[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 23, 1995
.1111 
[English]
The Chair: I would like to call the meeting to order and to welcome our witnesses to this, our meeting on the review of the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities.
We have before us the assistant deputy minister from human resources development, Mr. Ian Green, as well as Mr. Michael Binder from Industry Canada, and Mr. Gavin Currie, director general from the National Transportation Agency.
Mr. Green, would you like to start and coordinate who will follow you in the speaking order?
Mr. Ian Green (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): I should just point out, Mr. Chairman, that we have a couple of colleagues with us at the table to help us answer questions. I have from my department Dean Moodie and Bruce Clark, who will be known, I think, to committee members. Gavin has with him Hélène Nadeau from the National Transportation Agency, and Michael has Mary Frances Laughton from Industry Canada.
The Chair: We would like to welcome all.
Mr. Green: It's my pleasure to be with you here today.
When Mr. Axworthy met with you just a few days ago, he outlined a seven-point strategy to integrate disabled Canadians into the workforce and to promote independent living. I do not propose to reiterate what the minister has already told you. I'd in fact proposed to keep my formal comments to a minimum, as I think my colleagues will, and instead help committee members gain a better understanding of our departmental and interdepartmental activities through your questions and hopefully the answers we can give you.
What I would like to do, though, is just take two or three minutes to provide some information to you. I think each of my colleagues in terms of their departmental activities would like to do the same, if that's okay.
I'm invited here today as the chair of the ADM steering committee of the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. I've been with the committee since the national strategy was in its developmental phase, first as a member representing Health and Welfare Canada, and now as the chair and representative of the Department of Human Resources Development, the lead department for the national strategy.
While we met frequently when the strategy was being developed, we have come together less frequently since then. We've averaged essentially annual meetings since the launch of the strategy in 1991. To be honest, most of the interdepartmental work with respect to collaboration, networking and information sharing has taken place through the national strategy working group of program managers who meet monthly - about ten times a year.
You've already heard from our clients - Canadians with disabilities, community organizations, service providers. I think it's fair to say that while there's always room for improvement, there is good support for the objectives of the strategy and what it set out to achieve in 1991.
I'm confident that if time permitted you to meet each of our departments under this strategy, you would conclude that there have been some exciting initiatives launched under the strategy, and that the partners have achieved some significant results. I know that my colleagues here today will share some of those achievements with you.
.1115
In spite of major reorganization issues within my own department that we've experienced over the last couple of years, I'm pleased to say that the evaluation of the national strategy activities is generally supportive of the initiatives that were implemented. For example, the evaluation found that through HRDC support and activities, there was increased involvement of persons with disabilities and issues affecting them. There were changed attitudes of persons with disabilities concerning their rights and opportunities open to them. There were attitudinal changes of the community at large toward the needs and potential of persons with disabilities, as well as to issues of access and economic integration. And there was increased awareness of services for and the rights of persons with disabilities.
I think it's fair to say that we did not do as well as we would have liked in terms of the participation rates in our employment programs of persons with disabilities. However, I believe that the strategy announced earlier this month by Mr. Axworthy will make real strides in helping the department to move in that area.
Mr. Chairman, it also came to my attention when I was preparing for this meeting that the evaluation of the strategy, which is still awaiting the approval of the ADM committee, has not been available to the committee. One of the things I thought would be very helpful, since I plan to make reference to it in some of my remarks, would be to provide a summary of the evaluation to the committee at the earliest possible date. I think that will help you in looking at the strategy and where it has been. So I'd like to undertake to do that right at the beginning.
In terms of the overall strategy, the evaluation findings - which were based on interviews with NGO representatives, focus groups of representatives of disabled persons' organizations, provincial governments, and federal government participants - indicated that 79% of respondents to the evaluation felt that great or partial progress had been made toward equal access in terms of the strategy; 84% of the respondents felt there had been great or partial progress toward effective participation; 59% of the respondents felt there had been great or partial progress made toward the objective of economic integration; and 81% of respondents felt the strategy had brought about some positive changes in the way people with disabilities are able to participate in everyday life.
Within the next couple of weeks I will be meeting with the ADM steering committee to review the strategy's evaluation findings. We will also be talking to other departments about their plans for the future and looking together at how we can continue to work together in promoting the interests of persons with disabilities in the federal government.
When Mr. Axworthy met with you on November 9, he expressed his personal convictions on disability issues and his willingness to accept lead responsibility in government in this area. When I meet with my colleagues in coming weeks, I intend to build very strongly on that commitment of the minister to explore options as to how we can effectively coordinate interdepartmental activities.
Mr. Axworthy made a commitment to continue his department's work on disability issues through such initiatives as refocusing the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons, a more effectively delivered Canada pension plan, a new and more accessible human resources investment fund, broad partnership efforts in disability management, and a strengthened status of the disabled persons secretariat. Some of these programs are directly in my bailiwick, and these are clearly my marching orders in terms of moving ahead with these programs. I'm very hopeful that our partners will be able to build on these types of initiatives, across the federal government and beyond.
That's all I'd like to say. I'd like to pass it over to Gavin.
Mr. Gavin Currie (Director General, Air and Accessible Transportation Branch, National Transportation Agency): I'm very pleased to be here today to talk about the work of the National Transportation Agency. The agency is responsible for the economic regulation of transportation under federal jurisdiction. In the area of accessible transportation, the agency has the power to make regulations, resolve complaints, and undertake inquiries in order to remove undue obstacles from the federal transportation network.
Although the agency is one of the smallest departments participating in the national strategy, we believe we have been able to contribute in a significant way to the improvement of the accessibility of the federal transportation network.
I should note that prior to the national strategy the agency already had an active accessibility program. The additional funds allocated under the strategy were used to accelerate the development of accessibility regulations. In fact, I'm happy to report that since the agency's last appearance before this committee, in May 1993, significant progress has been made in this area. In particular, I would note that two sets of regulations are now in effect.
.1120
The first set, which came into effect on January 1, 1994, establishes the services that are to be provided to persons with disabilities by Canadian air carriers offering domestic services to aircraft with thirty seats or more. The second set of regulations is applicable to air, rail, and ferry services. These regulations, which came into effect in January of this year, require that most carriers and terminal operators ensure employees are trained to assist persons with disabilities properly.
[Translation]
We have also made progress with several other regulatory initiatives, some of which were discussed at a meeting of our advisory committee last month. The committee is made up of representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities, the manufacturing industry, and other departments.
We also carried out a number of surveys and we are in the process of completing some others. The Agency is also continuing with to deal complaints submitted by disabled travellers.
So far the Agency has focused its efforts on developing regulations in order to eliminate undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities.
However, in light of the government's desire to reduce regulation, except in cases of absolute necessity, the Agency is now studying other ways of implementing provisions relating to accessibility, including voluntary compliance.
[English]
In closing, I would like to say a word about the agency's role in the future.
Like most departments, the agency is going through significant changes. As a result of decisions announced in the February 1995 budget, program review, and Bill C-101 - the Canada Transportation Act - the agency has had to restructure its operations. Many responsibilities have been eliminated, changed, or diminished. However, provisions in the new legislation related to accessible transportation remain essentially unchanged. Consequently I believe the agency's successor under Bill C-101, the proposed Canadian Transportation Agency, will continue to play an active role in accessible transportation matters.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Binder.
Mr. Michael Binder (Assistant Deputy Minister, Spectrum, Information Technology and Telecommunications; Department of Industry): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
[Translation]
I'm proud to be here to speak to you about the National Strategy on behalf of Industry Canada.
[English]
We were one of the smallest partners, but we made a very strong contribution. We firmly believe that communications products and services are fundamental to continued employment and full integration of people with disabilities into the social and economic framework of Canadian society.
Why is the Department of Industry involved in a disability strategy? It is partly historical, but mostly it is because it makes excellent economic sense. The program began in the Department of Communications, which had a long history of developing products and services for people with disabilities.
The Canadian assistive devices industry is a small but growing domestic and global industry sector. Its products assist people with disability to work and live independently. The industry has continued to be supported in the new Department of Industry as an economically driven program. The market is there from the point of view of people with disabilities and from that of seniors and elderly people.
Not only do the products serve the disability community, but many of them fill a mainstream need. Voice recognition products can also be used in a regular office. The newspapers delivered by computer for the print-handicapped can also be used in a non-delivery area such as the north or cottage country. Similarly, captioning systems aid people with hearing impairments...and training for literacy. We use our government know-how to lever other moneys to develop products that meet these needs.
.1125
At the beginning of our involvement we conducted a national survey to determine our direction. All of our activities were completed in partnership with SMEs or with other research institutions. We have worked in all parts of the country.
A grocery product bar code reader was developed by Compusult Limited in Newfoundland. This reader system can also be used in mainstream offices such as legal offices. The remote gateway, a super remote control for home automation, was developed by the Neil Squire Foundation in Vancouver. Surely all of us would like to be able to control our house from the couch.
I will not continue to dwell on the past, save to say that all of our projects were done with the stated support of the community of people with disabilities to ensure that the products and services being supported met their stated needs.
Our advisory committee has provided us with a strategic plan for our four-year operations. Of the 45 products or services we supported in development, 20 are now on the market and the rest are in pre-market stage.
Our information highway advisory council recently provided the government with a series of recommendations on making the information highway accessible to people with disabilities. Departmental officials are now developing a work plan in conjunction with the community to implement these recommendations over the next few months.
Within the Department of Industry, with the full support of our minister, the Hon. John Manley, we are seeking the means to continue to support this program, keeping in mind the direction the Department of Industry is taking is away from direct industrial subsidies.
We recognize that the assistive device industry is a new industry and that the potential for international penetration by our small firms is great. It is our hope that we will be able to partner with the community in this new industry to develop world-class products to meet the growing needs for independent living and working.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to open it for questions, starting with a five-minute round.
Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): In the course of our discussions about the National Strategy, I've raised a concern about the loss the jobs resulting from the federal government's cutbacks and the possible repercussions on programs aimed at providing better access to the labour market to persons with disabilities.
I've been told that there's not necessarily a cause and effect relationship between federal government cuts and job losses affecting the target groups, particularly persons with disabilities. In other words, these groups were not necessarily the most affected.
I've listened attentively to your comments about the work being done in the different departments. I also read an article by Michel Gratton in the Toronto Sun. Actually there are two articles that appeared on the 21st and 26th of July.
Mr. Gratton noted that between April 1 1995 and June 30 1995, 153 positions in the federal government occupied by persons from the target groups were abolished. Sixty-one percent of these positions were occupied by persons with disabilities. That confirms something I suspected, namely that even though those programs may be excellent, when the axe falls, these are the people who are the most vulnerable.
I'd like to hear the comments of Mr. Green or someone else on this. What measures have been taken? If nothing has been done about this, all our speeches and good intentions about employment integration will be nothing more than empty gestures.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Green.
.1130
Mr. Green: I don't claim to be an expert on the impact of the government's downsizing, which is what the question is about. I guess that's en route to basically saying I can check with my colleagues at the Treasury Board who would be keeping the numbers on the impacts on designated groups.
I can tell you that in implementing the downsizing, we have been encouraged very much to try to minimize the impact of the downsizing on key groups, particularly in respect of persons with disabilities.
I can get back to the member with the specific numbers on the impacts. I can't comment on the specific number of people who have been affected.
My colleague is telling me he wants to add something.
Mr. Bruce Clark (Executive Director, Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Axworthy saw the same articles in the media that you're referring to, and he was concerned about them and asked the department to look into it.
The disabled persons secretariat, in collaboration with human resources in our department, has done an analysis of those numbers. All of the departures were optional. In other words, they were packages that employees chose, either an early departure option or early retirement. None of them were forced departures.
The number is disproportionately high because the majority of people who opted for ERI, the early retirement package, are older workers, and as you know, disability increases with age. Therefore there was a high number of those who had self-identified as having disabilities.
Mr. Axworthy was particularly concerned that people with disabilities were not opting to leave the department because they felt somehow disadvantaged. So in collaboration with human resources branch, we are now undertaking to interview a select number of people who have departed in order to determine the decision-making process they went through in opting for departure. So we're actively examining that in collaboration with Treasury Board and our own human resources branch.
The Chair: We will now move to Mr. McClelland.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Earlier witnesses testified that the single most important ingredient in the whole question of persons with disabilities is political will, particularly in the time we know we're in financially and with the changes that are necessary. So I'd like to confine my comments and ask a question with regard to the political will in ensuring that disability issues remain top of mind within the power levels of government while these decisions on restructuring and reducing expenditures are taking place.
I understand, and perhaps other members could edify me a little bit, that cabinet runs Parliament and the Prime Minister's office runs cabinet primarily. Both in the Prime Minister's office and in cabinet, decisions have to be subjected to an impact review. If a decision is made, what is the impact on this group or that group? Does cabinet have a review for the impact on persons with disabilities? Does the Prime Minister's office have a review on all of their decisions and how they impact on persons with disabilities? If not, why not, and when will it be implemented? I just throw that on the floor and ask for a response.
Mr. Green: I'll answer the first part on the issue of political will. It's always risky for a public servant to comment on political will, but....
Mr. Axworthy's very clear commitment to seeing himself as the lead minister is a very important demonstration of political will in terms of ensuring that at the political level there's a minister who has quite clearly put himself in play.
Second, in all of his discussions, whether it's the social security review of last year or beyond that, Mr. Axworthy has made it very clear that he sees issues around persons with disabilities as important.
.1135
In terms of political will, I also think one of the outcomes of the strategy, which I think is important, is that it has built a community or a constituency within the public service of public servants who have some familiarity with issues respecting disabled persons. They have come together to meet and work together regularly, and that didn't exist prior to five years ago. So I think that's a very important issue.
In terms of the cabinet process, there is not a formal requirement, at least not that I'm aware of, that in every memorandum to cabinet one has to deal with the issue of the impact on persons with disabilities. One of the problems with that is that there is a wide range of issues in this country and you could apply that many, many times in terms of important issues.
It is quite clear, though, that in terms of putting memoranda to cabinet into the system of cabinet proposals, and in terms of other central agencies looking at them, particularly where issues are known to have an impact on certain clients, there will be very close scrutiny of their impact on certain constituencies, given the nature of the issue. So while it's not formally required, it certainly is there in many of the issues I've dealt with.
Mr. McClelland: How do I go about making it a formal requirement, then?
Mr. Green: I think you would have to talk to the Privy Council office, those who run the cabinet system on behalf of the Prime Minister, and suggest to them that you want to change the mechanism on memoranda to cabinet.
Mr. McClelland: I'm sorry, but we don't get much time for these questions. My second question has to do with the National Transportation Agency.
Many witnesses, both here and at the premier's council, have said that if you're trying to figure out what it's like to be disabled or to have a disability or to be in a wheelchair if you're an urban person, multiply that by ten if you're rural.
The recommendations of the National Transportation Agency having to do with bus transportation, particularly interprovincial or intercity buses, are really nice, a step in the right direction, but there is a noticeable lack of the word ``will'' and a lot of use of the word ``should''.
It has been identified by many witnesses as the number-one concern of persons with accessibility problems in wheelchairs that they cannot commute from city to city via bus. It's really nice that people can get on a train or a plane, but most of it is done by road. Is there any way this could be moved to the top of the agenda and the ``shoulds'' be replaced by ``wills''?
Mr. Currie: I'll do my best to respond to this.
The agency did a major inquiry about three years ago, in May of 1993, I think, and published a report about the road to accessibility concerning the accessibility of interprovincial buses. The agency at that time clearly recommended that interprovincial buses should be made accessible through the use of lifts on the buses. Over a period of time, they suggested a national standard in that regard.
The report was passed on to the Minister of Transport because the agency does not have the jurisdiction to act on its own; it's up to the Minister of Transport. I cannot speak for the Minister of Transport this morning. My understanding is that since that time there have been extensive discussions involving groups of and for persons with disabilities and the bus industry in terms of trying to move ahead with the standard, which would be implemented either by the provinces or perhaps nationally. That decision, as I understand it, has not been finally made.
I understand that the current desire of the minister is to try to get a voluntary approach, agreed to by both the groups representing people with disabilities and the industry, to move this ahead. But I'm afraid that since I'm not a representative of the Minister of Transport here, I can't speak for him directly.
The Chair: I now give the floor to Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): I think I'll start with some observations, which will then turn into a question.
I spent the earlier - quite a bit earlier - portion of my life as the mayor of a small town in rural Canada. I have to say that part of the difficulty there was probably a lack of awareness of needs when we started constructing roads, sidewalks, etc.
.1140
I'll give you a couple of examples in technology. My efforts go back to about the late 1960s and early 1970s, at which time there was no such thing as motorized equipment, self-directed equipment, on the market on any wide scale. One day I was driving home and I saw an individual in her eighties trying to cross on a railway crossing, and her equipment was all hung up on the rail. Had somebody not stopped and assisted with that piece of equipment, there could have been a very serious problem. Obviously it didn't happen, but I felt morally responsible for having a look at that as an issue in my home community.
When all the intersections were reviewed, very few intersections would allow that kind of access on the sidewalks, or even off sidewalks onto roadways. But that has improved significantly over the last while, though I'm not saying there isn't a lot of room for improvement.
I was on a committee on western diversification that went across western Canada a year ago. One of the groups that came and presented to us was from the University of Alberta, inMr. McClelland's riding. They made the point that one of the best research centres in development of devices to assist the disabled was in the University of Alberta.
I'm finally coming to a question here. How are we doing in terms of meeting the wide spectrum of needs of the disabled? I'm asking this because I'm newly appointed to this committee, but I do have an obvious interest. Secondly, are there research dollars of a significant amount to.... If I can guess what the answer to the first question is, are we then going to be formally trying to strategize and get more dollars for research across the country?
The Chair: Who would like to take that question? Mr. Green, perhaps?
Mr. Green: Maybe. I may ask my colleague Mr. Clark to help me out.
The first part of your question led me to the conclusion that much of the issue is at the local level, in terms of helping persons with disabilities. We have - at least in terms of my department, in the programs I'm familiar with - very much structured ourselves on that basis. While I am not here to report tremendous success in economic integration and improving the participation rate of persons with disabilities in some of our programs, a number of our community employment centres have been very active in reaching out into the community and trying to build, with the community, programs that respond to their needs.
Going to your point about awareness in communities being an absolute key, we have some 55 projects of that nature across the country. Also, the disabled persons participation program, which is again run out of my department and a large part of which is operated on a decentralized basis, was set up largely to generate community activity and awareness of the type you're describing.
In terms of your question whether I can describe the various impacts, I can come back to that if you wish.
I should note that we have several active projects under way with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to promote access issues. We also run the five-star community award program, which Bruce may want to comment on briefly.
In terms of meeting the needs and interests of disabled persons with research, Bruce, do you want to briefly describe that?
Mr. Clark: The five-star program with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities operates by providing municipalities with awards in the areas of transportation, recreation, housing, employment and education. There's a very stringent series of guidelines that municipalities must meet in order to receive an award.
In terms of research dollars, through the disabled persons participation program we have been in partnership with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to provide research dollars that support areas dealing with disability issues. We also work closely with the National Research Council, which does have some dedicated resources in the area of disability. As you have already heard from Mr. Binder and Industry Canada, dollars have been made available to support research and development of products and devices for people with disabilities.
.1145
Mr. Binder: As for the telecommunications business, I'd like to be very optimistic. The new networks and the ability of the disabled community to work and function independently at home are growing. We have seen amazing progress in ability to function from home in many businesses, etc. The reason I'm optimistic is that as long as the disabled community becomes a functioning part of the economy, that's where the answer lies, and on that score I'm very optimistic.
The Chair: Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): When the client groups were before us in the last few weeks, their principal concern was that with the change from the Canada assistance plan to the Canada health and social transfer, they would be left out entirely or support to them would be considerably reduced.
I want to ask you, Mr. Green, how you are going to ensure, at the federal government level, that with moneys transferred to the provinces under the CHST at least the same percentage of moneys as they're getting now will go to them, despite the fact that CAP will not longer be around. How are we going to ensure the disabled community gets its fair share of that money?
Mr. Green: Under the terms of the CHST, which are the same, I guess, as applied under the Canada assistance plan - the vehicle by which much of the funding was provided to disabled persons - the federal government cannot control the design and decision-making of provincial governments in how they run their systems. So I don't think we can give an assurance in the terms you're speaking of, because that was not the nature of the Canada assistance plan and I don't think it's the nature of the CHST.
Mr. Allmand: If I might interrupt, at least all the moneys under the Canada assistance plan were for the objectives of that plan. They weren't to be shared with education or health or the things that came under EPF. Now, with one block of money going to health, post-secondary education, and all the things that were previously covered by CAP, the provinces would seem to have much greater leeway than before in putting greater percentages of money into things that are more politically attractive and leaving out disabled people. That's the argument that was made to us, and it seemed to me to make sense.
Mr. Green: But the CHST was put together in part to give provinces some flexibility in how they want to apply their funding. Mr. Axworthy has made it clear, though, that he wants to raise the issue of disabled persons and programming for them with the provinces. In fact, social service ministers recently have made it very clear about their work around the CHST and the principles that should apply to it that they see disabled persons as one of the key groups they want to focus on.
So I think the grounds are clearly there, as indicated by provinces and as indicated byMr. Axworthy, that there's a desire to talk about disabled persons' issues in the context of the CHST. I just don't know whether ``assurances'' is the right word to use in the context. But clearly there's an indication that they want to talk about the issues.
Mr. Allmand: I have a second question. Mr. Binder, the new technology and new equipment you referred to as being put out is indeed outstanding. I've seen some of it at the Montreal Association for the Blind in my constituency. Yesterday at the MacKay Center, which is also in my constituency in Montreal, I saw equipment for the hearing impaired - also a great improvement. It's wonderful that this equipment is being produced and developed, but because of the cost there's a growing difficulty in acquiring it for the people who need it.
.1150
Maybe I can put this question to Mr. Green as well.
Two years ago the Montreal Association for the Blind was able to acquire quite a bit of this equipment for its blind clientele. This year they're having great difficulty in getting funding at both the provincial and federal levels to continue the great programs they were putting in place with this equipment, computers and other sorts of equipment. I find what's coming on the market to be absolutely amazing.
How can governments help the individuals and associations that are trying to help the blind and the hearing impaired to get this equipment? Are the programs drying up? Are they going to have to get this equipment on their own or to find private sources of money in order to get it? What good is it if they can't afford it and therefore can't get it?
Mr. Green: The strategy, which is the context for the discussion, was not set up in order to, nor did it ever promise that it could, fundamentally impact on the delivery and provision of services to disabled persons across the country. That simply was never the context of the strategy. It would be a misreading of the strategy to interpret that. I think, Mr. Allmand, the event you're describing is one that resides very much in provincial and municipal jurisdiction.
What we have tried to do in the strategy in order to influence services is to promote, with provinces and with persons with disabilities, major changes in the nature of services - for example, the movement towards independent living or the promotion of community living, deinstitutionalization. At least in our program, I think we've had a considerable amount of success in doing that.
I don't think the strategy can be interpreted in the context of how it influences the actual delivery of services and goods that are clearly within provincial jurisdiction to disabled persons. That is not what the strategy was set up to do. I don't think the strategy is viewed as being a failure, because it didn't promise that kind of response. Many people see the strategy, in terms of the context in which it was developed, as having been quite effective in responding, within its limits and its focus, to the needs of persons with disabilities.
Mr. Allmand: Two years ago the federal government was able to get, through the Department of Employment and Immigration, training moneys to help the blind to purchase equipment and get to know how to use it, so they could then bring it home and use it in their work and so on. This year there is increasing difficulty for them to get that training money. As a matter of fact - I'm just using this as an example - I've been trying to support them. So there was federal support there that doesn't seem to be there to the same degree as it was, maybe not through the strategy but through your department, Human Resources Development, formerly Employment.
Mr. Green: I don't know the specific issue, but I can inform myself on it and get back to you.
It is true that we have had significant CRF cuts in some of our training programs, and we have had to reassess those programs in the sense of those training cuts. But I can check on the particular issue and come back to you.
Mr. Allmand: Very good.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): I can't let pass the opportunity to request of the member from Edmonton, who often brings to our attention the need to do things in a more fiscally responsible way, that when he gets back to Edmonton he'll advise the residents that we are in fact burning wood in the House of Commons.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Gas.
Mr. Scott: Is it gas? There goes my line. I sat here for an hour waiting for that.
Mr. Maloney: It's western Ontario gas, which is western Canada gas.
Mr. McClelland: Of course, the House of Commons is ground zero for natural gas.
.1155
Mr. Scott: Notwithstanding the member's reference to the fact that it's fundamentally a question of political will, I'd like to put forward the notion that perhaps because this strategy, and the issue of persons with disabilities generally, crosses over so many different departments that it might be a combination of political will and at the same time the capacity to harness that will when you cut across so many different lines of authority.
In a former life, I worked for a central agency with the government. It was always a challenging preoccupation to make sure that everybody had the same level of buy-in as we would like. I'd like to explore a bit the nature of the way the secretariat, the lead ministry, and the other departments.... How many different departments, for instance, were engaged in the national strategy?
Mr. Green: Eleven.
Mr. Scott: Structurally, do I understand there was a committee of ADMs that basically drove this?
Mr. Green: Yes. There was originally a committee of deputies. It met two or three times, particularly around the launch. A mid-term review was done. It concluded that with a deputy's committee, an ADM committee and a working group, there was one too many committees. Subsequently the DMs' committee was wound up, the ADMs' committee carried on in terms of providing oversight to the strategy, and the working group carried on.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the working group has really done the bulk of the work in the exercise. They meet about ten times a year. They have spent considerable amounts of time exchanging information, dealing with day-to-day issues, and setting up the evaluation framework for the strategy.
The strategy was set up with some emphasis on the issue of coordination. One of the problems - if you can call it a problem - in terms of the strategy is that as it was structured, it was very much a vertical strategy. Funds were given to a range of departments to undertake certain initiatives in the context of their mandate and their minister's responsibilities. As a consequence, there was never a tremendous amount of effort expended, nor results achieved, in terms of coordination. The very nature of the strategy as it was set out was really putting it into different departments.
There has been a lot of discussion and debate within the community about whether that was the best way for the strategy to proceed, and whether or not that's the best way to proceed in terms of the future.
Mr. Scott: Obviously that becomes a significant question for us as we're trying to evaluate this. If there were eleven departments, I'm not sure what exercise we might have gone through in terms of getting everybody here to speak to this question. But there aren't eleven departments here.
I think both Transport and Industry qualified their involvement as being two of the smaller players. I think both said that at the start.
I'd be a little concerned in terms of the coordinating function and the fact that one of the principal objectives of the exercise - I think Mr. Green stated this - was the coordinating one. There's the fact that there isn't a specific department ministry responsible for all of us. That in itself represents a challenge. Also, the strategy was to some extent designed to deal with that challenge. A good measure of its success or failure would have to do with whether or not it met that challenge. I don't suggest this is a lack of will on anyone's part or anything like that, but rather it's a function of anything that is so cross-departmental.
Maybe the question can be put. Say we were to have all eleven departments here. I know no one wants to be speaking for other departments, but what if we were to have all eleven departments here to ask how much they felt they were part of a comprehensive plan or something larger than their own activity? What do you think they would say?
Mr. Green: You would probably find that about half of them would say they thought the strategy went quite well, while the other half would say there could have been more coordination. I do not argue this on the basis of any exhaustive poll, but you probably would find that some departments would feel this went just fine, and other departments would feel there could have been more coordination across the spectrum.
.1200
I'd make one very important point though. It is important to understand that the key element of the strategy in setting it up was not the issue of coordination but really the desire to achieve three key objectives: to improve access, to enhance the participation of disabled persons and to promote integration into the mainstream, particularly from an economic perspective.
At the time the strategy was created, those were very much the driving principles or objectives behind the strategy. As I mentioned earlier, I will table the evaluation report. I don't think the strategy was a success in every respect, but it accomplished some very interesting things in terms of those fundamental objectives.
I accept the fact that the coordination issue is an important one, but I wouldn't want to lose sight of the fact that there were other objectives in the strategy.
Mr. Binder: I don't know why we sound defensive. Coordination doesn't produce products and services. Real coordination is required to deal with the community itself and to try to determine things very specifically and directly, issue by issue. Communication is different from transportation, from the funding issue, from the medical issue, etc. If one tries to find a silver bullet that will solve all problems, it's a mistake. There isn't a silver bullet. You have to walk on all fronts and deal with specific issues.
I can tell you from our perspective we have a very specific telecommunications act. One of its objectives is affordable access for all citizens to networks, products and services. We are working very hard to provide all Canadians with the ability to hook up and get services online. The strategy is to make that service available and affordable, and then the supplier will be there. Where the government role comes in many cases is to help in the prototyping, to help convince industry there's actually a market there. We have been extremely successful in this strategy.
So I'm one of the representatives of the department who thinks the strategy was extremely clever and decentralized. There was coordination and there was a pot of money set aside to deal with it, but once the strategy had been articulated and approved, each department was told to work within its mandate to address the specific issues of the community.
The Chair: I think I have to yield to Mr. McClelland at this point, Andy.
Mr. McClelland: Thank you. I'd like to follow up on a point Mr. Allmand raised.
Some witnesses who came before us were really concerned they were going to be lost in the shuffle of the Canada health and social transfer. It's going to require some leadership on the part of the federal government to work with the provinces to ensure there is some national cohesiveness, if not a national standard.
Particularly these witnesses want to ensure that persons with disabilities are not caught as part of the mix of persons in Canada on welfare. There's a very real distinction between people with disabilities and people on welfare. Disabilities are chronic and long-term, and welfare hopefully is short-term, in and out. If services are provided to persons with disabilities and it's done out of the welfare portfolio, then a hardening of attitudes in the country as a whole towards persons on welfare will catch up persons with disabilities incidentally. So it's very important that this distinction be made.
Bob Steadward and the Rick Hansen Centre in Alberta got that going. The reason it worked so well is that Rick Hansen came through town and captured Don Getty's imagination. Therefore the political will was instigated to make the University of Alberta, and Edmonton particularly, a centre of excellence and investigation for persons with disabilities. Again, that was political will. Bob Steadward organized the world para-Olympic games out of Edmonton.
.1205
But - I am getting to my real point, finally - the welfare was a real one.
I've had a representation from a person we all know who is blind. They say one of the primary problems we have is that 50% of the people who are affected by all the good and positive things being done by government and others are left out of the mix. They don't know because of communication; the communication to persons with disabilities is lacking. We need to put particular emphasis on the fact that there are persons with disabilities who may have learning, hearing, or sight disabilities. Each of those requires specific attention or a specific rifle shot.
Perhaps the modification of procurement of Public Works to reflect the need for accessible design...and just to make sure persons with disabilities are....
The only person with a disability sitting around this table right now is Bruce. We're talking about a disability that's obvious, Bruce. Some of us are labouring under different disabilities.
Mr. Green: That's what he was just muttering to me. I was taking it personally.
Mr. McClelland: We have to keep that in mind.
I wonder if you could comment specifically on how we could go about improving communication about the products that are already available, let alone the wonderland we'd like to live in. How about all the people who are not aware that products are currently available and how they can access them?
The Chair: Good question.
Mr. Green: I think Bruce is going to help me out. With the allowance of the chair, could I come back to your preamble for a moment, to the issue of assistance for persons with disabilities and welfare? There's no question that's a major issue for the community.
In the social security review of last year, one of the issues raised was whether or not a separate program for disabled persons was desirable. I should repeat it: that's clearly one of the issues provincial ministers and Mr. Axworthy may want to discuss in terms of the future of the CHST within the context of the question I gave earlier. I would note there's a very important issue Mr. Axworthy raised on VRDP, vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons, in terms of the federal government working with provincial governments in terms of disabled persons.
I also forgot to mention a very important issue on the CHST. Mr. Axworthy has spoken about it a number of times. That is the notion of a social audit. It will be a very important and powerful tool in the future of the CHST. This would be the issue of a process by which one could report on the operations of the CHST to Parliament and Canadians. I think Mr. Axworthy sees the issues impacting on persons with disabilities as an extremely important component of that social audit.
So I'm sorry, but the preamble raises some really important issues for me.
About how we can communicate better, Bruce may want to talk briefly about what we've done in some of our programming.
Mr. Clark: Through the omnibus legislation that was developed as part of the national strategy, amendments were made to the Access to Information Act to set up a specific right for people who are blind or visually impaired to receive information in alternative formats. That was included in legislation; and similar changes were made to the Canada Elections Act.
We have worked with Treasury Board to develop standards for alternative-format materials. They are now in effect across government. We do operate - again, it is related to the national strategy - the National Clearing House on Disability Issues, which tries to promote the availability of alternative-format materials among the disabled community. I think our department has been one of the leaders in the development of alternative-format materials. I would also say most of this committee's previous reports have been tabled in alternative format at the same time.
.1210
We have also worked with Public Works for the implementation of the Canadian Standards Association standards on accessibility, which are now used as part of the procurement process and have been implemented throughout the government in new leasing of facilities.
So a great deal has been done. There are also products that have been developed, again through Industry Canada, as part of the national strategy, and those have been promoted to the disability community. A fair bit is happening to get out the word of what is available and to improve the amount of material available to people who have a communications-related disability.
The Chair: Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney: You may address some of your responses and comments to Mr. McClelland's preamble.
People with disabilities traditionally have a difficulty in accessing the labour markets. They don't have an attachment to UI benefits; therefore there isn't a training component available to them. There are no income supplements. The participation in retraining programs of those who are on UI is certainly less than the numbers of those who are available to do it.
Is there a role for the federal government in this area? Do we delegate that to the provinces under the social assistance programs? How can we address that problem?
Mr. Green: Mr. Axworthy, in his strategy last week, was saying that he recognizes that many persons with disabilities have very fragile labour market attachments and require a special focus.
My sense was that he was saying at least two things in his statement. One was that he was very focused on ensuring, in the operation of our labour market programming, that disabled persons could access, both physically and informationally, the services we provide. I think he made reference to the kiosks. I think he wants to ensure that there will be training for staff in dealing with the issues that impact on persons with disabilities. He has made it very clear to us that he wants to ensure that there are resources to provide individualized supports to persons with disabilities in the operation of our human resource centres across the country.
I think he's very keen on the VRDP, in the sense of trying to ensure that in the context of extending the VRDP, we shall enter into discussions with provinces and territories about how we're using that instrument. Are we using it as effectively as we can in terms of its focus, its integration of existing programs, its support for independent living? Are we using it as effectively as we can in addressing some of the needs of persons with disabilities in terms of economic integration?
He has made it quite clear, in the context of the department, that he continues to see disabled persons as a very important constituency in the department.
Mr. Binder: Again, in certain domains there's no question that there's a federal role. Transportation we can debate - and I refer to my colleague here - but in telecommunications, standards with respect to captioning and with respect to our networks are federal responsibilities. Also, allowing people with disabilities access to those networks so they can communicate in whatever format or alternative format is definitely, I would argue, an uncontested federal responsibility.
Mr. Green: I would argue that in the future the federal role will go beyond that, whether it's the charter, human rights, equity, or employment equity. In addition to a very strong federal programming interest across a range of areas, the federal government also has a very important legal context, which is why I think the disability community focuses so heavily on the role of the federal government now, and will in the future.
Mr. Maloney: Should individuals be funded directly in the purchasing of equipment or services that would support them? Does the federal government have a role in that respect?
Mr. Green: Yes, we have a role. We have to be concerned about persons with disabilities, given the fragility of their labour market attachment. We have to look at the kinds of individualized supports we can provide to them.
.1215
To do it effectively we probably need to do it in very close concert and consultation with provinces, municipalities, and other groups. I think it has to be done on the basis of partnerships because there are so many players who are already active in the area and who are expert. That has to be a very important element to it, but I can foresee a role for us or certainly a role in partnership with others in terms of providing that kind of individualized support.
Mr. Maloney: Perhaps this question is a little bit out of your realm, but do you see any value in providing tax incentives or credits to businesses and firms to allow them to renovate their premises to make them more accessible for whatever disability, or to purchase equipment that would open up their labour market to persons with disabilities? And/or do you see incentives to individuals personally?
Mr. Green: Well, it's not my tax expenditure system, and the Department of Finance shoots officials who get cavalier, but there are already incentives along those lines in the system, are there not, Bruce?
Mr. Clark: Yes. A couple of years ago amendments were made that enabled a business to write off, in the same year as the acquisition is made, the cost of certain adaptations and equipment in support of people with disabilities. In the past they would have had to write off that cost over ten years, and now they can do it in the single year in which it's acquired.
Mr. Maloney: Do you feel those programs are adequate? Could they be expanded upon or varied?
Mr. Clark: I think they're adequate. I'm not sure what the pick-up rate has been. I think one of the issues is making sure that businesses know about those provisions and that we market them so there is an understanding of their availability.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you.
The Chair: Before I yield the floor to the other members, I would like to pose a few short questions that require only a few short answers.
First, at the end of March 31 the national strategy is dead. Will it be renewed? Should it be renewed?
Mr. Green: It should. I think there should be some form of renewal of initiatives across the federal government in supporting persons with disabilities. As to whether it needs to be the same kind of strategy as the previous one, I don't think so.
The Chair: Is there a timeframe among your departments to realistically discuss this very question before Christmas?
Mr. Green: There's a timetable to have a meeting within the next two weeks to discuss the issue with other departments. Mr. Axworthy has made his initiatives quite clear; the timetable is that in two weeks we would meet with other departments to talk about what their initiatives would be.
The Chair: Regarding resources, do you have knowledge of how much will be allocated from the consolidated revenue fund to the human resources investment fund in terms of proportion? Will it be the same, more, or less?
Mr. Green: We don't know yet.
The Chair: I now yield the floor to Mr. McClelland for one question.
Mr. McClelland: It's more of a clarification for the purposes of putting our report together.
As I understand it, there is no minister with the specific responsibility for persons with disabilities. Under the present situation, Minister Axworthy has taken this on. He's made it an important issue. What happens if he gets hit by a truck or is replaced by another minister who couldn't care less? Where does that leave the disabled community if there is not a specific mandate? Where's the continuity in this? Do people with disabilities just have to hope we get lucky and start all over again?
Mr. Green: I reject the premise, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is going to get hit by a truck.
Mr. McClelland: I'm hoping he won't.
Mr. Green: I guess there are two answers. One is that any minister who is responsible for the Department of Human Resources Development has a very significant weight in terms of programs that impact on persons with disabilities. So I think there's a form of de facto leadership that will play. Second, if in fact it became clear that the minister was not performing that role, it seems to me that ultimately it would be an issue for the Prime Minister to determine.
.1220
Having said that, there are two brief things I should point out. I think Mr. Axworthy has been quite clear in the sense of his argument that the strategy was originally designed to put pilot projects in place to facilitate transition. Mr. Axworthy - and I think I'm representing him here effectively - is of the view that the time has now come to implement these changes in programs to the extent that you can.
It's partly that we don't have the resources to do the same kind of experimentation, and partly that we've been doing it for a period of time so let's move now. I think part of it is that Mr. Axworthy believes this means a lot of federal ministers have the responsibility to move.
Last, I think many in the disability community don't like the idea of the single minister. I think they want all ministers to be concerned about their interests and see them as their responsibility in terms of mainstream programming.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I accept that this is the case. I'm sure most people have this genuineness about them, so they generally would.
Perhaps in our report, if we feel it's worthwhile, we could suggest to the cabinet that cabinet documents have an impact assessment on persons with disabilities as a formal part of the cabinet decision-making process. Then as we are reviewing the strategy and trying to tie it all together across all the ministries, that might be a way to do it.
The Chair: It has been noted in the proceedings, but I have a quick follow-up to that. From the administrative point of view, is there a difference between a minister being sworn in as minister responsible for persons with disabilities and a minister taking it as only a voluntary initiative that is nevertheless very important?
Mr. Green: No. Initially, the one difference might have been that if you designated a minister with lead responsibility it might be because you had a particular cabinet timetable in mind, etc. I don't believe the title makes that much difference at the end of the day in terms of the reality of trying to prioritize and put an emphasis on that kind of programming.
The Chair: Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott: I didn't think I would ever invoke the social security review, but I must.
First, I think it's important to speak to the point Mr. McClelland made in terms of distinguishing between social assistance and people with disabilities, about them somehow not wanting to be lumped in or something. However, I think it's very important to note that one of the biggest single expressions of concern from the community of persons with disabilities was that they didn't want to be ghettoized and forced into unemployability. They couldn't even do volunteer work without being fearful of losing benefits because of a change in status. It's very important. I know thatMr. McClelland would accept that, but I just want it on the record.
The other thing that was important and continues to be important has to do with the point made by practically everybody who appeared. One of the biggest single problems the community experienced was the fact that services were available all over the place, but perhaps the biggest obstacle was figuring out where to go. Coordination does become fundamentally important in terms of knowing where things are and making sure they all fit.
I don't think there is a silver bullet at all, but I do think that if one department has produced a product that is very helpful to the community of persons with disabilities, but another department isn't offering the training that would allow the person to have the skills necessary to use the product, we have a coordination problem. We have wonderful products, but I think Mr. Allmand mentioned the question of having moneys available to take advantage of the existence of products.
Third, as far as the issue of whether the community would be interested in having a single minister responsible, I know that historically in the name of integration and around the concept of integration, the community has been very concerned about being ghettoized. But in times of restraint and program review, there is also a competing interest that nobody is ultimately responsible for looking after the interests of this community, when some very tough decisions are being made.
.1225
As a member of the social security review, I was very concerned that because of the great emphasis, even personally, on unemployment insurance, post-secondary education and other elements of the review, this community would fall through the cracks. That observation has been made - let the record show - very often by numerous people who have appeared before the committee and by those who have brought that observation to my attention since then.
So I think the importance of the issue of coordination has to be first and foremost in the committee's mind, as we struggle with what we should do with the national strategy.
The Chair: I don't like to interrupt your preamble, Andy, but could the witnesses respond? Do you agree with his sentiment?
Mr. Green: There are three parts to it, Mr. Chairman.
On the coordination issue, I would note that the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat was largely designed for that role. In my judgment, there is no excuse for any individual or group to phone up to say they didn't know what part of government was doing what. I think the secretariat has done an extremely good job in helping coordinate the exercise.
In terms of the second aspect of the comments about the views of the disability community, it is true that in my years of experience with the group, it has clearly wanted to see a focal point in government. It has had a certain anxiety around the focus. I find that somewhat interesting in the sense that they are among the most articulate, effective and thoughtful interest group representatives I have ever dealt with. They are as good as anybody else in this town. To the extent that they need to rely on that kind of relationship with government - I don't doubt some feel it - they have matured a lot in the last four or five years.
Mr. Scott: I think you should understand that the people we usually deal with don't live in this town. I come from Fredericton.
Mr. Green: Many of the ones I'm talking about don't live here either.
Mr. Scott: In any case I think it's very important to make those observations, because some of the historical positions have been evolving. The nature of decisions being taken now seems somewhat different. I would never have imagined myself advocating that kind of focused, segregated interest five or ten years ago, but I can see now where it's necessary because of the nature of the decisions being taken. I think that view is held by a number of those agencies.
My last comment has to do with the concern that was raised by our colleague from the Bloc about the articles that appeared, and the fact that during the downsizing exercise there was a larger than proportionate number of people. I think the response had to do with the fact that the minister and the department wanted to be assured that it wasn't any sort of weakness in the availability of employment.
But coupled with the comments that were made by Mr. McKinnon about our being aware of needs, and the fact that because we are not part of that community, we very innocently often don't recognize a problem that exists for someone who is in a different circumstance, I think it's more than just making sure the department is participation-friendly in terms of obstacles and so on. There's also a requirement to be proactive. If there were no obstacles to employment, but there was still nobody from that community working in the department, you would have a significant problem that wasn't just a question of obstacles to employment. Is that a consideration in the department?
.1230
Mr. Clark: I think our department is one of the leading departments in employment equity. In the representation of persons with disabilities within the department, our numbers are fairly good. Having said that, it is true that across government the numbers are not as good as they should be. But I think we have done a very good job at accommodating employees with disabilities within our department. We work closely with people with disabilities and their organizations to ensure that there are opportunities and there is the kind of accommodation and access that people need.
Also, the major union, PSAC, has a committee on disability issues that we work with regularly in addressing barriers that exist. I think our track record has been good and can be better, and we strive to do that.
The Chair: The chair would like to follow on some of the questions.
On the need for impact statements, when memoranda emanate from the department to the minister to cabinet, is there merit in that? Should they be formalized?
Mr. Green: My colleagues are as free to answer this as I am. I think you need to pay attention to impacts, depending on the nature of the issue. I've always personally felt that given the range of interest you could have, you have to be very careful not to overly formalize the system. If you do, the information becomes useless.
The Chair: But is it not true that if there is an onus, it is not forgotten?
Mr. Green: I beg your pardon?
The Chair: If there is an onus to make it, it is not forgotten? In other words, if in fact on a given issue there is no impact that the department can foresee, the report can be very simple: no impact, period. But then the onus has been placed on the department to make the determination. Is it not the case on impact statements?
Mr. Green: Yes, but a personal concern here would be that this would not be the only community for which you would have pressure to do an impact statement; there would be a fairly wide-ranging number of them. If you then had a whole series of them in play, my sense is that you'd have formalized and put a burden on the system. I would rather put the reliance on the people responsible for developing the policy to clearly understand the impacts of their policy proposals on constituencies that will be influenced by them.
The Chair: At the present time are impact statements not made when they relate to issues on the environment and on women?
Mr. McClelland: The answer is yes...environment and aboriginal peoples.
The Chair: And those you see are valuable, I suppose?
Mr. Green: I'm not an expert in terms of the cabinet, in terms of MCs; I've just given you a personal view.
The Chair: In terms of a minister responsible for persons with disabilities, within Human Resources Development I think there is a minister responsible for literacy, is there not?
Mr. Green: Yes.
The Chair: Is it an important component within human resources? Can the same model not be used for persons with disabilities?
Mr. Green: There is a minister with special responsibility for literacy. You could look at that kind of arrangement.
The Chair: Now, with regards to Industry Canada, I understand there has been developed in the past an economic development strategy for first nations people. Could a similar strategy, on an economic basis, be developed for persons with disabilities to develop entrepreneurship and economic self-sufficiency? Do you see the merit of that? I would like to ask either one of you.
Mr. Binder: It's an interesting notion. All our strategy for support to the community has been based on trying to make them useful to the economy. So with any assistance or support or device, for example, that's the first criterion - will it be useful, how can it be useful, and what will it contribute to the economy? I would argue that we are doing it now, maybe not in the way we approve native economic development, but almost on a problem-by-problem basis.
The Chair: Would you not agree that if a strategy were in place, we could then evaluate thereafter whether we have met our strategic thrust?
Mr. Binder: Looking back historically, that's exactly what we have done. We have surveyed the community, asked what the problems are, and then we develop an approach to deal with those problems.
.1235
The Chair: Would you tend to be favourable to such a proposal?
Mr. Binder: Sure.
The Chair: The other point revisits the other issue about the minister responsible. On many issues commissions, agencies, or what have you do make an annual report to Parliament. By the rules such a report is immediately referred to a given standing committee. Would there be merit in an annual report on issues related to persons with disabilities being tabled in Parliament and thereafter immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons? Do you see value in that?
Mr. Green: There could be. Again, Mr. Chairman, a personal view: I think you're better to have issues impacting on persons with disabilities handled in the context of the annual reports of various departments.
The Chair: When we have coordination, to follow on the question by Mr. Scott, one immediately remembers that there ought to be coordination of delivery programs and coordination of policy development. Is that true?
Mr. Green: I'm sorry. I didn't understand the last part of the question.
The Chair: Coordination could involve coordination of delivery programs, of services, and of policy development among many departments.
Mr. Green: Yes.
The Chair: Is that taking place now?
Mr. Green: Yes, I think it is.
The Chair: Coordination of delivery programs and coordination of policy development?
Mr. Green: Yes.
The Chair: How does it take place?
Mr. Green: Currently most of the emphasis in the working group is on the operation of the programs, and as I mentioned earlier, exchanging information, developing an evaluation framework. The ADM committee from time to time, in the context that the program was largely set at the beginning in the sense that amounts were allocated and objectives attached to each department, has discussed the policy environment within which we're operating. You could continue to do both in the future. But the strategy was very much based, as I said, on sharing information, developing an evaluation framework, in the context of the strategy that had largely been determined at the front end.
The Chair: A sentiment is emerging among committee members, following hearings with many witnesses, perhaps for a body - call it a commission, but not in the context of a royal commission - a commission with a given mandate to do a thorough study of the issue and report within one year, perhaps to several ministers. This would be along the lines of the royal commission on employment, for example, that was done, but not in such a long context. Has this thought occurred to the ADMs during their steering committee meetings?
Mr. Green: No, in the sense that Mr. Axworthy has proposed setting up a working group, which in the context of his department he sees as being, over the next two years, an important advisory mechanism as we look at putting in place the strategy he's spoken about. But we had not thought about a kind of commission of inquiry or royal commission that would assess the strategy on a government-wide basis. We had felt doing evaluations of the overall strategy and the specific initiatives would provide a good basis for determining the success or history of the strategy.
Mr. Clark: Can I offer a personal view? There have been a number of royal commissions -
The Chair: No, excuse me. I said I am not alluding to royal commissions.
Mr. Clark: But there have been a number of commissions that have published some very good studies looking at specific issues. You've cited employment as one. There have been some in transportation and now, as you know, in the information highway issues. A lot of that gives some very specific direction on disability. The reports of this committee itself give that direction. As you've heard from Mr. Axworthy, it's probably time to get on with implementing those and putting them into mainstream program delivery.
The Chair: Okay.
How does the steering committee view allocating funds transferred by the CHST for persons with disabilities in terms of services and programs - in other words, earmarking a certain proportion of that fund? With this question, of course, goes the second question: should there be minimum national standards?
.1240
Mr. Green: The steering committee has not discussed the issue. Mr. Axworthy indicated he's interested, as are the provinces, in the issue of how disabled persons will be handled in the context of the CHST, but we have not as a group discussed standards or put advice forward to the minister on that basis.
The Chair: Would you have any other comments to add to your presentation this morning? These could be things we might not have asked you, yet which you feel should be fruitful to the committee.
Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, I'd love to know your timetable because I think it would be very helpful to get you a summary or a précis of the overall evaluation. I think that would be very helpful in terms of your committee's report.
The Chair: Yes, certainly. Thank you for that. Perhaps you can send it to us right away. We are in the midst of drafting our instructions for a report to be tabled in the House before it rises in December.
Mr. Green: If we got it to you next week, would that be timely?
The Chair: Early next week would be okay. Maybe Monday.
Mr. Green: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Are there any more questions from the members?
We would like to thank you on behalf of the committee for your very valuable contribution to our proceedings. Thank you so much.
The meeting is adjourned.