then get quick answers as I move through about four questions here.

Mr. Rabinovitch, you might be the one on the seat for this one. Could you give us number, 1998 being the last full year, of those who applied for CPP disability and those who were denied? Do you have some numbers you could give me quickly, just numbers?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Yes, I can you provide you with that. In fiscal year 1998-99, there were 64,834 applicants. Of this number, at the initial level, 23,340 were granted and 42,220 were denied.

At the initial level, then, 36% were granted. Those numbers of course then go into the appeal process.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. I have that chart before me.

I'm wondering, Mr. Rabinovitch, how that would compare with the prior years, 1997-98, for instance. What I'm getting at in particular is whether more people are applying and more people are being denied, going back ten years ago, say, if you could pull out of the hat the numbers from ten years ago.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: I can give you the numbers for the last three years. We could talk more generally about previous years, but I can give you specific numbers for the last three years. I'll give it to you in percentage terms, to save time.

The percent granted for last year was 36%. The previous year, 1997-98, the percentage granted was 30%, and in 1996-97 the percentage granted was 33%. In other words, you're talking about a range between 30% and 36%, or roughly one-third.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Would you be able to recall whether more were applying ten years ago in terms of raw numbers? Were less people denied at that point? I don't know whether you were in the department at that time.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Ten years ago the percentage of grants was higher, but ten years ago somewhat different administrative criteria were being used at the time. This is one of the applications of the program that was quite seriously criticized by the Auditor General at the time. In particular, certain socio-economic criteria were really not justified by the legislation. The Auditor General drew attention to that and asked us to become much more rigorous in applying the legislative standards.

In terms of actual numbers applying, there is no easy predictability. A lot will depend on the legislative requirements. For example, Parliament two years ago tightened the legislative requirements. You must now have been a contributor to the CPP for four years out of six in order to be admitted for consideration. So it's not easy to discern a trend on that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess what I'm getting at here—and you're probably somewhat aware of it and maybe justify it to some degree by changes, legislative and otherwise, or maybe just within the department.... It seems to me that the way we frame it to people when making queries these days on CPP disability, in a broad brush stroke, is that if you're near death's door, you might have a hope of getting CPP disability.

That sounds pretty harsh, but as an MP, I've had people brought into my office, or walking in under their own steam with maybe not a lot of strength and it does seem that way. We just need to be frank and tell them, well, short of that, there doesn't seem to be a lot of hope. If there are flippant claims, that would be justified, but for a lot of these people who come in or are carried in or whatever it happens to be, they are very weakened people.

I find the numbers a little interesting. I just wonder how many of these people who do not appeal just do not have the persistence in perhaps even very valid situations. Sometimes we get involved. If they're not aggressive or assertive enough, weakened in life as they are, they won't go through the normal appeal processes when it comes to such systems as EI. Because it's not for the faint of heart. No doubt you must be aware of that, and you work within your constraints. Has that been reported to you by other people—that it's “short of death's door”?

• 1150

The Chair: Can I comment? I was surprised at the 36% who did not appeal, which I think is part of the same question.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

They're not persistent. And it almost seems that the department.... In a legal sense, it would be like trying to wear them out. We don't want to impugn motive or whatever here; it's simply that a lot of these people do not have the heart to persist. I don't know what your response is to that.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: I certainly hope nobody is impugning motives, because we're public servants who apply the act as adopted by Parliament.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: The terms in the legislation are very clear: an individual must be suffering in a severe manner and for a prolonged period of time. The parallel, if we talked about it philosophically, would be that because of a disability, a person is forced to retire from the labour force and therefore is entitled to a pension before a normal age-based retirement age. That's the concept behind the legislation. You are out of the labour force.

There's no question that most people who look for a CPP disability pension are not physically well. They are undoubtedly, in most cases, suffering from some form of illness or disability.

The CPP program is not designed to provide for partial disability. Parliament, of course, could design such a program. But as it is currently designed, and as it has been tightened up, first through the Auditor General, who of course is an officer of Parliament—the Auditor General's critiques of several years ago, and the legislation changes of only a year and a half ago—the program is very specific in its application.

Now, what we found very interesting when we looked, if I could finish—

The Chair: Maurice, if you....

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have one last question. I know I'm running out of time. I don't mean to cut into you.

The Chair: You'll get the same time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. Go ahead, Victor.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: What we found very interesting when we started pulling together statistics to display them in this manner was that the allegation that's sometimes made that everyone is refused first time around when they apply just isn't so. Roughly one-third of the applicants are admitted into the program on first application. The timing has been speeded up very significantly in the last two years. We're talking about people getting responses 61, 62 working days after they first apply, which is an amazing acceleration in speed compared to the past.

That then leads to the first level of appeal. Very often at that first level of appeal, new medical information is brought in, and you get that many more people then being approved because of that appeal. Let me say it's a very difficult decision. The medical people, the nurses, and everyone involved in adjudication take the cases really seriously. When I have to sign letters to people, believe me, every day.... Before I came in here this morning, I signed another ten letters, and in some cases, in fact to some MPs, they're saying yes, this person is now going to be admitted.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. Let me just go to my last question before my time expires.

The Chair: A very short one, Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's simply the fact that—and you made the point that at this juncture there's no partial disability—some of these people really cannot hold a full-time job; they're just not in a position to do that at all. But for their mental health and well-being, if they were allowed to do some volunteer work or some very basic bit of work, it would seem to me that we would do good by that person. Is there any talk within the department of making some allowance that way? It's desperate when somebody can't even work a few hours for their mental health and well-being, and they're cut off totally. It just seems a very unfair thing and not dealing with people rightly. That's my question.

The Chair: I know it's difficult, Victor, but make it very short. It's a very important question, but we do have to....

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, we couldn't agree more, and in fact we are now designing initiatives on the issue of return to work, which include permitting disability clients to participate in volunteer work, take educational courses, or begin three-month work trials. And if the individual decides, either at the end of the three months or before, that they must come back onto disability, we have instituted a rapid reinstatement process. We couldn't agree more. We'd like to do more along those lines.

The Chair: Karen Redman, Wendy Lill, and then Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

• 1155

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I want to touch on two issues, and I'll ask both my questions acknowledging right up front that you have responded to the Auditor General's report, and that's a good thing. I realize that as a member of Parliament, I probably see 100% of the people who are turned down, so that first 36% don't darken my door. I have huge problems with the cases that are turned down in my constituency.

My first question is about the Opportunity Fund. The Independent Living Resource Centre was in partnership with businesses. They had a coordinator hired with that money. They've had to let that coordinator go. They had a 90% success rate at getting disabled people into the workforce or volunteering. I'd like to know when that decision is going to be made and when that announcement will be made. That's a huge support that's been taken away because of that instability of funding in my community.

My second question specifically is that we've heard at another committee meeting the terms “denial by process” as well as “denial by legal fiction”. That was how they profiled the fact that so many people do get turned down who are applying for disability. Specifically again, in my riding I have MS sufferers and fibromyalgia cases who don't fit the criteria of prolonged and—

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Severe.

Mrs. Karen Redman: —severe. Thank you. I wonder how that is being looked at and when we can look forward to having some criteria brought into this mix that meet the needs of those people, who in my estimation are very disabled.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Regarding your first question, on the Opportunities Fund, are you referring to CAILC, the Canadian Association of Independent Living? Is that the organization you were referring to?

Mrs. Karen Redman: They're a member of that, but they're—

Ms. Susan Scotti: It's a subgroup?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Okay. I'm not—unless you are, Mary—familiar with this particular instance.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Specifically, I would like to know when the Opportunities Fund decision announcement will be made. That's the nub of the question.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Okay. We very much hope it will be made in the context of the February budget. As I said in my opening remarks, we're very optimistic that it will be renewed. It's done some really good things and it's an important component of our disability agenda. We won't know until February.

In the interim, we have been able to assist some organizations with some supplementary funding as resources have become available. I can take some details from you about this particular case and ask the staff to look—

The Chair: If you could get them to us, Karen, is that okay?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes, that's fine.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: If I can reply to the second question, firstly, with regard to fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome, there are specific guidelines that exist in writing to help the medical adjudicators judge between different applicants. I'd be pleased to provide you with a copy of the guidelines so you can see what it is they are using to judge between cases. There are quite a number of people who are suffering from those symptoms and that disease or set of diseases, and they are, in many cases, admitted to CPP disability as beneficiaries. But not all cases are.

If you'd like those guidelines, I can get them to you.

Mrs. Karen Redman: With regard specifically to MS and cystic fibrosis, what about people who are living with those disabilities?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: They would be evaluated in the normal manner, which is the ability to do work. The disease may well be prolonged, but it may not be so severe in specific individuals that they are so incapacitated as to be removed from the labour force. This is ultimately a work pension, not, if you will, a sickness or illness pension.

So yes, there are individuals who are admitted, and there are individuals who are not.

I would stress that the three levels of appeal that are provided in the system are set out, of course, by legislation. And Parliament, in its wisdom, set it out—as we understand it—to provide individuals sufficient time to either have their symptoms get better or have their symptoms become worse, because it really is over a period of time that the disease can develop further, in one direction or the other.

• 1200

We have accelerated our handling, and the independent tribunals have also accelerated their handling. It's very much intended not to be refusal or denial by process—to the contrary. What we'd really like to do, and where our developmental thinking is now, is to create far more personal handling of individuals so that even those who do not meet the strict criteria of the CPP plan could be, for example, referred to other agencies—provincial, municipal, life assistance, community assistance agencies—so that they are getting attention as people and not simply being handled as paper clients.

The Chair: Is that okay? Thank you very much.

Next is Wendy Lill, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, and then Jean Dubé.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you for coming here today.

I'd like to continue on the issue around the Opportunities Fund. The Opportunities Fund is at a critical stage right now, and there are all sorts of groups that in fact are winding down, closing their doors, literally not able to continue their activities. It just isn't good enough to say that we're going to be making a decision in the next couple of months, because if we are not given any decisions for a couple of months, the efforts of these groups over the last three years will in fact be wasted. That is irresponsible, and that really builds failure into programs and into the lives of people who already deal with that a lot of the time. So I have to say it's not good enough.

Many disability groups have asked for a permanent fund of $50 million. They don't want dribs and drabs of money; they don't want it for one year or two years. The question is, is the government going to undertake a longer-term commitment to disability programs?

In response to the subcommittee's report, I have some concerns about where it's all landing now. We were being told that the associate assistant deputy minister of the human resource investment branch will oversee disability issues. People have told our subcommittee over and over again that they don't want a pigeon-hole thing. It's not just an employment issue. That is only one of the many pieces in the lives of people with disabilities.

So I worry that it's now landing in a pretty employment-based spot. And I wonder about tax issues, mobility issues, income support, health, and education concerns. Is that really going to be the place where those kinds of issues will be able to be viewed carefully? Also, what will be the disability community's involvement in it?

Ms. Susan Scotti: To start with your first question, on the Opportunities Fund, I couldn't agree with you more that it is a shame that some really good things have happened but people are on the verge of having to notify employees that there will possibly not be a continuation. We're very sensitive to that, and we have asked our regional offices, who are working with the organizations and groups, to have a look at what the impact is at the moment of a decision not being taken until February. We're doing an assessment of what that impact is and what the potential needs are.

We've been able to flow a little bit of additional money into the Opportunities Fund in order to help with some bridging for some organizations. With the benefit of the bigger picture, hopefully we will be able to enable groups to continue the good work that has been started. It is a very important element, but it's one element, we hope, of a broader labour market strategy that will be established with OF as one of several tools we can use to achieve employment objectives.

On your second question, I guess it goes back to the whole issue of horizontality and how we're going to achieve the objective of inclusion across government and with our many partners and communities of interest in this area. I'm only one ADM, and I'm the lead in my department, but what we have in mind and what I know our minister is very supportive of is that the responsibility of ensuring that there is an inclusive approach to disability issues is really a governmental responsibility. It doesn't just rest with one department; it has to be a collective responsibility of all ministries and all officials.

• 1205

What we need to achieve that objective are some of the tools that will enable people and officials to think about disability questions when they're developing their public policies and their programs. The committee's recommendation of a disability or access and inclusion lens is one such tool that needs to be developed. The other is the whole accountability framework and the focus on outcomes and results, because that will enable us to measure what we're doing and where we're going in a broader kind of way at both the federal level and the federal-provincial level.

All of that needs to move in concert with where the community is at and with the priorities that have been identified with the community in a very tight collaborative and engaged way, with community, parliamentarians, private sector interests, and federal and provincial governments.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm still afraid of it all getting lost and buried deep down somewhere in the internal organs of the department. It just doesn't have that sense of light that I think we're all waiting for that says this is going to be a group that will steer a really inclusive ship through the government waters. So I'm disappointed, and I'm still not sure how this group, this location and this person and this place, is going to do it.

The Chair: We'll go to Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Jean Dubé, and then Bryon Wilfert.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have three questions to ask.

For my first question, I'd like to refer to what my colleague was saying about the Opportunities Fund. Very clearly, having a job is very important for one's socialization and welfare. And I'm sure that you already know that the money invested in this vein to help the largest number of people possible is insufficient.

A few weeks ago, the Minister was informed in the House of a shortfall of $3 million, in Quebec alone, to allow the people who benefit from this program to make it until the end of March. A short time afterwards, the Minister announced a figure of $900,000. This was one dollar out of every three, and in the end this allowed 100 people to keep their jobs until the end of January.

On the other hand, we're told that there is an action plan and that this action plan will be implemented, but according to the available resources. Are you able to specify a reasonable amount of money that should be allocated in the next federal budget to make this a reality? I presume that you can tell me that there will be several millions of dollars. That's the answer that I'd like to have from you.

My second question is with respect to the funding of these associations. Throughout Canada and Quebec, there are a number of associations which provide services to persons with disabilities, and the funding of these organizations is always very problematical. In your presentation, Ms. Scotti, you spoke of around $12 million, which seems to be the rule.

• 1210

Is this $12 million used to fund national organizations that play an important planning and organizational role and whose services are provided from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Do you foresee that the funding of these associations could go beyond these national associations? If so, I'd like you to tell me how you see that.

Mr. Rabinovictch, you spoke of legislative measures that would likely be needed to improve the disability program. What types of measures were you thinking of?

Ms. Susan Scotti: I'm not really sure if I'm able to answer with respect to numbers that we might find in the budget in February. We are hoping that the Opportunities Fund will be increased and that we will receive funding for the measures outlined in the program that we have established. We also hope that national and regional organizations will benefit from an increase in their funding.

I will ask Ms. Glen to respond to your second question.

Ms. Mary Glen (Director General, Social Development Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development): The Partnerships for Social Development Fund is aimed at national organizations that have the ability to act in the interest of all, throughout Canada. The figure of $12 million is divided in two: funding for the organizations themselves, and funding for the projects.

We don't necessarily foresee an increase in the total amount, but we hope to better focus the funds on the priorities of the program for persons with disabilities. It is primarily funding for national organizations.

The Chair: Madeleine?

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, that's fine.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, in a process to improve service delivery, we can take administrative measures. We're in the process of testing some of these changes through pilot projects: personal telephone contact, personal interviews, changes in the procedures in order to have a personal contact rather than a contact that is based solely on their file. These are the administrative changes.

However, if we want to make changes that go further, for example to provide more flexibility so that people who participate in the program have the opportunity to work for a longer period and then to be re-admitted to the CPP program, there needs to be legislative change. This gives you an idea of the situation. First we want to experiment with some of our ideas, and then identify the legislative shortcomings that need to be addressed so that we can implement these changes.

I would also like to emphasize the importance of the consultations and the exchanges that we have had with our colleagues from the Quebec plan. We are constantly sharing information and ideas with them in order to identify changes that could be useful to the clientele.

• 1215

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Rabinovitch, you have just mentioned the relationship that you have with Quebec, which, obviously, manages funds for persons with disabilities. With respect to the definition of persons with disabilities, are your definitions similar or is there a gap between the two? I looked at the chart. I must admit that, when I saw that 35 applications were granted and that 35 were denied, it struck me as a lot. There could be all kinds of reasons to refuse an application, but it could also be that the criteria result in a high number of denials. I would like you to do some comparisons. I imagine that in Quebec as well, some applicants are refused.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Of course. The legislative definitions are almost identical.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: The administration of the law is somewhat different in each of the jurisdictions; that depends mostly on the age of the appellant. But in general, the programs are very similar. As I said, we often share our experience with our colleagues to see if there have been any improvements to either of the programs. The programs are virtually identical.

[English]

The Chair: Jean Dubé, Bryon Wilfert, and then Larry McCormick.

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask a question on the disability Opportunities Fund, but by your comments I see that you're optimistic about the fund. As we know, it's running out on March 31. If it's not renewed, I'll be knocking at your door, that's for sure.

I'm sure you know, Mr. Rabinovitch, that I'm coming at the CPP disability. A while ago, you didn't have the numbers from previous years. I have here the numbers from 1993 to today.

In your opening remarks you said that you hired more staff, more experienced staff, to deal with these issues. I have a lot of files for a lot of clients coming to see me at the office, and I had the chance to review these very files and look at the reports by physicians and specialists in these fields. Often when these files reached Ottawa, they were denied. We're talking about physicians, experts, and specialists as well. I would like to know who you've hired—not their names—and what qualifications they have to overturn these decisions.

Second, from 1993, the number of people applying for CPP disability was 109,000 in 1993-94, with 44,869 accepted and 40,146 refused. When we look now at the people who are waiting for these claims to go through, we've seen a rise since 1993 that's absolutely unbelievable. You said that you've been dealing with that as well since my last intervention here, as you probably remember, with the minister. I applaud you for that and I applaud the department for working as far as that part is concerned. But it's still very high compared to numbers from before, from 1993, when we were processing a lot more claims than we are today.

Here's what I'm getting at. Do you think, with the work that has been done, that we'll be able to get to the level where we were in 1993 with the process? If I look at the waiting period and the amount of applications, the waiting period has jumped by 7,000 to 10,000, I believe, and we've declined in applications. I'm very concerned about that, and I want to know what you're doing to deal with that specific area. I know you're dealing with it, but I'm looking back to 1993, all right?

• 1220

I have another question, all right? I'm going to put them all at once.

What I've also noticed recently...and I'm turning the clock back maybe six months. As you know, I was elected here in 1997, so I was learning as well. What I've noticed as well, Mr. Chairman, is that a lot of the time, the people who are being refused have doctors' reports and specialists' reports as well, which claim that these people are disabled, long-term, fully, and are never to go back to work. I don't understand why they're being refused when a specialist says that. I want to know how many specialist doctors you have employed by HRDC to review these files.

There's a pattern here. When a person runs through a process, has the same diseases, the same disabilities, often the department will say to reapply. After you've extinguished all your options, you have to reapply. But what happens when they have to reapply is that they don't qualify on another basis: they don't have enough years to qualify because it takes so long to go through this process that the six years that you need falls under the context...this is where it's totally unacceptable as far as we are concerned, and as far as these disabled Canadians are concerned as well. Is there a mechanism you're looking for at the departmental level to balance this injustice for these applicants?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to give very brief replies given your time constraint.

Firstly, what has been done in the last three to four years—and quite accelerated in the last three years—has been the regionalization of the administration of the program. This means that the overwhelming number of decisions are being made in the region where the applicant lives.

There has been extensive hiring of qualified medical practitioners. We place a lot of emphasis on registered nurses who, in addition to their nurse training, receive specialized training on the law and also specifically on disability and disability adjudication. They have a group of specialized medical doctors, “specialized” in the administrative sense of applying the law, and there are also doctors who are specialists in various diseases, various disabilities, and who act as referral specialists and provide overall supervision.

There is also a quality assurance program right across the country to ensure that decisions made in one part of the country are similar to decisions made elsewhere in the country.

So it is very much a medically adjudicated and medically driven model whose purpose is to look at the client, the person, as a whole.

In terms of timing, in fact the production time, the amount of time it takes to deal with a case, has accelerated significantly in the last two years and especially in the last year. There was a period of time when the problem of backlogs existed. It was real. I'm very pleased to say that backlogs don't exist in the processing system, either at the initial stage or the first level of appeal. Our colleagues at the review tribunal are in the midst of wiping out their backlogs. There is, of course, scheduling times, but that's not backlogs; sometimes it just takes time to get the tribunal together. At the PAB they're working very hard now at removing those backlogs.

All of these are aimed not just at doing it faster but particularly at dealing with the issue of the individual as a whole and how long you want to stretch out the process. We don't want to stretch out the process, so it's 60 to 65 days at the initial level and 65 to 70 days at the reconsideration level. That's fairly fast.

We deal with the person as an individual. We deal with the person's medical histories. We deal with the person's doctors' reports and other specialists' reports. That's the objective. It's not just simply a matter of applying a template and trying to get a single answer based on the template.

• 1225

If I may say, as a civil servant, Parliament adopted some very important changes to the funding of the CPP a year and a half ago, almost two years ago. This has made the CPP system stable as far as any of the actuaries can predict for the next 100 years. So it's a tremendous achievement and one we're very proud to talk about now to our clients who ask us about whether the CPP will be there.

There was one aspect, though, that is important on disability where one of the requirements for disability set out by Parliament is that one must have been a contributor for four years out of the last six years. This clearly means that some individuals will not be able to meet the contributory period. We are going to be looking at this. Now that we have roughly a full year's experience, it will take a bit of time.

We will be looking into seeing what impact this has on applicants and how many applicants may be ruled ineligible because of that four out of six. We don't have that information yet. Give us a bit of time and we will gather it, though.

So those are the answers, sir.

The Chair: Thank you.

You can put a very short question as long as it's very short answer. We're now experiencing a new world record.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Is it mine?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, is the meeting over?

Mr. Jean Dubé: Just coming back on your applauding the government for tigthening up—

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Sir, it's not my role to applaud the government. Whatever the government of the day, they're elected and we're not.

Mr. Larry McCormick: The government makes a difference.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I'm just working at this. But if I look at the people who are applying for CPP disability, they're not applauding right now. They're waiting for cash. They're waiting for money to live. So from the records I can see here, we're still very high for people who are waiting to qualify. Decisions that are being overturned.... This is where my qualm is, really. When I have a physician, an expert, and a specialist who states that this person is disabled, and it reaches Ottawa and they're not disabled any more, it's totally unacceptable. It really truly is.

The Chair: Do you wish to reply, Mr. Rabinovitch?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Very quickly.

The decisions are being made almost overwhelmingly in numbers in the region, not in Ottawa. It's not that there's anything wrong with Ottawa; it's a city now of almost a million people, and there are lots of good people who live here, my wife and my children among others. So we're not mean ogres.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I'm talking about the government. I'm talking about the head office of HRDC. I'm not talking about Ottawa as a city. I'm talking about your department.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: The nature of the decision-making, sir, has to based on medical evidence.

The Chair: We're up to 11 minutes and 13 seconds.

Mr. Jean Dubé: All right.

The Chair: Jean.

Mr. Jean Dubé: No, just to make sure here, this is a low blow.

The Chair: It's on the record.

Mr. Jean Dubé: This is a low blow—

The Chair: No, no.

Mr. Jean Dubé: —and I do not accept that.

The Chair: No, the public service—and you can say whatever you like....

Mr. Jean Dubé: I do not accept that. That was a low blow.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Things are a lot better than they used to be.

Mr. Jean Dubé: That's a low blow. I did not refer to the city of Ottawa; I was speaking about the department.

The Chair: Your point is well taken.

I have Bryon Wilfert, then Larry McCormick.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you. I wasn't actually going to follow up on my colleague, but I will.

First, I thank you all for coming.

I'd be curious to know when the decision-making process was last reviewed in terms of CPP disability. One of the frustrations I have as a member is that it's very difficult to get an answer, if you get one at all, when you phone.

I don't know whether the system is too bureaucratic. I have a feeling that it is in terms of the decision, the review panel, the Pension Appeals Board. You've indicated the review tribunal is now from eight to six and a half months. It's going in the right direction. It's still long, particularly for those who are individual cases who come into your office. It's very difficult.

I certainly concur with my colleague that you look at materials that come in and they're from physicians and experts who say that this person is X, Y, and Z, and then it's sent in and they say no, no, no. But it's often very difficult trying to get someone at the other end of the line and to really get the answers. So I'd certainly ask for your comments there.

What I found interesting is I don't know what kind of horizontal approach.... You're talking about horizontality, but what about in the department itself?

I noted in the response that the Sixth International Congress on Serving Children with Disabilities in the Community.... My background was that I was president of two national organizations; one was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and one was the Canadian Parks/Recreation Association, neither of which do I think you have really drawn on, either presently or in the past.

• 1230

For an example, in the early nineties the CPRA put out disability access to recreational facilities—grassroots organizations, with national memberships that deal with everything from buildings to sidewalks to designs, etc. I would presume, if there's a Canadian delegation at this congress, that organizations like that should be involved. They have tremendous expertise, and are often tapped by the federal government. The FCM then got hold of this information and they wanted, obviously, to distribute it. Of course there's obviously an issue of funding, particularly because they don't get enough dollars.

I'm curious to know, what are the objectives and the goals of this international meeting that's going to be held in October 2000 in Edmonton? What are some of the outcomes you hope to see from that? How will they impact on government policy? I very much believe in a collaborative approach. You talk about all orders of government in your response, but municipal governments are sadly left out. As one who spoke to a joint federal-provincial ministerial meeting in November 1996 on the environment, I can say that inviting them to those types of meetings to provide that type of information from the grassroots isn't a bad idea. It's already been done, so I don't have to hear about any constitutionality activity, because that's already been there. So those are my concerns.

If I could throw out another one, it's the whole issue of HRDC is really dealing with employment issues, and of course injuries and prevention my colleague has mentioned. But you also deal with other areas, whether it's community capacity building or information sharing, etc., and I'm just not sure how well you are equipped. You don't have to necessarily answer today, but maybe there's information you could send the committee.

I would certainly appreciate that in the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, and I hope I was under your limit.

The Chair: You're doing very well.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch again.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: If I could begin, Mr. Chair, then Ms. Scotti will continue.

Following the Auditor General's report of 1996, there was a significant effort made to review and improve clarity for the medical guidelines and the decision-making guidelines. So the most significant administrative review I would describe as being in the 1996 period. In 1997 and 1998 tremendous efforts were made at the regionalization and increased funding and the hiring of more medical experts in order to accelerate the decision-making process.

So essentially, then, in the last three years we have made the CPP disability system really work well, according to the way it has been designed under the legislation—work well for the legislation. At this stage, in 1999, what I've tried to bring out is that we share a lot of the same misgivings that Mr. Dubé and others have expressed here. We want very much to see if there are other design elements that can be worked into it in order to make the decision-making—how shall I say it—less paper-driven and more client-centred-driven. So the short answer is that during the last three years the process has been accelerated, and now we're hopefully moving into another stage of process design.

For inquiries by clients, we have a tremendous 1-800 telephone number system that works very well. I can share with you that we get on average 70,000 to 80,000 a week, and 100% are answered on their first call and 95% are answered within 180 seconds, which is a standard that is set. I can provide you with specific details on that.

For members of Parliament, there is a specific inquiry unit that is available in each region. If there are any difficulties you have encountered, I'd like to hear about them, perhaps after the meeting, to just ensure that you're getting the service you require. I'd like to stress that this service is for all members of Parliament. I'd also like to offer to have staff sit down with any person who was here—particularly Monsieur Dubé, who has asked some very important questions on statistics—and to go over the numbers and ensure that we have provided the fullest possible information to the questions that were asked and the fullest interpretation of the statistics so that everything is as clear as can be.

• 1235

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Scotti.

Ms. Susan Scotti: I think there are two other elements of Mr. Wilfert's question.

On the question about the Sixth International Congress, we're working with the Canadian Association for Community Living, the Province of Alberta, to achieve three key objectives out of this congress. There is a particularly unique Canadian model that has been used with the disability community that is trying to achieve the goal of looking at, in a holistic way, the needs of the child with disabilities so that it brings in the family and community to achieve the most appropriate responses to deal with the issues facing the child with disabilities. So we want to showcase that Canadian model and use it as a way of informing others of our best practices in that area. Secondly, it raises the profile of the whole issue of disability among children. Thirdly, it helps to link the question of disability and children and families.

Those are the three key broad objectives. We'd be happy to send you a little bit more information on the congress as the planning develops.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'd appreciate that.

Ms. Susan Scotti: I'm not in a position today to give you any information whatsoever on who will be a part of the Canadian delegation, because I don't think those decisions have been made as yet.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: How does one express interest, if someone were interested?

Ms. Susan Scotti: That would be through the Canadian Association for Community Living. Diane Richler is the executive director.

Mary, do you want to add something?

Ms. Mary Glen: No.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Okay.

On your question about how HRDC is structured, we'd be more than happy to provide committee members with a description of the various aspects of the work HRDC is involved in and who does what in the department.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: On your linkage with the organizations such as I stated, in terms of materials they have that they distribute at the grassroots level, what's the connection?

Ms. Susan Scotti: Your two organizations were the FCM—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: They were the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Okay. Let me do a little bit of research on those two particular organizations. I know we have been involved in discussions with the FCM on the issue of homelessness, in particular. I don't know about the other one.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Larry McCormick, and then Paul Crête.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for being here.

I probably should pull out some bats and bouquets, but I've only been around for six years here in Ottawa, and I've been on HRD for six years, so I must have failed somewhere along the line. I make more mistakes than anybody, but among some of the most shameful departments of the government, probably the most shameful performance I've seen was HRD with the CPP disability a few years ago. But more and more I have noticed better performance, even in my own local office, in the last couple of years. That's true, and I have to mention that.

Victor, there was one thing you mentioned, and I hope it's not a pilot project. You mentioned the early prison contact and the oral verbal exchange and that there's such a need for that. So I'm hoping you'll make a comment on that.

Also, before I forget, I should pay tribute to the Scott report, which was a great work. Being on the committee, along with Paul, since 1993, I do believe Mr. Scott was one of the great contributors of the committee. I'm sure that work will be carried on by Dr. Bennett, along with Ms. Scotti and Ms. Glen, and so on.

Anything we can do to encourage you to communicate, on this CPP disability.... I don't want to sound like the opposition. I shouldn't talk about people when they're not here. Next week I won't be here to hear the minister because our agriculture committee will be sacrificed in the west as we go through Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.

In 1994 or 1995 we were the committee from hell, when we did 26 cities in 35 days, in ten provinces, two territories, and the eastern Arctic. The riot was only bad in one city. It could have been worse.

• 1240

You see, in Ottawa here and in your departments—and I know you people are great workers, and I respect bureaucrats greatly—when these cases come into our offices on the CPP disability, it seems to me that you or whoever works for you could differentiate with some of the cases on what you get on paper.

We've all seen the people personally come into our office, and by the time they get through that process they're not there to come into the office. I apologize for saying that, but it's true. It has happened, and always will happen. Not everything is within our control.

But as I say, we've seen great progress, and I applaud the regional effort. Being government rural caucus chair, I know it's very important, because transportation and communications in the rural part of Canada, let alone the remote part of Canada, is a continuing challenge.

With the agriculture committee, next week we're going into some of these areas where Canadians have been hardest hit. These are not statistics; these are people. So I want to leave that on the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: I couldn't agree more, and I couldn't sympathize more. My own personal contact with clients comes primarily through the correspondence. As my staff know very well, I spend hours on correspondence, reading through the case files as much as I can. I simply can't agree more with you about how tough the cases are and how individuals who are adjudicated medically, and who may not meet the CPP criteria, nevertheless are not people who are well. I want to be sure of that.

In some of the steps we're working on now, either through the pilots or that we are planning on bringing in, we hope the year 2000-2001 will be the period in which we're really able to accelerate these innovations. We want to be able to talk with each applicant at the time of the application. We want to be able to explain to applicants what the CPP program provides and what it does not provide, because it was very strictly defined by Parliament. We want to be able to explain the type of information that is needed, so that an individual doesn't just submit an application and then find out a month later that it wasn't a complete application. Also, we want to go over decision-making in detail so that we explain the decision and why an individual was rejected or why an individual was admitted.

I mentioned that there are three pilot projects going on right now. One is in Manitoba, one is in St. John's, Newfoundland, and one is in Chatham, which is one of the three offices in Ontario. We're evaluating the pilot tests. We're looking at the additional amount of time that is required, application by application, and therefore we will be able to judge how much more resource will be required if we go with this new approach.

We will then have to figure out where to get the resources from. Canada has suddenly discovered that there aren't as many nurses around as we thought we had at one time, so we are out there competing now for qualified nurses to help on the adjudication program.

That's all part of the pilot testing and the design of a better program.

We want to be able to deal with clients who are admitted to the program and be able to provide them with more information and follow up with them, particularly early on in the program, so that if there is any possibility for return to work or for rehab that could be linked to return to work, we can move on that quite quickly. Rather than waiting for the individual to come to us, perhaps we could go to the individual. We're exploring this.

One other area I'll mention—and it's obviously a very sad one, but it's just part of life—is that clearly a significant number of the people who are clients, who have been admitted to the program, do die each year. Approximately 8,000 out of the 280,000 die each year. We want to be able to start making contacts with individuals and their families earlier in the life cycle of being on disability so that we can tell them about other CPP benefits to which they may be entitled—in other words, not just simply put a person into pay, they have their number, and that's the end of them.

• 1245

These are all ideas. Some of the ideas are being tested very actively. They're being costed. That's the general approach we want to go to. Mr. Chairman, I'd say, once again, that as soon as we have the ideas more fully fleshed out, it would be great to be able to discuss this with colleagues of yours on the disability subcommittee.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, I'm not able to judge, but if there's one thing that we could perhaps bring forward—again, I'm going to go back to the commodity prices across this country, and it's not just in the west, the pig farmers...these people are suffering, and it comes right into family and health and one type of disability or another. The press say the perception is that we don't care. I believe, again, that this initial contact and the oral touch...if you could touch these people so that they realize people do care.... I would ask that you consider that to be at the top of our list.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Larry.

Victor.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Just an anecdotal comment, Mr. Chairman. Our staff, who are participating in the pilots, are really excited by them. They prefer to deal with people as people. Most of them are trained as medical people, as you know, and therefore in the training...the ability to deal with individuals really excites them.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): I have three questions to ask.

First of all, you inferred earlier that your relationship with the provinces was very good. That is not at all what I have heard. I was told that in October, there had been a meeting at which all of the provincial representatives complained about their relationship with the federal government with respect to the division of responsibilities. I'd like you to tell me about that.

Secondly, I was at an important meeting of the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres in Montreal, a few weeks ago. There were a lot of complaints about the high turnover of staff at the department. From one month to the next, they are not able to deal with the same person for any follow-up. Could you name the people who were there 12 months ago and those who are there currently in order to see if they are different, and also to tell us if the situation has been corrected?

Thirdly, you spoke of millions of dollars for projects and for the national associations. Would it not be possible to ensure that the IAS Committee, the Industrial Adjustment Service Committee for Persons with Disabilities, which manages the budget for Quebec, has enough money to take them to March 31. The $900,000 that were added only allow them to operate until the 30th of January.

Could these projects allow groups such as the Femmes sans barrière committee, which is funded by the Independent Living Centre in Trois-Pistoles through the federal program, to have funding to implement the recommendations that were made at their conference which took place in Rimouski about three weeks ago, and which was a great success? The Femmes sans barrière committee included around 50 women with disabilities and likely some 100 people in all.

The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, we'd like to share the answers. First of all, I spoke of the friendship between us and our colleagues at the Régie des rentes du Québec, and the work that we do together. I must say that we work very, very well together. We share information and ideas.

Mr. Paul Crête: I wasn't referring to the Régie des rentes du Québec, but rather to the federal-provincial group on programs for persons with disabilities. I was told that in October, there had been a meeting at which the provincial representatives complained a lot.

Mr. Phil Jensen: There are a number of meetings with the provinces. Are you referring to the deputy ministers' meeting on social policy?

Mr. Paul Crête: The meetings on issues regarding persons with disabilities.

Mr. Phil Jensen: There were a number of subjects on the agenda. Quebec was there, in an observer capacity, and shared its experience. It was not my impression that there was a conflict.

Mr. Paul Crête: I'm not saying that it was Quebec that wasn't happy, but that all of the provinces weren't happy.

Mr. Phil Jensen: That was not my impression.

Mr. Paul Crête: Were you present?

• 1250

Mr. Phil Jensen: Yes, I was there, in Edmonton. They discussed issues relating to persons with disabilities, for example the agreement between the provinces and the federal government entitled In Unison, which is the comprehensive policy project.

Mr. Paul Crête: Precisely, with respect to the In Unison project, you say in your report that all of the provinces agree. However, Quebec never signed this agreement.

Mr. Phil Jensen: There is a paragraph indicating that Quebec is not participating in this project. In any case, I was there and it was my impression that the meeting went very well.

Ms. Susan Scotti: As for the other questions, I will give you more information later on the three projects: the Femmes sans barrière committee, in Trois-Pistoles, additional funding for the IAS Committee and the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres. I don't have the information that you're asking for with me right now, but I will send it to you later.

Mr. Paul Crête: It's important that we have the information on the IAS Committee before the House adjourns. Otherwise, there will be no more money at the end of January and we will not be here at that time.

Ms. Susan Scotti: I think that we should assign additional funding—

Mr. Paul Crête: Nine hundred thousand dollars.

Ms. Susan Scotti: —to the IAS Committee.

As for the list of employees, there have been a lot of staffing changes. I hope that the situation will stabilize. We would be happy to provide you with a list of the staff that was there two months ago.

Mr. Paul Crête: With respect to the IAS Committee, it is important to understand that the $900,000 that were allocated allowed the organization to pay their arrears and to continue operating until January 30. However, from January 30 to April 1, there will no longer be any money to guarantee that they can continue operating. We believe that that is where the money needs to be put, as it was a few weeks ago.

The Chair: You mustn't forget that the chair is still here.

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will figure it out in the end. Pardon me. I'm not too quick. It's because I'm so interested, it's my enthusiasm.

The Chair: Yes, I understand.

[English]

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: You just—

The Chair: No, no.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: When he's finished.

[Translation]

The Chair: Okay?

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to go to Jean Dubé, very briefly—

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: You still need a little answer on the Human Rights Act.

The Chair: We'll come back to it.

[Translation]

Jean.

Mr. Jean Dubé: When I spoke earlier, you saw the frustration that I feel when my constituents come to my office. You had a little example of what we see in our offices. But I will be sure to mention Hull next time, because I also have relatives here, in Hull, and I am very fond of them.

Allow me to come back to the CPPD program. When a person applies to the program for the first time, they do it at the regional level. If a person from my province, New Brunswick, applies for the disability benefit, they would do it at the regional office, which is in Fredericton, I believe. If this application is refused at the regional level, do they have recourse to some sort of mechanism before going to the review tribunal? Can the Hull office intervene in the decision or must it automatically go to the review tribunal?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, the first level of appeal is at the administrative level. This is called the reconsideration and this is at the administrative level. This appeal normally occurs within the department, in the region where the first decision was made. The people who make the second decision must not be the same who were involved in the first decision. They must be different people, who are still from the regional office. Thus, the reconsideration is made with new eyes.

• 1255

This is how we avoid using the arm's length system, the administrative tribunals. That is the answer.

We have a system of quality assurance, which will be improved. Next year, when we answer your questions, we may be in a better position to provide you more specific information concerning quality assurance in each of the regions and at each of the decision-making levels. Generally, we are satisfied, and the Auditor General is satisfied as well, but we are demanding more and more standards, standards for all decisions in all regions.

I hope I've answered your question properly.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Yes, thank you.

Last year I put a question to the department on the matter of delays. In some provinces, you had to wait longer than in others. In BC, at that time, after you'd put in a request, you had to wait 109 days before getting any answer. In Ontario, it was 107 days. In Newfoundland it was only 48 days. The average was 62 working days. Was something done in the case of these two provinces or was the wait very long? Is it still 107 and 109 days in BC and Ontario?

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if my colleagues have the most recent statistics. We don't have them with us, but we'll be sending them to all members of this committee. This was a very good question and it showed us we had to add staff in BC and review certain administrative measures. At this point, BC is exactly within the time frames. If memory serves, the wait is now 55 to 60 days, which is exactly within the standards, but I'll check this out and give you more specific information.

One of the great improvements we brought to the system over the last 12 or 14 months was this acceleration of the process everywhere in the system. The information is now more specific concerning those decisions made in each of the three regional offices. Also, the administration of each of these regions undertakes comparisons.

My colleague has just given me the information and I'll quote it. In BC, it's extraordinary: up to the end of October, the average wait for the first decision was 28 days and 67 days for the second decision-making level, in other words the first appeal. That's exactly in line with the standards we have. On average, in all regions of Canada, the wait was 61 days for the first decision and 67 for the second level of decision. That's the average for a three-month period. It's quite acceptable.

[English]

The Chair: Carolyn Bennett.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: I just have a question on our input to the HRA review, and then there was another question on research and how research in disabilities takes place in this country.

• 1300

I guess my concern is that even PCO's PRI doesn't seem to be very interested in it. Although they're mandated to do horizontal issues, there was certainly nothing on it at their conference last week. Who does this, seeing that it's again over many ministries? How do you make sure it happens?

Mr. Phil Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I think I'm probably best positioned to respond to both questions—and I'm sorry it took so long to get back to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The issue there is that Minister McLellan launched a review of it going back to last April. My impression is that the issues the community has in regard to the legislation are at two levels. First off, is there sufficient protection overall within Canadian legislation for the needs that minority groups like persons with disabilities have? That was raised when we talked to them on many occasions, and they have in fact raised the issue of the Canadian disabilities act.

As I think I mentioned when we talked to your committee, from a legislative perspective we looked at this fairly systematically. It seems there is adequate protection from a legislative perspective within current legislation. That gets to the second issue they're concerned about, though, which is that no matter how much you have things in legislation, operationalizing and then having an effect on the ground with the people who need it and who count is entirely a different matter. Many countries have faced this. The Americans have changed their legislation several times to try to get at this.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: Have you met with—

Mr. Phil Jensen: Yes, I'm going to get to that in a second.

The chair right now is taking interventions or presentations from various departments. One of my directors responsible for this area met with him last week to raise the concerns with him and to point out that a role for the Human Rights Commission could possibly be looked at to establish guidelines, and perhaps even regulations in some ways, that would help inclusion in terms of accommodation and so on. It's early days, though. They're still meeting, they're talking, and then they will submit a report to the minister. But yes, we've raised the issues with him.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: The only issue we talked about was whether or not the commission would have an ability to have a secretary and an office in order to go out to do audits on things so that these things don't have to come through one case at a time. Is there a proactive way of going about this, and would you be recommending that?

Mr. Phil Jensen: I think we wanted to start first with setting guidelines and regulations. We would see the issue of auditing as a second stage, because they have to have something to audit against. Right now, all we have is the legislation. We don't really have very good guidelines or regulations or whatever is needed, so that's certainly an issue that can be raised with them.

On the issue of disability research, as we've told your committee before, the bottom line is that the statistics on disability in the country are very poor. They're very dated and they're not particularly comprehensive. In the last six to eight months, we've taken steps to really try to beef things up, if you will. First off, we funded some initial steps for HALS, the health and activity limitation survey, for the next census. The minister has reallocated funds within the department to do some developmental work for that. Secondly, we've started looking at putting additional questions in our longitudinal surveys. With persons with disabilities, they go in and out of disability, so you need both point-in-time and longitudinal surveys.

The Chair: If I could interrupt, I think a part of the question here is that the research is one example of an across-silo approach. I know it's been discussed before, but I think that's part of the question here. We understand it's difficult. We understand the point about the nature of the federal system. But on the research side—and you're just getting into it—in getting some understanding of what's going on, you have to go across the silos within the department and between departments.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: But as this sort of office or the place where disabilities happens within government, what do you see in terms of a new CIHR? Do you see that there will be injury prevention, prevention of birth defects or fetal alcohol? All of those are huge disabilities. How do we make sure there's a thorough ability to look after these issues as the new CIHR is being set up?

• 1305

Mr. Phil Jensen: I'll get to the CHRA in a second, but I would just finish on the disability research, because I think it's very important. The third component of that is not only to have the data, but to have a capacity to do research and to ask what the data means, how we can interpret it, and how we can best make public policy in Canada. In that, we're trying to strengthen the organization's ability to do it. We try to strengthen it internally, and we also try to strengthen the ability of groups like the PRI to bring it together.

Every year the PRI sets priorities, and those priorities go out for four or five years. They've set the priorities like aging and some of the employment issues over the last couple of years. Even if they had persons with disabilities as a priority right now, we do not have sufficient and good data to gather the type of research on persons with disabilities that we do on employment or children. We're trying to remedy that.

To come back to your last question, about the CHRA, this is a review by a group of eminent persons, if you will, for the Minister of Justice. Following that, they will make specific recommendations and conclusions that departments would comment on. It would be decided whether there would be legislative changes or regulatory changes, or whether there may be general policy changes. There's a fairly lengthy and extensive process here, so I think community involvement can occur at several stages, and obviously your committee can input at several stages. We can get more specific information on how that might occur from the justice department, and we can communicate it to you if you'd like, if that would be helpful.

The Chair: I'm going to wind this up. I have a line of inquiries of my own, so I'll mention it to you with the hope that you can provide me with the information.

I'd like to say, though, that you can see there's a huge amount of interest. I would venture to say that regardless of whichever eighteen members of Parliament we substituted into this committee, you'd get a lot of similar questions. I think you all know that. This is a matter that we see every day.

This business of the CPP in particular, but also all aspects of disabilities, is an extraordinary thing in our constituency offices and when we go to groups in our ridings. It's something of great importance to us.

As the new chair, I noticed the huge emphasis on the CPP disability. Victor Rabinovitch is here, and he's been doing a very good job. It makes me realize why we have re-established the subcommittee that Carolyn Bennett chairs to deal with disabilities in general. It also makes me realize, colleagues who are here, that when we have a meeting like this, we should perhaps think of the design of it in order that CPP, for example—which we might well revisit—could be dealt with on its own, so that we can handle some of the other very important disability questions that are out there.

I still have to get to my remark, but I would comment on this diagram—and I suspect the camera can pick it up. I would say that if I had seen this in the performance report of the department, it would have been very useful. And I mean this quite sincerely. That is a very useful diagram to me as a member of Parliament, in terms of being able to see the flow-through of 64,000 entrants and what happens to them. It's the sort of thing that should be in the performance review.

The other thing that I heard—I think it was Susan who said it—was the point about your efforts to humanize. I know there would have to be levels of generalization, but we must do everything we can to humanize the system. By the way, we know that because it's part of our job. Our job out there is to humanize the system, and I'm all for anything we can do.

So you know we have the subcommittee. We know the minister will be here a week today, dealing with the same area. I would suggest to you that you'll find that in addition to the subcommittee, the main committee will follow up on this area.

Can I ask you if you would provide us.... I think you know we also had a report on post-secondary education. There was a disabilities aspect to that, having to do with the needs assessment process for the Canada student loans program. Our standing committee recommended a comprehensive review of that, and in the response the government said there was going to be a comprehensive review—and this is still HRDC. When the officials appeared before us—that was very recently—they did not discuss how the needs assessment review would incorporate disability-related matters, but they promised to table relevant documents. We certainly hope we can see those.

• 1310

How has HRDC incorporated the requirements of students with disabilities into the needs assessment review for the Canada student loans program and related things? How does the needs assessment process take into account the additional needs for students whose children have disabilities? How does it demonstrate flexibility in course load requirements? How does it incorporate that for students with disabilities and demonstrated special needs? How does it extend the time for completion for students with special requirements, and so on?

You may have to deal with your colleagues who appeared before us before. However, I'm very conscious of the fact that in this meeting we did not cover all the aspects of the report or of the response—and by the way, that's not your fault; it's the way the thing is designed. I'd be grateful if you could table that sort of information.

Susan Scotti.

Ms. Susan Scotti: It would be helpful if we could have that list of questions so that we could respond to those things, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes, by all means. I'll see that you get it.

Ms. Susan Scotti: Thank you.

The Chair: I'd like to thank Susan Scotti, Victor Rabinovitch, Phil Jensen, Mary Glen, and their other colleagues who have been here in the room and who have, I've noticed, been helping with the responses. Thank you very much for appearing before us today on what I hope you know is a very important issue. You have said you would like to work with our committee and the subcommittee, and we would certainly like to work with you.

Ms. Susan Scotti: We thank you very much.

The Chair: The next meeting of this committee is a week from today, when the minister will appear. Our regular time slot next Tuesday is taken up by the Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk, and I encourage all members to attend that subcommittee meeting.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.