FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 25, 2001

• 1232

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order and welcome everyone for the first panel of the afternoon here in Winnipeg.

As everyone knows, the finance committee is travelling across the country seeking public input, and of course, we welcome the input of this next set of panellists.

These are the organizations that will be appearing in front of us today: the Canadian Nature Federation, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, and Trans-Canada #1 West Association.

We'll start with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the national coordinator Laurie Beachell. Welcome. It's nice to see you again.

Mr. Laurie Beachell (National Coordinator, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here once again and to have an opportunity to present to you the concerns of our community.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities is a national advocacy association of people with disabilities. We have membership in each province, and there are six other national associations of people with disabilities. We've appeared before the finance committee since 1987, I believe, in relation to pre-budget consultation. We've continued to see incremental improvements in tax reform related to people with disabilities, and are pleased about that. However, today we come to you with a broader initiative and proposal, for which we would like to see some support.

The Prime Minister, when he travelled to New York a couple of years ago with several of my board members to receive the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Award from the United States for Canada's work in disability issues, assured our community that as the Government of Canada recovered and as we were in a position to reinvest, Canadians with disabilities would receive their fair share. We come to you today basically saying we believe it is time for the fair share. We have not seen it materialize in the past few years.

• 1235

We recognize also that recent events have changed the economic climate and the priorities of Canadians, and we wholly support the priorities concerning issues of security and protecting Canadians. We realize that may change some of the priorities and the agenda, but we would remind the committee that people with disabilities continue generally to live in poverty, be excluded from community life, and suffer what we would consider to be second-class citizenship within a country that has significant resources.

The proposals we bring to you today are for the creation of a national disability supports initiative—and you may have heard of this proposal from other organizations as you travelled across the country. I have attached also the most recent proposals, called Striking a New Balance, which comes from the Roeher Institute, proposals for reinvestment in disability support, transfers direct to individuals, transfers to communities, and transfers to provincial governments for reinvestment in things like home care, sign interpretation, attendant care, supports for students at universities to get education and have their needs met.

We also urge the department to look at the tax system. While there have been incremental changes in support of the disability tax credit, we would argue for a refundable disability tax credit, whereby dollars can be put in the pockets of everyone. Presently, the tax credit has little impact for individuals, unless you have a taxable income, so that those people on social assistance really receive no benefit. If it were made refundable and if agreements were reached with the provinces not to treat it as income and claw it back, it would provide a significant benefit to individuals with disabilities.

As well, in 1996-1997 one of your colleagues, Andy Scott, travelled across the country and heard from Canadians with disabilities about their concerns. Out of that came a new program to support organizations like ours and others having input into the policy discussions of the federal government and providing good advice. That program has been frozen since that time, but the demand on it continues to grow, and there is need for reinvestment of moneys. This is something we have talked to your colleague Jane Stewart about, and we would hope to see some new initiatives concerning support for the voice of Canadians with disabilities to be present within policy discussions on the children's agenda, on child poverty, on issues of aboriginal people, etc.

As well, I would like to bring to your attention the concern of our community with the changes in the Canada Pension Plan, particularly the changes in the disability portion. Many people have been cut off. The eligibility period is now longer, and the benefit seems to be less. In the changes of 1998 disability credit was targeted for greater reduction overall. So clearly, people with disabilities were targeted as the cost-saving measure. We believe this is wrong, and we would ask for a reinstatement of the terms and conditions of the Canada Pension Plan as they were in 1998.

The final issue I would bring to you is related to the government's agenda of connecting all Canadians, which we applaud and think will move Canada into the ranks of the advanced countries in technology and new initiatives. However, unless we ensure that those programs and on-line initiatives are barrier-free, many people will not be able to participate, and by that I mean persons with visual impairment who do not use print, who require barrier-free websites. There are tools to design this. We would ask for the government to ensure that those programs that are initiated are made accessible.

Those are the new recommendations. I would just mention to you that in the last few weeks we've had numerous phone calls from individuals saying they are being reassessed for the disability tax credit. We are unaware of any change in the policy of the disability tax credit. The definition remains the same within the Income Tax Act, yet people are being reassessed, and it appears that CCRA is now instituting a new process that will ultimately make people less eligible. People who have had the tax credit for up to 15 years are being told there is insufficient information in the file for them to be eligible, and they are asked to reapply. We're fearful, from what we've seen in the past, that this is just a process to disqualify people. So I would ask that you look into this. You may begin to hear from constituents about the concern with the new process coming out of Revenue Canada that makes application for the tax credit more difficult.

Thank you.

• 1240

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from the Trans-Canada #1 West Association, Bruce C. Anderson and Darcy Cockbill. Welcome.

Mr. Bruce C. Anderson (Manager, Trans-Canada #1 West Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, we're grateful for the opportunity. We appeared before the committee two years ago when you met in Regina, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here again. I'd like to introduce Darcy Cockbill, who is the vice-president with the Trans-Canada #1 West Association.

As you may be aware, the association is an advocate for the improvement of the highways, the Trans-Canada highway, and also works on marketing initiatives geared towards increasing tourism traffic, primarily along the highway, to benefit the communities and attractions, and ultimately the residents in those communities. Our association thus represents municipalities, businesses, the attractions themselves, and tourism organizations in the three prairie provinces.

Our purpose today is to talk about the need for a national highway strategy, particularly a commitment from the federal government and leadership from the federal government towards such a strategy. We're specifically calling for an investment of $500 million per annum from the federal government to improve our highway system. We would look for these funds being matched by the provincial governments to create a long-term strategy. The purpose of these funds would be to allow the development of our highway system, and as you are aware, that highway system is not just confined to the Trans-Canada, but involves about 25,000 kilometres of highway systems all across our country.

The highways themselves are economic links that bring Canadians and Canadian businesses together and allow those people to gain access to world markets, other parts of both our country and the world. Yet our highway system itself has gone from about 9 years of age in 1961 to about 16 years of age, almost doubled in the last 40 years, and as you may be aware, the life span of a typical highway is anywhere from 20 to 30 years. So the highways are getting to the point where they're a risk to Canadians, to tourists and others, in travelling, and also in conducting business, in moving goods across our country.

So the issues primarily relate to the safety of the people travelling on the highway and the cost through delays, through repairs and maintenance, and a loss of time, time to move goods to and from places, time to move people back and forth. Those are real issues for Canadians and Canadian businesses.

We tried to match the highway strategy, our approach, with the committee's objectives. The strategy is important for several reasons.

First, the highway system again is critical for Canada's economic competitiveness and prosperity. You're being asked, as committee members and so forth, to make investments to protect Canadians, and I would argue that one of the best ways to safeguard our country is to ensure that it continues to prosper and grow and that the highways allow the engines that are trade and tourism to be utilized to their fullest potential.

Second, I think an effective highway system levels the playing field for all Canadians. No matter what part of Canada they are from, it allows people to have the same opportunities to conduct business, to travel, and to use the highways and move about the country. Of course, all these demands, with the problems in air travel that have recently occurred, have meant there's more pressure on our highways.

• 1245

Finally, safety and cost remain factors. As you know from your own ridings, there's no lack of stories and information on injuries and fatalities caused by traffic accidents, and part of that is the declining road system. There are, of course, other contributing factors, but the increased traffic is important as well.

What I'd like to do at this point, if I could, is introduce Darcy. He's a councillor with the town of Virden in western Manitoba, and I'd like to give a more local perspective on this issue, if I could.

Mr. Darcy Cockbill (Vice-President, Trans-Canada #1 West Association): Thank you, Bruce, Mr. Chairman, and committee members.

As Bruce indicated, I'm from the community of Virden, which is midway on the Trans-Canada Highway between the city of Winnipeg and the city of Regina. It's also the point where the Trans-Canada Highway merges from two-lane traffic into single-lane traffic for about 40 miles to the Saskatchewan border. That area of the highway has become extremely dangerous over the course of time with increased traffic volumes. Also, because of the traffic merging into one lane, it doesn't always slow down at that point. Many of our students, due to the closure of their rural schools, are travelling that portion of the highway daily, and they are put, I believe, at extreme risk, when you consider the types of dangerous goods that flow up and down the Trans-Canada Highway.

Remarkably, there are seven miles of road to the west of Virden that have been built for five years and have been waiting to be paved. That's an example, I think, of how our roads get built, at least across western Canada—a little piece at a time. By the time you get to the end and you have everything built, the first part is in decay and in need of repair. We desperately need the funding for construction and upkeep of our highways.

Someone once said the best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, and the next best time is now. This statement can certainly be applied to building highways, because it typically takes approximately five years for the survey work, land acquisition, and final engineering to take place before construction can even begin. The federal government's leadership and commitment to our national highway system are vital for this preliminary work to proceed. Canada's productivity is being negatively affected by our deteriorating national highways. We need a national highway strategy now, and the federal government has the lead role in creating and funding that strategy.

I'd like to thank you for your interest and attention, and we will be available for any questions.

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

Now we'll proceed to the Canadian Nature Federation, Gaile Whelan-Enns, the director of the Manitoba Wildlands Campaign.

Ms. Gaile Whelan-Enns (Director, Manitoba Wildlands Campaign, Canadian Nature Federation): Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee this afternoon, and would like to acknowledge that I didn't ask about my technical needs beforehand, so we have some maps on paper.

First, you have heard from the Canadian Nature Federation in this set of hearings through the national staff, and everything I'm saying today is in accord with and supports their statement to the committee. You have also heard from the Green Budget Coalition, and again, my comments today are in accord with and in support of the Green Budget Coalition's comments, particularly their theme 2, which is about the protection and conservation of our natural heritage in Canada. It might be worth pointing out that all conservation organizations across Canada have participated in that coalition and agreed on that priority in its mission for a green budget for Canada and in its remarks to the House of Commons finance committee.

• 1250

Commitments to complete the national parks system in Canada have been repeated at regular intervals since 1988, in 1993, in 1997, and again last year. Delivery of the rest of the national parks network in the country is very much overdue. I brought with me a couple of simplified maps of Manitoba to show the location of the new national park on Hudson Bay, which is called Wapusk, and Riding Mountain National Park. Those are the two that currently exist in the province.

Wapusk is an example of a new national park where funding needs to be secured over the next five years, $493 million. Other proposals and submissions that I referred to would greatly benefit the ability to have a functioning national park at Wapusk, including the ability to move forward for marine protected areas in the bay.

Riding Mountain National Park is one of the most heavily affected and at-risk national parks in our country. That has been confirmed again by Parks Canada in its State of the Parks reports year after year, and the ecological integrity panel of Parks Canada had very specific advice for the future health of that park. Again, the funding that is in question and under debate right now would make a tremendous difference for the long-term viability of Riding Mountain.

The second simplified map of Manitoba I brought with me has to do with new parks establishment and the process of completing the national parks system within Manitoba's boundaries. There are two candidates. This is the map of the 130 areas under review for protection from industrial development in the province, and there are two in the centre, at the top and on the west side of Lake Winnipeg. They are called Limestone and Long Point, and they are the sites for the new national park in the lowlands. To be able to establish this national park, the funding for new parks establishment within Parks Canada would be essential. The first study for this national park was in 1972. The accord between both levels of government to move forward on this park was signed in 1992. The boundaries have been identified since 1996.

As you can probably tell from my comments, I have Manitoba on my mind today in my role of securing protected lands in the province, and in particular the national parks. It's also, I think, worth pointing out that Canadians expect the national parks network in our country to be completed. That's there consistently, whatever measure one wants to take. Certainly, Canadians expect our international commitments for the protection of biodiversity and our natural heritage to be complete. They expect the national parks system that's in place now to regain and maintain ecological integrity, park by park. They expect the new national parks that are outstanding to be established, and we have had a couple of events in the last six months in Canada where an agreement for a national park was ready to be signed, and then it didn't happen. So there are some very real concerns about the will and the funding to go forward.

Canadians also expect to see all the economic benefits that come to us from our national parks, depending on where you are in the country, the history of the park, the tourism attractions, the accessibility of the park, the economic multipliers, anywhere from five to ten times in the general economy what the operating costs are for national parks.

Canadians also expect, balanced with those economic returns, all the rest of the values in recreation, wilderness, and biodiversity protection. We're not looking for, and Canadians are not looking for, at this time significant federal subsidy dollars to support resource extraction in parts of Canada that are under review for protected lands, for national parks establishment.

National parks are part of our natural and national heritage. They are a part of Canadian identity. The current economic and security concerns the federal government is grappling with, in fact, make now the time to deliver the rest of the national parks system. These same concerns make now the time to follow through on the recommendations of the ecological integrity panel concerning the health of our national parks.

• 1255

I would suggest to you that the kinds of economic and security concerns we have mean that things that are linked to our national identity, that will provide community cohesion and investment in the future, certainty in terms of our heritage, that are part of what we see Canada as being all about are crucial right now in the decisions that are being made about budgetary and program dollars.

The final thing I wanted to say is that I appreciate being here, even when I have less time to prepare. I would like to thank the clerk of the committee for his assistance, and stop right there.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll proceed to the question and answer session. There will be a six-minute round for everybody.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for giving us your insights. I would like to deal with them in the same order as that in which you presented, so we'll start with Mr. Beachell.

I listened quite carefully to your presentation and looked at the rest. I am rather astounded by the numbers. You're saying that one in six Canadians is disabled, one in three of our native population is disabled. How do you define disabled in order to get numbers that high, because that seems to me to be very high?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Those are Statistics Canada figures coming out of the 1991 census survey. Their definition of disability was persons who were restricted in activities of daily living, restricted in their functioning and their ability to undertake activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing, etc. The figure is 16% of people on the census identified through a follow-up survey as having a disability. In the 1996 census there was no follow-up survey. It is being undertaken right now, and the post-census survey is actually being tested. We expect those numbers will be higher this time around, because of an aging population.

Among the aboriginal communities the statistics are quite clear. The incidence of disability is twice, for young aboriginal adults about three times the national average. This relates greatly to issues of poverty, violence, substance abuse, etc. You have a huge and growing population among aboriginal persons who have disabilities. Certainly, disability increases as the population ages.

Mr. Ken Epp: You took an advance on my next question, and that was with respect to the aboriginals. With that high a number, one in three, you would think that someone somewhere sometime would have done a study to find the cause of it and to start looking at ways of preventing it, as opposed to ways of working with it when it's already there. I wonder whether such a study has been done and what the causes are. You mentioned substance abuse and you mentioned poverty.

My follow-up question to that would be, what precisely can the federal government do via a budget measure to solve that? Because it seems to me that we're dealing with something that's really quite non-monetary.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: The federal government has clear jurisdiction in certain areas related to aboriginal people, and could, certainly for those persons living on reserves, provide greater resources for the support to be there. I don't claim to represent that community, and I would suggest that the committee talk to the Assembly of First Nations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, etc., who have people focused on disability issues—they recognize the problem.

The incidence of diabetes among that community and the battle over who will provide the service between federal and provincial governments is, frankly, disgraceful. What we have happening to aboriginal people is that they have to leave their community in order to find the service and support they want. That is why we are seeing, in some instances, very large movement of aboriginal people from reserves to urban populations, because it is the only place they can get the service. Then there is a debate among municipal, provincial and federal governments as to who will pay for it. It relates to the matter of status and non-status. It also relates to the politics of self-government.

• 1300

There is a huge problem here. Not much attention has been paid to it by the federal government. I would say it is a national disgrace.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, okay.

I guess I want to make just a comment here, and there won't be time for you to respond. With respect to the refundable disability tax credit, it seems fine in principle. I suppose I would need to wonder about whether or not there is a problem doing the paperwork, the filing of the income tax returns, and so on. You mentioned people are being reassessed. I think that is another thing we have to look at, making that whole process easier for them.

But I want to get onto the next group, otherwise I'm going to get cut off here. To the Trans-Canada #1 West Association, do you people work together at all with the Yellowhead Highway Association? In a way you're competing, but you're also pursuing the same goals. Do you work together with them at all?

Mr. Bruce Anderson: We don't have a formal link. We do talk between the organizations, obviously, when we're moving people to and from the country, particularly with the tourism aspect of it. It's more than likely some people will come out on one route and come back on another route, so the marketing addresses some of those issues. We talk other times about transportation issues, movement of trucks and so forth. We do it on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, good.

I agree with you 100%—in fact, more than that—with respect to safety. I've driven most of the Trans-Canada. In fact, I've driven all of it from the Ontario border right to British Columbia. Safety along that road is devastating, especially in many areas where, as was mentioned, there's one lane going east and another lane right beside it going west.

When you look down on the Trans-Canada from 35,000 feet in an airplane you see this wee thread. There are little dots on it, and those little dots represent big trucks. When they pass each other this way, they merge into one dot, because the eye can't discern them. Then you say, what are we doing with these guys hurtling at each other at that speed at such a close distance? From a safety point of view, from an engineering point of view, that really is ludicrous. We need to really address that safety issue, because the cost of the accidents, not only the loss of property, but more importantly, the loss of lives and the mangling of bodies, is immense. I think I would encourage you to continue to push that end of it.

I have a question with respect to your fiscal need—we're talking here for the budget. You want $500 million a year. From whence came that number? Did you just reach into the air and say, that sounds like a good number? Where did it come from?

Mr. Bruce Anderson: Where the number came from is the fact that $17 billion of work is required, and almost any number would do. The idea was that a billion-dollar program, half from the federal government and half from the provincial, would, over a period, start to address that backlog of activity. The other thing is that the excise tax on fuel was raised by 1.5 cents to help in a deficit-cutting activity; that tax still exists, and it generates about $500 million a year.

Mr. Ken Epp: Of course, that's a tax on a tax too, because they take the GST on top of that excise tax. We're against that. We're on your side on that one.

l could talk with both your groups for half an hour each, but they won't let me, and I must turn to the Canadian Nature Federation.

You talk, as the other groups did, about the completion of the establishment of national parks and the fact that there is an agenda, there was a plan, and it's not being fulfilled. The fact that we're waiting now and the funding isn't available means that some opportunities are slipping through our fingers. There is some land area that is being utilized in ways that make it incompatible with future parks. Is there any way that goal could be achieved, the goal of retaining that land for parks, without having a large budget impact, especially in view of the pressures economically and in fighting terrorism that our country now faces?

• 1305

Ms. Gaile Whelan-Enns: That's a fair question, particularly from a finance committee member. I would, with respect, suggest that the cost of not completing our network of national parks in Canada will be far higher than these figures that have been worked on fairly carefully. The Green Budget Coalition used Parks Canada's figures and the numbers and the costs attached to the recommendations of the ecological integrity panel.

What I meant by my comment is that there's $12 billion of nature-related activity in tourism in Canada a year. There are 200,000 people currently employed in these kinds of tourism and nature-related activity. So national parks are an investment in the future, including our future economy. The potential for arrival at these objectives, both ecological integrity and new national parks establishment, at a lower cost would be directly related to an increase in will and cooperation and a very strong message about the will to get this done. My simple example then was the Lowlands National Park, started in 1972. We've been at it since 1992 in respect of the government-to-government MOU. If you have a very strong consensus and will between levels of government and the first nations affected by these decisions, and everyone is thinking and talking about the fact we're going to get this done together, then your costs go down, as your timeline is shortened.

The conservation organizations across Canada who have been in the Green Budget Coalition would like nothing better than to work on a cooperative basis to get to completion, to improve the health of the national parks that are in place. You'd find we would be in the room helping to find the way to get there at lower cost.

I spent most of the 1990s representing the World Wildlife Fund in Manitoba, and that involved both provincial and national park or federal lands work, and they're also a member of the Green Budget Coalition. I've been on the board of the Sierra Club Canada nationally, and they're also members. There's a very strong consensus about the urgency and the need, and I'm suggesting to you that would in fact play out in cooperation and help.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, good, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the presenters.

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Cockbill, about the road you described west of where you are not being paved for a number of years, it is the function, as you said, of fiscal process, annual appropriations, and maybe elections, I don't know, but it just never gets done. If we involved the private sector—you know, design, build, operate—one of the advantages, as they tell us, would be that they wouldn't have to go seasonally, they would mobilize and demobilize and go with the fiscal year end, which is part of the problem you have. So if you design, build, and operate, you build it as quickly as you can, and you also build it, because you're going to have to operate it later, in a way that's going to save you money or be most cost-effective.

The whole question of public-private partnerships in our national highway system, as you know, has been around for some time. In fact, renewing our national highway system across the country would cost in the order of $13 to $18 billion dollars, and I think those numbers are probably in need of an update. That's why our Minister of Finance and other ministers of finance say, what about public-private partnerships? How can we involve the private sector? That discussion usually ends up with, that means toll roads, Canadians don't like toll roads, so forget it.

But I beg to differ. I've raised this on a number of different occasions. You can look at other jurisdictions where they bring in many more private benefits—it could be concessions, real estate, not just tolls. They try to include as many private benefits as possible, so that it's of more interest to the private sector. In fact, the example I've used, just pulling it out of the air, has been Manitoba, and I just wanted to run this idea by you.

• 1310

I recognize that in some areas of Manitoba you don't get the traffic density to support toll roads, but there might be areas around Winnipeg and the like where the economics might work out a little better. I'm not sure if it would be self-supporting like the 407 in Toronto, because of the volume of traffic. But the point I threw out to the Ambrose Group, who did a lot of work in England where they captured all these private benefits to the extent that they could and they were feasible, was that it was worthwhile looking at a kind of cross-subsidy approach, where you'd roll in and say to the private sector, we'd like you to bid on renewing the national highway system in Manitoba, and we're going to scope in these concessions and real estate where it makes sense and is environmentally responsible, and we're going to allow you to put on tolls. There might still be a public good that has to be financed, especially in some more rural sections of Canada.

Do you think there would be any appetite for that? What kind of interest is there in the private sector? Is that kind of idea feasible? Are we still going to end up with some subsidies? Can we cross-subsidize? Do you have any reaction?

Mr. Bruce Anderson: I think the whole area of private involvement is predicated on a couple of things. To use the 407 example, which is a good example, there is an alternative to using it, primarily the 401, and when you talk about the Trans-Canada, you talk about the Yellowhead, you talk about some of those other highways, which are the only links for some areas, you might argue that those kinds of tolls, in addition to the implications of paying your taxes and so forth, could be problematic, when that is the only alternative.

However, as an association we're fully aware of some of these opportunities with the partnerships. I think they haven't been fully explored. I think there are options within the right of way access, those real estate opportunities and so forth, that could make some of these things possible.

One of the issues, of course, is that in this country we tend to invest in our infrastructure, such as building the Trans-Canada Highway, and then not incorporate the maintenance of it. That's where we're talking about these funds being realistic for making that possible.

Mr. Roy Cullen: You probably work with the national coalition, Jim Forseth and that group, or you know of them, and I encourage you to do so. This issue keeps coming back, and I think we really need to push the envelope on the involvement of the private sector. I think our finance minister and many finance ministers would be prepared to say, okay, we pushed it and those are the limits, so now let's get down and finance the part that's going to be left to the public. There will be such a part. It won't all be run by the private sector. But until we've completed that job, I think you're going to be back here all the time, because it's a big ticket item, and no finance minister wants to make a commitment without making sure that has been fully explored. So thank you for that.

Mr. Beachell, I'm glad you commented on the fact that our government has responded to persons with disabilities. I know our finance minister and the government have really tried to push this, and in fact, in January 2001, as I think you mentioned, the credit amounts for caregivers of people with disabilities and others went up 50%—I know it's never enough.

I'm curious about your first recommendation. What do you define as a support? Are we talking about equipment, are we talking about programs, or both? Maybe you could expand on your recommendation to create a national disability supports program.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: We mean all of that. We're talking equipment, we're talking programs, we're talking everything from technical aids and appliances to attendant care programs, home care, looking at issues of drug costs, etc. As you know, provincial governments have jurisdiction in this area. They are the body that delivers the program that delivers the service. With cuts in the transfers under the Canada Health and Social Transfer in 1996-1997, and with block funding rather than cost-shared funding.... CHST, as you know, funds health, education, social services, and social assistance. The priorities have been health and education. Social services and social assistance have been the pieces that have been cut.

• 1315

There have been reinvestments in dollars to CHST, but targeted to health. We're asking for a focus on those supports that allow people to get a job, go to school, go to work, participate in community life, accessible transportation programs, attendant care programs for people to come in and help people get up in the morning, interpreters for persons who are deaf, etc. There's a very broad range of programs within the jurisdiction of the provinces. What we're talking about is the transfer to the provinces to reinvest in some of those.

First ministers in 1997-1998 identified two social priorities, people with disabilities and children living in poverty. There have been the childhood initiatives and smaller initiatives to do with disability. We're saying, now is the time. We need a reinvestment if we're going to see people move forward. Investment and labour market strategies are not going to help us. If people can't get to work, how do they take a job? If people don't have the attendant care that gets them going in the morning, how do they get to school? Those are the programs in provincial jurisdiction we want to see reinvestment in.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Thank you.

First, Mr. Beachell, do you have with you or can you get the number of people you do not think can take advantage of the disability tax credit?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: I don't have it, but we may be able to get it. I have to tell you that working with the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada has not been an easy process towards understanding who applies, who gets denied, and for what reasons are they denied.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: But you very blatantly said here that they're not even taking advantage, because they live in poverty. In other words, they don't have labour market attachments, and you're saying our whole system is designed for having a labour market attachment.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Exactly. If you don't have a taxable income, the tax credit is of no value to you, unless you can transfer it to a spouse.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Have you had a discussion with Finance on refundable disability tax credits?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Yes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: And what is their position so far?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: They say it's a large-ticket item, but they won't give us a cost figure.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Partly because nobody's got a number.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Part of it is the difficulty with the number, and part of it is the difficulty of the interpretation done by Revenue of the legislation.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: But in some parts, as Mr. Cullen was saying, the caregiver should be picking up some of what may be in that number.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Certainly, those who have a taxable income, and particularly parents who have children with disabilities, may be able to use the caregiver tax credit and the disability tax credit. For those individuals with a disability who are living on social assistance and are not attached to the labour market that tax credit has no benefit. The majority of adults with disabilities are unemployed. The majority of adults with disabilities live in poverty. If you look at welfare rolls, usually about one-third are persons with disabilities, either mental or physical handicaps. They get no benefit of that tax credit unless they are married or in a common-law relationship and can transfer the tax credit to a spouse.

So we have a large population and a tax initiative that is meant to deal with social policy, but tax is not flexible, it is not creative, it is often not even fair. It is a rigid system that is trying to serve a social purpose, and, frankly, it will be difficult to do so.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Thank you.

To our transportation experts, the other day I was flipping through channels in my hotel room, and there was something—I don't know if it is correct—on U.S. TV saying that 112 people a day get killed on U.S. highways. When you're talking about safety on the highways, do you know what our Canadian comparable figure is? In your opinion, is this increasing or decreasing?

• 1320

Mr. Bruce Anderson: I don't have the Canadian statistics, but I know they exist. As to the trend, I think it is increasing, in respect of both accident and injury. That's witnessed in the disabilities we can see arising from it. So the trend is upward. I think that's due to the increased volume of traffic, the mix of traffic, such as the trucks alluded to earlier, the speed of the vehicles, and the road conditions.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Thank you very much. That's all my questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'd like to express, on behalf of the committee, my gratitude for your input. As always, it's welcome.

I have a very quick note. Today is our last day out from Ottawa. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the witnesses who appeared in front of the committee and those who submitted briefs throughout Canada. And I want to thank the clerks, the researchers, the technicians, the interpreters, and the staff who help us make this consultation process very effective and our travelling across the country smooth and problem-free.

The meeting is adjourned.