HRPD Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 4, 1997

• 0912

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Welcome. Before we begin, I should note that there are interpreters at the back of the room, both French and English, should you require any assistance of that sort.

For the information of members, at the conclusion of this meeting I would like to take a brief five minutes to talk about the process for dealing with the report on student assistance. We'll just take a minute to deal with that. I know we have a meeting this afternoon to actually formally deal with it.

Welcome, panel. After the election, the committee on human resources development decided—because we are a larger committee and we have a few new members and it is a new government—to take a little time just to try to get started with a pretty thorough briefing on issues that affect the various communities served by HRD.

You were invited here at the recommendation of our very capable research staff because it is believed that you have something to tell us about the kinds of services the people you represent require and the kinds of services they receive from the department that we have some responsibilities for.

I have a suggested order that would have me start with Diane Richler and then Henry Enns. Perhaps if I could get each of you to make some of the interventions that you care to make, we'll then come back with questions from the members. As we get into this, should any one of you care to comment on the comments of another one of you, please feel free. Is that clear enough? Good.

Mrs. Richler.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Richler (Canadian Association for Community Living): Thank you very much. I am very happy to be here today; this is my first appearance before this committee. In my view, it is very important for us to consider the impact that these changes will have on the disabled in Canada.

• 0915

[English]

Yesterday, as most of you know, was the International Day of Disabled Persons. It was quite a joy to be able to land from Toronto in Ottawa on a day when Canada was celebrating the landmines treaty and to recognize that Canada has been a world player in recognizing the needs of people with disabilities both in Canada and around the world. We've been very fortunate, as Canadians, that for the last several years Canada has been recognized by the United Nations as scoring number one on the human development index, and many people across the world have seen Canada as the leader as well in terms of recognizing the citizenship of people with disabilities.

But I think the reality for many people with disabilities in 1997 is that they're feeling this world leadership eroding, and there's a tremendous fear on the part of people with disabilities, their families and their organizations about where Canada will sit one year from now, five years from now, ten years from now, and what the place will be of people with disabilities. To some extent, the issues affecting people with disabilities in Canada today appear to be the same issues that are affecting many other Canadians.

What I'd like to do is raise a few issues with you quickly and then afterwards, when there's more time, answer questions and engage in a discussion.

There are two conflicting events that have taken place over the last number of years federally. One, and most recent, was the release last year of the federal task force on disability issues, which focused on disability as a matter of citizenship, which reinforced the equality rights provisions in the charter guaranteeing that people with disabilities would be able to experience all the benefits Canada has to offer all of its citizens.

The other was the introduction of the Canada health and social transfer, which did two things: it changed the role of the federal government with respect to the funding of specific programs and services for people with disabilities, and it removed the funding for programs for people with disabilities from what had been a social development context, a context of well-being in the former department of welfare.

That's had two major impacts on people on the ground. One is that because in the amount of money within the envelope for health, social and education spending the transfer from the federal government to the provinces is smaller, the provinces are focusing on cost containment. And in their attempts to contain costs, they're looking at how they can merge their own departments, and there's no longer a requirement to think about disability at the provincial level as a matter of citizenship or as a matter of even social development.

Because of the pressure on health systems, there appears to be a trend to consolidate departments so that much of the programming for disability is being transferred to departments of health. So whether it's in New Brunswick, where they've introduced a new level of support as a way of evaluating people with disabilities to determine what access they have to services, or in Ontario, which is looking at a similar kind of model for what they call levels of care, departments generally are trying to reduce, trying to rationalize their spending on services for people with disabilities. At least in the case of people with intellectual disabilities, the impact is a shift from funding with a community focus and a citizenship focus and a social development focus to a focus on health and long-term care institutions.

• 0920

You qualify for a certain level of care, defined as “nursing care”. Either you make it on your own at home and with your family or you have the option of living in a nursing home.

For people whose disability is not so severe, there is another choice. You can either pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work or you can be one of the worthy poor, recognized as deserving of some kind of pittance made available from your provincial welfare department, and be looked after.

Because so many of the supports and services people with disability require are beyond the capacity of an entry-level job, whether it's working in a service industry, in fast food or working in an office—those kinds of jobs don't usually come with extended health care and extended benefits—if you have epilepsy and you need medication every month, you can't afford to take that kind of job. So you get to be qualified, as one of the worthy poor, to stay home and watch television.

How does that fit with citizenship? We haven't quite figured that out. We'd like your help figuring out how one can be a citizen if one doesn't have enough money to participate in what's happening in the community and be part of both the social and economic fabric of the community.

Another concern we have is that the federal focus on citizenship and the recognition of the equality rights provisions of the charter seems to have an uneasy fit with the current view of renewed federalism that's gaining strength, which sees Canada as a grouping of regions, each region being autonomous. Where does a charter, nationwide provisions, and common values fit into that kind of a picture? We're not sure.

Another question we have is about the role of civil society and the role that the voluntary sector, people with a disability and their families and organizations are going to play in this new Canada. There is no question that there are international pressures to devolve responsibility from centralized government to more local government and to community. How will we guarantee that there is community capacity to be able to be inclusive of people? Or is community decision-making going to be really controlled by those people who are strong enough to have a voice and to participate actively?

We've seen civil society from a different perspective. We've seen it as the bedrock of social cohesion that's led to the conditions for peace and prosperity that Canada has enjoyed and that set us apart from other countries where there has been a greater gap between rich and poor, between powerful and less powerful.

Our question is, how can this committee help to ensure that those with the weakest voices will not be left out as we move forward into the 21st century and that we'll be able to reach next December 3, and the ones after that, and feel that we have something to celebrate?

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Enns.

Mr. Henry Enns (Executive Director, Canadian Centre on Disabilities Studies): Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

• 0925

I'd like to pick up on some of the themes that Diane touched upon.

I was at the signing ceremony yesterday for the landmines conference and it really made me proud to be a Canadian. I've had the opportunity to be involved internationally for the last 15 years. They started to talk about the Canadian model at the United Nations in the early 1980s, and when I asked what the Canadian model was, they started to talk about participation and how our government works together with non-governmental organizations.

I asked where they got this idea of a Canadian model and they started to talk—in fact, there are documents and papers that have been written about this—about 1980 when the parliamentary committee on disabled persons was struck, and it was at that time that Canada really engaged in a process of involvement with the disability organizations. People like David Smith, Neil Young, Bruce Halliday and others really had a vision of bringing the government together and working together with a disability organization to create some new models here in Canada.

It led to all kinds of exciting things, like the inclusion of disabled people in the Charter of Rights and the development of new programs and services such as independent living initiatives and attendant care programs, and I will touch upon some of these later.

The other thing it led to was that the Canadian government included disabled people and representatives of the disability organizations in their delegation to the United Nations. The whole focus of the International Year of Disabled Persons was changed to one of human rights participation for disabled people.

Canada was a leader in developing the world program of action concerning disabled people. Canada introduced the resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Commission to conduct an international study on the violation of rights of disabled people. Canada played a major role in the International Labour Organisation to promote employment and vocational rehabilitation for disabled people.

For ten years, we were seen as the leaders in the whole area of disability and we did it because we were demonstrating the effect of participation of disabled people here in Canada. The government was working together with disability organizations to develop new and creative models.

Like Diane, I'm feeling that we have lost that edge, but we have the opportunity to get it back. The signing of the landmines treaty, with Mr. Axworthy and other representatives there, made it very clear that Canada once again wants to play a major role at the international level.

Not only was there talk about support for landmine survivors, there was talk in the context of broader disability issues internationally. I participated in two workshops in which we talked about drafting an action plan that would promote initiatives to support landmine survivors in the context of the broader disability movement. Again, we are taking the initiative internationally.

Are we going to do the same thing in Canada? Are we going to start working together with the disability organizations to create new ideas and new models promoting independent living and promoting some of the creative initiatives that are starting to come forward?

There are opportunities in a variety of areas. Through our centre, we have been conducting some research in the area of promoting business ventures and entrepreneurship for disabled people. And the topic of home care across Canada is an issue, plus there are some other issues that have already been raised.

My feeling is that the parliamentary committee on the status of disabled persons led the way for ten years. We have lost ground over the last couple of years, a lot of it possibly because it became included in other committees. We have had the initiative and we have played a major role. Can this committee once again provide the leadership to put disability on the agenda of the federal government and do it in consultation with disability organizations? That's what I would like to see.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Enns.

Do members have any questions at this point? If not, we'll move on to Ms. Torjman.

Carolyn.

• 0930

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): The committee is one thing. I guess I need to know how you feel it's integrated with the bureaucracy of HRDC and what you feel there is. I was a bit surprised that the Office of Disability Issues didn't even make it onto the organization chart we were handed out in the first meeting. Do you feel you've also become invisible in that structure?

Mr. Henry Enns: At one time there was a minister for disabled persons, and that raised the issue at the political level. There was a much stronger secretariat at that time, or office of disabled persons. All of that has been scaled down very considerably, and of course, yes, that has reduced the effectiveness of the office.

So you're absolutely right, that is an issue. True, the committee can't do everything, but I think what was demonstrated in 1980 was that the committee really started to make it an issue and then the federal government responded at many different levels. I think the committee can do some of that again, if there's an interest in doing it.

Ms. Diane Richler: The recommendation from the Scott task force was that there should be a disability lens for all government activities, and we certainly support that. I think the reality you're pointing to is that it doesn't even exist within the department whose minister is responsible for disability issues. The Office of Disability Issues does its best to support a number of issues, but within the broad mandate of the department there does not appear to be a disability lens in thinking about income programs, in thinking about employment programs, in thinking about negotiations with provinces on other matters. That does not exist.

Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: At the moment we do have a gender analysis that is supposed to take place on all potential legislation. I don't think we're too happy that it's actually happening, but is that what you would want?

Ms. Diane Richler: Absolutely. That's really what is needed: to have that for every piece of legislation and all programming across all departments, not just within Human Resources. But it certainly would be good if Human Resources, having the lead minister, set the example before that's imposed on all departments.

Mr. Laurie Beachell (National Co-ordinator, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): The only limitation on that is the fact that the federal role has greatly diminished and we have a new system of governance in this country, which is federal-provincial relations. So I would ask how the federal government could ensure a disablity lens within federal-provincial-territorial negotiations, whereby the new social union is being defined, that new social union being the way in which we deliver social services in this country. While we might be able to develop a lens within a federal disability responsibility end of it, how can we move that into the definition of a new social union in Canada? That relates to the federal government's initiative to scrap cost-shared programs and to move to the Canada health and social transfer block funding to the provinces for health, education, social services, and social assistance, with no targets, no principles, no standards, no accountability mechanism in place.

The Chairman: Sherri and Laurie, I would like both of you to comment now.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Okay, thank you.

We're pleased to be here. This committee has been critically important to citizens with disabilities across Canada, and the work of the committee in the past has been something we have been proud of and have worked collaboratively with through a process to come to some consensus around how we might move forward.

• 0935

There are two issues, and I'll deal with one specific first.

I am compelled by my membership to bring to your attention an issue of alarming concern that has hit the media in the last week in a substantial way, and that is the issue of the sentencing of Robert Latimer.

Our membership is shocked. Our membership is outraged. Our membership is feeling that equal protection and benefit of the law is not being afforded to persons with disabilities. We have done nothing but follow this case for weeks now. Unfortunately what we have emerging are discussions at political and community levels suggesting a new criterion of murder, called “compassionate homicide”, and actual discussions of amendment of the Criminal Code to allow for the killing of people on so-called compassionate grounds.

We bring this to your attention to express our alarm and shock and dismay. I handed out to you a press release and a copy of a publication we call Latimer Watch. We try not to be too emotional about this one, but frankly, our membership can be nothing but emotional about this one at this point.

CCD has intervened in the past at the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. We are urging the Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan to appeal this sentence. We will seek to intervene at the court. We are concerned and wish members of this committee to be aware of our concern and to ensure that before discussions around law reform or legislative reform take place, there be a full and proper debate publicly around this issue, with particular focus on the issues of vulnerable individuals.

I can't tell you how distressing this has been. We have had phone calls from parents who have said they are watching the decision to see if he gets off, so they can decide whether they will kill their children. We've had two families phone us and tell us that. We have had other individuals who are fearful for their lives when they go into hospital—fearful that “Do not resuscitate” orders will be placed upon them. I can't overemphasize this issue.

I don't want to get into a whole debate on this, and as you can tell from my voice, this becomes an emotional issue immediately, so let me just say we thought we had made significant progress in public attitude towards disability. The Latimer case rings for us alarm bells across the country that we have not made the progress we had hoped for.

Having said that, the other issue I want to address is the critical issue around social union and federal leadership. As I mentioned previously, we have a new system of governance in Canada. We have a new system of defining how we will work together as partners in designing a social safety net in this country. That new system of governance has become federal-provincial-territorial negotiations.

This new system is not transparent. It is unclear to community groups such as ours how to have impact upon it, and it is unclear how citizenship involvement can be fostered within this discussion at this point.

What we believe is required is some clarity of mandate of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal. We believe there must be a more transparent process so that we understand what is being discussed, how it is being discussed, and what models are being put on the table.

We believe there is a requirement for significant research into issues of outcome measurement. If we are moving towards a new system of pan-Canadian standards around social service delivery, how will we measure its impact? How will we measure the impact of the federal child tax benefit and what it will actually do for children who are living in poverty? How will we measure the impact of the dollars that are supposed to be now freed up at the provincial level and their reallocation into addressing child poverty in Canada? How will the federal government, as responsible for the citizenship development of all Canadians, know what its money is doing?

• 0940

Those are critical questions in the social policy area. I would suggest also that they become even more critical as the federal government continues to devolve responsibilities to provincial governments.

With recent labour market agreements signed and now being negotiated, with new program delivery, how will you know what the impact of those dollars will be? How will you know that mobility rights of Canadians to move across this country can be assured? How will you know that the basic social safety net, which we have so valued and actually describe as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society, is being safeguarded?

The role of this committee can be critically important in that area, in raising these issues and trying to find a process that's more transparent. For national organizations like ours and non-voluntary organizations, we begin to try to grapple with how we can influence the process. As for the expertise we have as persons with disabilities and with an understanding of the programs, how do we feed that into this process?

The systems, structures, and input required seem to have clearly shifted to provincial levels. In fact, it's now rapidly shifting to municipal levels.

So those are the two pieces I wanted to mention. The one is a critical issue that we must struggle with today. The other is an issue of planning.

There's also the issue of recognition, such that ultimately we believe the federal government has a responsibility to ensure the citizenship rights of all Canadians and those of persons with disabilities. Yet it appears that the mechanisms to ensure those rights are being devolved further and further, with no overriding principles or mechanisms to determine what ultimately is happening at local and provincial levels in this area of service development.

Sherri has been very active in these discussions and writing in this area. I'll turn it over to her at this point.

Ms. Sherri Torjman (Vice-President, Caledon Institute of Social Policy): Thanks, Laurie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that I've been asked to talk to you about the social union in relation to disability. I will do that very briefly.

My understanding of the social union is that it really deals with two major areas: substance and process.

With respect to substance, my understanding of the term “social union” is that it's concerned with laws, policies, and programs that deal with the well-being of people. You could say all government laws, policies, and programs do that, but there really is a certain section of those areas that comprise the social union.

So far, that's nothing different from what we have typically called social policy or social welfare in the past. I think what's actually different about the social union and what this term contributes to the debate is what it implies about process and how we change social policy. I think there are several key dimensions of process implicit in the concept of social union.

The first has to do with this notion of horizontal policy-making. That means that departments within a certain level of government are beginning to work together to address certain problems. Governments at different levels are finally beginning to talk to each other to deal with certain problems.

I think that's actually a positive development in the sense that typically we've looked at single departments in trying to address very complex human problems, and we've run into real serious difficulties. That's because, as we all know, human problems do not fit very neatly into single departments.

I think “social union” also implies a respect for asymmetry—in other words, provinces being able to do different kinds of programs. The concern there, of course, is that you want to ensure there's a framework. You want to ensure, as Laurie said, there's a set of principles and objectives on which all can agree, so that even if there is a respect for asymmetry, you're sure that people are moving effectively in the same direction and toward the same ultimate goals.

• 0945

Finally, I think the concept of social union implies a new respect for accountability. There is a question about whether we are listening to people and involving them in the process. How early do we involve people in the process, how often, and what is true consultation? Those are very important questions, because the concern can be that consultation becomes a charade, and that's a concern you want to try to avoid. So those are some of the new areas of process I think the term “social union” implies.

There are some interesting developments happening federally-provincially within the context of this social union, and I know you talked about the national child benefit at a former meeting so I will not go into that. But another important development in the social union is the work that's going on with respect to disability.

I think you've had some briefings on the fact that there currently is a federal-provincial group of officials on disability income and supports that has been meeting for about a year now. It has been trying to address some of the concerns and problems that have been been raised over the years in this country with respect to disability-related issues. Many of these issues, as you know, are not new. We've been trying to deal with them for more than 20 years. Some excellent work and some terrific reports and studies have been done. This process now is one attempt to address some of the issues that have come to our attention over the years.

Those in the federal-provincial working group have developed what they call a National Framework on Disability Income and Supports. I was involved in helping them prepare that national framework. It's a document that the federal and provincial governments together have prepared on disability directions for the future—actions for where they intend to go in the future.

I think the framework is important for several key reasons. I mentioned before the respect for asymmetry, but on the need for a national framework, it's absolutely essential to have a vision that's clear and on which all parties agree. You can then have some variability within that vision, but those directions at least have to be there.

The framework also combines three areas that are intrinsically linked. It talks about income reform, the reform of disability supports, and employment-related reforms. Typically in the past we've looked at these areas separately, although they are so intrinsically linked it never made sense really to do that. So the framework tries to combine those three key areas.

Finally, what I think is important about the initiative is that it actually provides a federal-provincial venue for being able to carry forward the agenda. One of the difficulties we had in the past was there were many excellent reports and recommendations but there was no way of really carrying them forward on a federal-provincial level on an ongoing basis. So I think that's part of the good news of this story.

Then we arrive at some of the concerns and potential problems in this process. I think it's important to be aware of those problems and to at least try to stem some of them before they actually occur.

The first concern I have about this federal-provincial process is that in the desire to have everybody around the table agree and reach a consensus, there is a pressure toward a lowest common denominator approach whereby a working group works for consensus and looks for “announceables”. You invariably go toward the announcements that will cause you the least problems or that several jurisdictions already have done. Two or three more come on board and then it becomes something new. So it's very important that this process not become one where you simply go with the least you can possibly do.

I'm tabling this document I've called “The New Handshake Federalism”. I will distribute it afterwards.

I have a second concern with respect to the new arrangement—which in general I think is positive—that this process can become more smoke and mirrors if we're not careful. There can be a lot of talk about the social union, all the process that's going on, the meetings that are taking place and how it's a terrific thing. I think in theory it sets up a vehicle for some very positive developments, but there has to be some substance. There have to be some actual initiatives behind all that talk. Otherwise, it becomes merely a federal-provincial discussion that really has no substantive base.

• 0950

Finally, a concern I would like to express is the fact that in a new federal-provincial relationship there still is a need for a strong federal presence and strong federal leadership. I think there may be a tendency to say we're now in a new era of federal-provincial relations and we can't do or say anything unless we have everybody agreeing to everything. I would hope there still will be strong federal leadership with respect to disability issues. It's absolutely crucial and can't be lost in this process.

From where will that leadership come? Clearly, I think Minister Pettigrew has taken tremendous leadership in the area already and I hope he will continue to do that. I think national groups can provide substantial leadership in terms of the areas and substance to be addressed. I think you, at this committee, can play a tremendous role in setting out an agenda for disability issues and assuring they are on the public agenda continually.

I say that because in 1981 I worked for a parliamentary committee that was called the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. That all-party parliamentary committee produced an amazing report, I think, that set the stage for what was to come in the country. It was because of the commitment of the members of Parliament, because they wanted something to happen, because they knew they were in a position to make something happen, that I think it did. I think you and your committee are in a tremendous position to provide the leadership we need in the new social union.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Sherri.

I have a couple of people on the list. We'll start with Mr. Discepola and then Ms. Lill.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Thank you. Mr. Beachell and Sherri, welcome back. I know we had long discussions on the finance committee and I'll just state my personal opinion on the Latimer case. You have an ally. I don't agree with the decision either, and I think it sets a tremendous precedent about which we have to be very vigilant as a government. I'll drop it at that.

I am concerned because, both in the finance hearings and here, on the question of disability you've indicated to me that you don't trust the provincial level of government to address your concerns. If I look at the constituency out there, I see they're asking governments to deliver the service at the best level possible in terms of who's closest to delivery of that service. Quite often it's at the municipal, provincial or federal level.

Where do you see the role of the federal government in the area of disability? Should we maintain a pan-Canadian role and demand that? Should we establish national standards and then let the provinces or the municipalities handle the delivery and administration of that? Where do you see us taking a leadership in that area, please?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Certainly our organization is fundamentally concerned with creating some agreed-upon national principles. We are not as concerned in the delivery mechanism. We are not opposed fundamentally to the transfer of labour market responsibilities to the provinces. What we wanted to ensure within those agreements, and I'll use this as an example, is that within the agreements there are some standards enunciated in the signed agreement with provincial governments that would ensure access principles are upheld for persons with disabilities. That does not exist in any of the signed agreements presently.

As the federal government determines that it will transfer responsibility, it must be held accountable for some principles that we hold as a society. I would say to you that we are not here saying we don't trust provincial governments, or we don't trust municipal governments, but we want to ensure that across this country as we develop, for example, labour market programs, training programs, there are principles of access in place for all Canadians, and that we have addressed those issues before we have transferred responsibility to some other centre, so that the principles that might be developed and applied in Manitoba are not substantially different from some of the principles being applied in British Columbia or in Prince Edward Island, and that we have some understanding of our outcomes and our desire for outcomes.

• 0955

Outside of my job, I presently serve on one of the local regional health authorities in Manitoba. This represents a devolution of health responsibility to a local community, minister-appointed board, to deliver for this region all of the health care. I frankly did so with some concern about this. Again, the issue becomes the services that we as a board develop in this region of the province; what similarity will they have to the region next door? The citizens within our region are not just citizens of this little village or this little town, but they will go next door for services, etc. We have to ensure some standards of operation across the system.

It is not that we distrust provincial governments. There are many provincial governments we have worked long and hard and collaboratively with. Where we have had some difficulty with provincial governments, to be honest, is in the support for the community consultations and in the support for what we would describe as the advocacy role—for organizations to come forward and be supported, to have a voice within the process.

The federal government has been very helpful in that process. In most cases, at this point, advocacy associations are not funded provincially. They are not supported by provincial or by municipal governments. There is no resource base for disadvantaged groups to have an organized voice in those deliberations. That has been a federal role. Provinces have not picked it up.

We're not opposed to provincial governments. We are just saying we want a pan-Canadian approach—that we have agreement in principle before we turn over responsibility.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Can I just add a point to that?

You were asking, what is a federal role? I think the federal government actually created some of the problems we are seeing now in provincial services, because of the Canada health and social transfer. That particular piece of legislation took billions out of the health and social service system. I think it has created serious problems at the provincial level. It also dismantled the legislative base of the Canada assistance plan, which allowed for the federal cost-sharing of social services throughout the country.

We put out a publication when that came out, called “CHST Spells COST for Disabled”, because we felt there would be a huge impact upon services for people with disabilities in particular. We identified the specific areas where that might happen, with respect both to the actual delivery of certain services and to access through some welfare-related programs, because in many provinces that is how certain supports are delivered—through special needs programs in the welfare system. I think that has been one problem in terms of the federal role—that a huge amount of money has been pulled out of the system.

I also think the federal government could play a role with respect to model employers. I think there is financial leadership and there is also moral leadership. There are things that can be done with respect to showing what a model employer is and encouraging national discussion on the issue of accommodation—encouraging round tables, for example, of employers and labour and groups representing people with disabilities, talking about the issue of accommodation and understanding what that means. In many cases, there are not necessarily huge costs associated with that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Sherri.

Mr. Nikias, do you wish to come in?

Mr. Angelo Nikias (National Director, Government Relations and International Liaison, Canadian National Institute for the Blind): Thank you. I just wanted to make a comment, as a follow-up to the comments that Laurie and Sherri made about some of the problems we face at the provincial level. It's just an example. There are many others.

As a result of the repeal of the Canada assistance plan, one of the problems that arose in Ontario recently, when the provincial government, using a lot of common sense—or some common sense, who knows what—introduced the Social Assistance Reform Act, Bill 142. It included the provision that if a third party requested direct payment from the government on behalf of a social assistance recipient, the government would provide direct payment to the third party. In other words, if the landlord went to the government and said Peter is not paying me the rent, then the government would directly pay the landlord.

• 1000

You may say that's okay, if Peter doesn't pay the rent then the government should pay directly to the landlord. The trouble is that in its wisdom the provincial government took away the appeal right that Peter would have previously to impugn that decision of the government. This is a major problem. It's a problem for people who are marginalized and who face a lot of discrimination. It's a problem I don't think any of us here would tolerate. It's certainly equivalent to finding someone guilty without a trial.

I suggest to you that if this is allowed to continue across the country or anywhere, it's a setback for persons with disabilities, it's a setback for the Canadian government, and it's certainly a setback for Canadian society as a whole. It's a specific example I want to share with you, because often we talk about these issues generally. I think it's important for you to have specific information that exemplifies our concerns.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: I have a quick comment in relation to that. Under the Canada assistance plan an appeal mechanism was a requirement of the cost-shared dollars. That does not exist under the Canada health and social transfer.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

First of all, I want to introduce myself. I'm Wendy Lill and I'm going to be sitting with you whenever there are disability issues. Libby Davies has asked if I would do that. I'm very eager to play that role. I'm a critic for disabilities for my party, the New Democrats, and I'm eager to be involved in this committee and to help out in any way I can in that respect.

The Chairman: Thank you. I have one question before you go on. Will we all get a part in your next play?

I know Ms. Lill is a very fine writer who has written several plays that were premiered and produced in Manitoba, and one will be here at the National Arts Centre.

Ms. Wendy Lill: There will be one here in the spring. You can all come and I can guarantee you free tickets.

The Chairman: That's good. We'll talk.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just want to talk to some of the issues you have raised. First of all, I have written a letter to the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and also the federal Attorney General regarding the Latimer case. I believe it is important to have an appeal on this sentence. The reason I feel that is because I think we have with this sentence left a message for people with disabilities that their lives are in fact worthless.

It's a very complex issue. The whole issue of deterrents and social responsibility and right and wrong, and even the whole issue of parenting are all under question when we look at this issue. What it leaves us with is the sense that people who are disabled or who are raising children with disabilities or caring for people who are disabled are left without feeling supported in their world. They're left with a feeling of what now, what do we do now, and what is the value of what we are doing in our lives? Is it something we should continue to do? Should we continue this struggle that we know is valuable? Even though our lives may be painful, our lots may be difficult, they are what they are, and they're life and they're sustaining.

It comes into the whole quality of life issue, and it's very large. It's important that we now focus on it and we not allow this to just sit out there. We have 4 million disabled people in this country and caregivers of the disabled who really need to feel they have rights within the law. I feel strongly about this.

• 1005

Ms. Sherri Torjman: To comment on that, I certainly don't condone his actions. I think what it teaches us is that caregivers are in desperate need of respite or some support. With cuts to services, we're seeing less and less of that available.

So it's all part of a bigger social problem, actually, this one case.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I agree with you. I guess I try to separate those two things out. We all know the services are here, and they are in fact being decreased all the time, but we can't mix that up with the legal issue and the basic right to life issue.

In terms of the whole social union idea, I think this is an exciting idea. There are people out there—and I have to say I'm one of them—who worry that the social union exercise may just be an intermediate step to a complete abandonment of the concept of social responsibility to the vulnerable. If it is not, if it is truly a new, exciting model in which we can work collectively, federally and provincially, then I agree; this committee is a really central place to have a role in guarding that and taking initiatives in terms of new ideas, in terms of what exactly this model is going to look like, and how we—meaning me, if I can be part of this group—can work together to really ensure that the standards are maintained. There are all sorts of red lights out there saying that standards are not being maintained and that people are being left out. All sorts of their rights have actually fallen off the table.

I don't want to monopolize the time here. I would like to say, though, that I would be very eager to be part of a subcommittee of this committee to look specifically at the social union and at issues of disabilities.

I worry, like you, Carolyn, that the organizational chart is not even showing up disabilities to the extent it should, even on paper. This is the first time I hear—and there was one other meeting—disabilities come up in this committee, other than...I know you did have a presentation.

I think that in itself is telling. It's December. We're halfway through the first year. So I worry about that.

Again, I would be glad to be involved in any committee work on disability issues.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Lill.

Before I move on to another committee member, Ms. Westland, do you want to make a comment on that?

Ms. Joan Westland (Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): Only to perhaps put out a bit of a challenge.

I get really concerned when I hear questions like: Do you think the federal government should take a leadership role? Do you think we should develop national standards? They give the presumption that you don't have a leadership role or that we don't have national standards, and I don't think that's accurate. I think what you need to say is this: We do have a leadership role; how can we best exercise that? How do we best demonstrate, in real terms, our commitment?

We have some standards. We have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that sets out some pretty strong standards. We have all kinds of documentation and legislation to demonstrate that you have principles of access and equity and accommodation.

I think what you as a committee, what you as politicians, and what you as a government need to do is to demonstrate in real terms your commitment to ensuring that the fundamental standards as outlined in the charter, the principles as articulated in multiple pieces of legislation, are in fact forming the terms and conditions of any agreement you enter into with your provincial counterparts. That is the leadership role you have to maintain. Don't discuss whether or not you have it; maintain it and enforce it.

I wanted to put those comments out to you, because we quickly digress into discussion and into consultation. Before you know it, we have all kinds of task forces and committees to go yet again into “Do we have; should we have; will we want; where could we be; and what if?” I say that ignores what already is in existence. It's a question of your taking a leadership role and demonstrating real commitment. I think in one of the examples that was also put out, you could begin even by demonstrating commitment as an employer...let alone commitment in your terms and conditions with your provincial counterparts.

• 1010

I get concerned when we start to open up discussion from the position that we don't already have some mechanisms and some responsibilities at hand. That's my only comment before we start entering into other areas of discussion.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): I'd like to thank you folks for your presentation. One thing that Mr. Beachell seems concerned with is mobility rights in Canada.

I didn't quite understand what you meant. Freedom of movement within Canada—could you enlarge on that a little bit for me.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Maybe the best way is to give as an example the problem of one of our members. A member from Saskatchewan who had finished an undergraduate degree, a woman with significant disability, decided she wished to pursue her masters degree at Carleton University, here in Ontario.

This woman requires attendant care and support, accessible housing, and public transportation systems that are accessible. Systems had been developed for her in Saskatchewan and around her so that she had a self-managed model where she had some control over those things.

The biggest problem in moving to Carleton was that she had to live in certain housing units in order to get attendant care. Those housing units had significant waiting lists on them. There was no system to ensure that she could purchase her own attendant care or that the moneys that might fund her attendant care would be available here in Ontario.

It took over a year and a half to struggle with the systems in Ontario so that ultimately she could come here to Carleton to pursue her masters degree. It was not a question of access to the university. It was not a question of not having standards to get into the program. She was accepted. It was a question of the service delivery system in Saskatchewan working this way and the service delivery system in Ontario working totally differently.

The capacity for her to move from Saskatchewan, as a Canadian, and study at another Canadian university was denied her because the support systems were not in place and there was no comparability of the systems across the country. That is one example.

As another example, an attendant care program in Manitoba is not income tested. For example, if you require attendant care, there is an assessment made and a determination of how many hours a week. There is a government service or a self-managed service that you can use.

If you went to British Columbia for a job, you would have to factor into accepting that job whether you could pay for your own attendant care, because in British Columbia the attendant care system is income tested. So if you make a certain income, you pay for your own attendant care.

What we have are differing standards around the mobility capacity of people. The individual from Manitoba may have been offered a very good job in British Columbia that he would like to take. But in order to take that he has to recognize that he probably needs another $5,000 to $10,000 a year that he will pay out of his own pocket for his attendant care system, whereas with the job he had in Manitoba, that support service was seen as a support to ensure that he could be an economic participant.

When we talk about standards, we're talking about standards in social service delivery across this country. The federal government does have legislation in standards related to health. We have some principles of the Canada Health Act that we hold across the system to ensure some basic levels of support. We don't in the area of social services, even though the federal government funds those to a significant level.

That's the issue around mobility.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: I think an issue in addition to standards is the fact that—and Laurie made reference to that—personal supports are often tied to the provision of other programs, like a housing program, a residential facility, or an income security program. So you're effectively almost locked into a certain program if you want to receive the supports and services that you need just to live independently in a community.

• 1015

One of the areas that the federal-provincial working group to which I alluded earlier has agreed to look at, or at least has on their agenda tentatively, is the issue of the portability of support, so that people can in fact move throughout the country and are not tied into certain programs. It's one area that this committee—you were asking what role can the committee play—may want to look at. You might want to ask that federal-provincial working group to report to you on the progress of those discussions and what is going on, because it's a very serious problem.

The Chairman: Ms. Richler.

Ms. Diane Richler: I wanted to make a comment on the issue of federal leadership that's been raised. Certainly there are documents like the Scott task force report that can become a rallying point for people and can be a demonstration of federal leadership, but there's one element that's going to demonstrate leadership more than anything else, and that's money.

We can all be very polite in talking about nice words and nice laws and, with respect, nice committees, but the reality is that people with disabilities are suffering because there's no money in social programs and because they're being forced not to work in order to qualify for supports and services. That's what needs to be addressed. We're at a point right now where the country's going to have to make some fundamental decisions about social spending over the next few years.

The real question is this: is disability on the agenda or isn't it? There can be lots of flowery words about people with disabilities and their rights and respecting them, but if the money goes somewhere else, then people with disabilities are going to be marginalized. If money gets into the pockets of people with disabilities and allows them to participate in the workforce, in their families and in their communities, then they'll be able to exercise their roles as citizens.

I think there are a couple of ways this could be done. One is, getting back to the idea of the disability lens, to think about the issues that are on the federal agenda right now—children. Families with kids with disabilities are in pain right now. All kinds of support services are being cut back. People can't even participate in meetings of associations like ours because there's nobody to stay home with the kids. Women are, by and large, the ones who are giving up their jobs in order to stay home with their children because there is no other kind of support. Schools are cutting back on programs and so there's not the same kind of access to education.

So if children are a priority, what are the issues facing kids with disabilities and what are the issues facing families of kids with disabilities? Is there something to do there?

Youth is a priority. One of the priorities is to make sure that youth are employed and to make sure that youth don't feel alienated from their communities. What about youth with disabilities? Are they coming out of school with a sense that they're going to be full members of their community, or are they graduating with the thought that they can either go to a sheltered workshop or stay home and watch television and collect their pension? Can something be done to address this issue?

Other potential programs have been in the media lately, such as pharmacare and home support. Quebec's taken the lead in terms of pharmacare, but for people with disabilities the deductible now is still making it impossible for people to have access. There's an opportunity.

The Chairman: I'm going to tighten this up just a little bit now. We have some presenters who haven't had an opportunity to even get their initial presentation on the table, and we're almost halfway through the time available.

I'm going to allow you a question, Mado, before I move on simply because you have not had an opportunity to speak. Then we'll get the other three presenters and then we'll go back into the list. I've quite a list building of people who wish to ask questions. If we can move expeditiously through the presentations, then we can get back to this discussion. Mado.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you for your presentation.

I chose to be the spokesperson for issues affecting the disabled, and I will tell you why.

• 1020

In my previous life, before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked in health for 35 years, and especially in pediatrics. My personal experience brought me very close to many people dealing with major disabilities. So there are some things I understand well.

I also agreed to be the spokesperson on this issue because I think it is very important that people who have to face difficulties every single day have a chance not only to be full-fledged citizens of society, but also to be a source of enrichment for the community. I believe this very deeply.

I waited for a number of you to speak, to see whether my impressions from the first presentation would be confirmed during the others. I saw that you are deeply concerned, as if recent changes in what we might call the federal pact worried you enormously, as if you had lost your father, perhaps. That is the feeling I had. Tell me if I have understood this correctly.

Moreover, funding is crucial, of course, but obviously, funding may go to those who yell the loudest. We know full well that governments across Canada are dealing with deficits and of course the business world cannot be ignored. We have to recognize that.

You talked about funding. Very often, when I go into the House—and I am sure my colleagues can confirm this—I hear them saying that there is a huge surplus in the employment insurance fund, and that the Minister of Finance has decided to eliminate the deficit more quickly.

But when many Canadian citizens have special needs—and we are not talking about doing them a favour, we are talking about their rights—shouldn't we be using some of that money to promote access to employment, employment adapted to the abilities of the disabled, so that they can use their abilities for the well being of the community? I heard Mr. Beachell talking about his problems getting from A to B. So, couldn't some of the surplus in the employment insurance fund, which still belongs to the federal government, be used to deal with such problems, problems that are real and measurable and that can be clearly demonstrated?

I am sure you will have a great deal to say in response to my second question. Why do you feel people are not listening to you? Why do you feel you have so little influence with provincial governments? I would really like to know why. And I am sure you can tell me. I think that the power we have is the power we take. Twenty-five years ago, seniors had almost no power at all. But nowadays, governments can't do a thing without taking the power of seniors into consideration.

Today, people with disabilities have real power. I can try to help you as a Parliamentarian, but at the end of the day, you and your members are the leaders. There is no doubt about that, in my opinion.

That's it, I think. I am sure you will be able to answer my questions.

• 1025

Ms. Joan Westland: I will try to answer quickly, in the time we have left.

If I understood your question on employment properly, then I can tell you it is difficult to meet the criteria. If we want access to a job program, especially if it is funded by the employment insurance system—we have to meet certain criteria. But the problem many disabled persons have is that often they have no contact with the labour market. They have never worked or they have not worked long enough to qualify for the programs funded from those sources. So that is a problem with federal funding.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I was talking about the surplus. I was not talking about funding from...

Ms. Joan Westland: Yes, but even this surplus is restricted by government-established criteria. It's not like a surplus in some sort of bank account, where you can withdraw money whenever you need it. There are always criteria for withdrawals, or funding, that determine who has access and why.

We are still negotiating with the Department regarding the various options, programs and opportunities that could be assessed. We have discussed a number of approaches subsidized by the Department of Human Resources Development, which is responsible for the surplus.

Your second question was on our lack of influence with provincial governments. As Laurie just said, only Quebec has declared that it is against consultation with disabled persons' associations. That puts us in a fairly difficult position. And other provinces are not that interested in encouraging public consultation about the disabled, or other issues.

Most of the policies in place have been developed by the federal government, and therefore non-profit associations have focused on the federal level. Only recently did we realize that disabled persons' issues are now under provincial and municipal jurisdiction.

We have also been placed in a somewhat difficult position because of the changes, which have gone ahead very quickly. We will have to develop our own strategies. This is no excuse either for disabled persons or governments, but it does show us that we need our own strategy, and that you need yours.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Westland.

Okay, let me go on and ask Mr. Lloyd and then Ms. Westland and Mr. Nikias to make their initial presentations. I should note that Mr. Lloyd is here from the Department of HRDC, although he's not here in a capacity to defend the department; he's here because I understand he is at the front end of some of the development of special technologies and such. That's the role.

We will absolve you from any need to defend the department.

Mr. Stephen Lloyd (Director, Office of Learning Technology, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I'm very happy to be here.

I should situate myself within the department. I do in fact work within the learning and literacy directorate of the department, and I am the director of a relatively new program, which was officially launched one year ago in June. The initiative is called the Office of Learning Technologies.

• 1030

The entire concept of the office is essentially to recognize that we are moving into the 21st century, to recognize that in this new and very competitive environment within which we are all working and learning, people need a variety of new learning opportunities and options to be made available to them.

I believe one of the reasons I was asked to come today is that these new learning opportunities and the use of technologies most certainly apply to and hopefully will enable a variety of learning opportunities for people with disabilities.

The vision of the office is to contribute to a lifelong learning culture in Canada. I think we all recognize and are involved in skilling and reskilling ourselves as employment changes and as skill requirements change. We've certainly learned from the recent international adult literacy survey and also from the adult education and training surveys that it's critical for people to continue to use their skills once they have acquired them—that if you don't use them, you lose them. This is a great concern to many people.

The main mission, then, of our program is to work with partners to expand learning opportunities using technologies. I must underline that we don't believe for one moment that technologies will be the silver bullet and will solve all of the problems that face us. We see them very much as enablers. The focus of our program is on what kinds of strategies we can put into place, working with partners, to be able to look at technologies and figure out ways they could be used to provide these new learning options.

Whether you're living in a rural and remote part of Canada and don't have access to a bricks-and-mortar location where you want to take a course, whether you're at home and it's very difficult for you to leave the home situation, whether you feel more comfortable learning in a more community-centred kind of location rather than a school, all of these learning opportunities will be possible and are quickly becoming possible. Our main reason for being is to try to bring together people who are interested in this subject so they can help form and inform the process of it rolling out.

The project has three main objectives, and prior to coming to the meeting, I provided some material that enunciates these.

One is to promote the effective and appropriate use of technology. Again, many people, thinking it's a silver bullet, immediately move into using it in a particular manner. We're looking at the learning process. We're looking at meeting adult learner needs using technologies. It's very important, and I'm sure the folks sitting around the table with me know that the key to this whole use of technologies is to ensure they are properly developed, with the learners' needs very much paramount and in mind.

The second major objective of the program is to support assessment, research, and testing in the use and the introduction of technologies into new circumstances. A contribution program is associated with this part of our work, and we have a number of projects going on right now that relate to the learning needs of people with disabilities.

The third major objective is to provide information to people, to share it and make it more broadly available, and to really look at quality information. Again, this is to help people, be they learners, learning practitioners, policy-makers, or developers, to get them the information they need to be able to better equip themselves and provide high-quality learning opportunities.

The key activities we're involved with, then, include working with others to develop strategies in the use of technologies. Right now, for example, we're working with a group called the Education Training Provider Network, which is a group of practitioners from across the country from community colleges, community-based training organizations, universities, and the lot. We're looking at their needs in terms of learning more about the use of learning technologies and how to incorporate them into practice. So we'll be working with them and are working with them to look at their critical needs to be addressed and also to be able to assist them in professional development opportunities.

In the area of research and assessment, I can give you a couple of examples of the types of projects we're currently funding. One that is just beginning is a partnership, and partnerships are key to this contribution program. We try to encourage private sector and public sector partnerships, and obviously learner involvement.

• 1035

The one I'm thinking of, which I'll just reference briefly, is one we're doing with Dawson College in Montreal. Dawson College is working directly with the National Educational Association of Disabled Students.

The focus of this particular work is to look at their membership and those who are providing services to them to be able to focus on what kinds of learning technologies they are currently using or not using, what they find helpful and effective, and what barriers there are to the use. It's also to look at what kinds of policies and procedures might be put into place to be able to help them access those learning technologies and expand their usage across the country. So that's one example of the kinds of contribution projects we're doing.

Similarly, we're helping people to get a handle on the information. When we first began the program, one of the organizations we went to was in fact the Roeher Institute. We asked them how much of an issue this was for the folks they were working with. The answer was that it was a new area. There had been a lot of work in assistive devices across the country, but the use of technologies for learning specifically was an area that needed new information brought to bear. So they devised the annotative bibliography that I provided you, which really helps people begin to situate themselves in this new and very emerging area, which is changing on a daily basis.

Similarly, we have a variety of different kinds of forums—face-to-face forums, on-line forums—to bring together constituents to be able to talk about and look for solutions and find new ways of using this kind of material.

I won't go much farther than that, other than to say that I truly believe that access to learning is an absolutely critical issue for all Canadians. Canadians with disabilities obviously add in the physical access issues, cognitive access issues, and supportive access issues. Each of these are very much embedded in the concerns that many people have in the use of technologies. That's what we'll be working with folks on to be able to look at over the next number of years. How can we use this material very effectively? What works well for whom under what circumstances and under what kinds of learning settings and learning styles?

I'll stop at that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Lloyd. Perhaps Mr. Nikias would like to come in now, please.

Mr. Angelo Nikias: Thank you for inviting me to participate in this round table today. I'm going to focus on one specific issue. It follows what the previous speaker spoke about. It has to do with access to information and learning. I will follow up on this with a written submission to the committee.

For blind and visually impaired people, the issue of effective and timely access to information is perhaps the most critical strategic issue in their efforts to become full participants in Canadian society.

There are other issues, of course. There are other barriers that blind and visually impaired people face. We have to deal with these other issues.

For example, there's discrimination. I was dismayed this summer when I received a phone call from a blind woman who appeared to be facing discrimination in employment at the hands of a federal crown agency. This issue is now, I believe, in the human rights process, so there's no need for me to comment any further. I'm only saying this because I think it's important for you to understand that there are these barriers, and that even though we have enacted human rights legislation years ago, disabled people generally, and blind people specifically, continue to face some of these problems.

The issue of information and access to adequate library services is probably the most critical one for us right now. Henry spoke earlier about the leadership that Canada has provided internationally in the area of disability. There's no question that we have made progress in the area of disability and we have provided leadership.

• 1040

I am sorry to say, however, that in the area of library services for the blind, visually impaired, deaf-blind, and otherwise print-disabled Canadians, the federal government has a problem. The problem is that amongst our competitors, the developed countries, Canada is the only country that does not support a national library service for print-disabled persons. This is a fact.

In the United States, the Library of Congress established a specialized library service for the blind in 1931. In other countries in Europe the various national governments support national library services. In Canada we don't have this type of support.

The CNIB library has been trying for decades to bridge the information gap in Canada. It has done so mostly by relying on the voluntary sector. We have a number of highly committed, highly skilled volunteers who Braille books, who tape books, who tape magazines and periodicals, and who provide literally hundreds of thousands of documents every year to blind Canadians who need them.

The solution to this is for a civil society initiative, for the CNIB library and the federal government to engage in some kind of partnership so that we meet effectively the challenges evolving technologies impose on us. As well, the fact that our population is becoming more aged means there is greater demand for specialized materials in accessible forms.

The Prime Minister—I have something here in Braille, with which some of you are perhaps familiar—made a statement when he replied to the Speech from the Throne. I want to read you what he said:

By the year 2000, we will make the new information and knowledge infrastructure accessible to all Canadians.

Unless the federal government makes some strategic financial investments in the area of library and information services for blind persons, I can tell you, this firm statement by the Prime Minister will not be realized for blind and visually impaired Canadians.

I want to stop here. I would be happy to answer questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nikias.

Ms. Westland.

Ms. Joan Westland: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I would like to say I'm thrilled to be here, but that would a lie. I'm frustrated to be here. I've been at this table, and others like it, for a long period of time. One of the things I say to my colleagues is that if we've done anything well over the last 25 years, it's that we've grown old gracefully, and we've watched each other do it.

Having said that, we're still at the table. I think that reflects as well our determination to not let this agenda slide off the table. I think we also have to acknowledge that we have some very excellent examples of successful programs and initiatives that we continue to build on. I don't want us to lose sight of those as well.

So for the purposes of looking at some positive initiatives, I'd like to build on this whole area of technology.

The Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work is an organization whose mandate has always been to promote and support equal, equitable, and meaningful employment of people with disabilities. Our focus is on cross-disability. We don't see ourselves as an advocacy group. We see ourselves as innovators of change. We see ourselves as being very focused in research and development and as a support to the many players who are involved in employment of people with disabilities. I would say that probably our membership and our board reflects that. We have labour, business, educators and trainers, organizations of people with disabilities, service providers, etc. as part of our board and our membership.

• 1045

To focus on the key programs within the time we have is not an easy task that you set before us, but again, as I said, we rise to the challenge. We haven't been daunted in this effort for the last 25 years so we won't let 10.45 a.m. daunt us either.

One of the areas we've been particularly successful in is a program that we call the skills training partnership program, which in many areas of the country is also known as the Wal-Mart program. I hope we will change that attachment, because we now are doing a skills training partnership in the area of information technology, first, to avoid the myth or perception that people with disabilities only qualify for entry-level positions, and also to ensure that training programs that are provided are in fact linked to employment opportunities.

In the Wal-Mart program, which is the example we put on the table as the model, the secret to the success of the program is that the employer—in this case, Wal-Mart—begins by assuring permanent employment for successful graduates of the program. Consequently, we've been able to start out with 15 participants in a program. All 15 participants, when they conclude that program, are hired by Wal-Mart in permanent—if there is such a term as permanent employment—full-time positions.

The other thing that I think demonstrates success of this skills training partnership is that we began the first program four years ago and, of the 15 graduates of that program, one has in fact lost their job, two have gone to competing retail outlets, and the others have all received promotion in their place of employment. And job opportunities are everything from being the greeter in the Wal-Mart store to working in the accounting office. So it's not only cross-disability, it's also a wide range of job opportunities.

The other piece we're particularly proud of that we've developed in recent years is our Internet-based employment and information services. We started out with a program called the wide area employment network, which was a resumé writing and resumé searching software allowing people with disabilities to develop resumés that were competency and skill based as opposed to necessarily dealing with employment-specific information. It often is an obstacle for people with disabilities that they may not have had a long-term attachment to the labour force, but they will have many examples of short-term attachment, often determined by government programs and funding sources. By focusing on a skills approach to the resumé, then employers, who have employment opportunities, would enter in the posting and the posting is matched by the skill.

What I can say for CCRW is that in the last seven hires we have done, five of the people have come from the wide area employment network and, again, the positions have been everything from the clerical receptionist position to comptroller. It's important for you to remember we do deal with a wide range of skills.

The wide area employment network has opened up another opportunity, which is our virtual employment centre. It gets really bogged down with acronyms, and to translate all of these very cute English statements into French is another challenge that I don't think we have yet successfully met. So bear with me if it gets a little tongue twisting.

• 1050

The virtual employment centre is known as WORKink, because it is modelled after a magazine format. We have an editors section where people are invited to write in on what the latest developments may be in terms of employment programs or initiatives, and what some of the issues may be.

We have a section called Able INK, which is the area that a job seeker would go into either to do resumé writing, to enter their resumé into a job bank, or to find out about employment opportunities or support services. Again, that section is meant to provide information as well reflect some of the issues that Laurie and others raised. If someone is planning to do a move from one province to another, they could access this source of information to find out what the support service system may be in that province, to help them determine whether or not that move following the employment opportunity is in fact realistic.

We have an Ask Amy column, which is obviously modelled after the Dear Abby column. That allows people to write in for very particular personal information they may need to have clarified.

The most interesting feature, I think, that we have as well on this employment information service or the virtual employment centre is our on-line employment counselling. It enables a person to go into the WORKink, to go into the counselling sector. They'll find first of all a schedule of counselling times and which room you can enter in, what the topic is for that particular scheduled time, and then participate in a group discussion. You may have guest speakers who come in. You can also reserve individual on-line counselling so that you have a private counselling initiative.

This is the only service of its kind in Canada, and there is only one similar service in North America. What is interesting about this virtual employment centre is that it's available not only to people with disabilities but to all job seekers and employers. The challenge for CCRW is to ensure that while we try to make our labour market information and support up to date, we never lose the critical pieces of information so essential to people with disabilities.

So I put that out on the table. It's part of the new technology—the direction that many folks are going in. We certainly have lots of problems to face as we develop this, not the least of which is that most people with disabilities don't have the computers to access these kinds of services, and that's a very real situation. There are many other issues that come forward, which perhaps we will explore during questions. As an organization, we're quite excited about the potential we have here.

To conclude, to let you know what the interest is, in the first month this was up and running, without any kind of advertising or promotion, we already had what they call 3,000 “hits” on the system. Two weeks after we had measured that, it had increased by 30%, and we're seeing people from around the world accessing this particular program. So I think there is tremendous potential here. There is also a lot of potential for disaster and, as they say, also potential for some challenges, which we need to be very sensitive to as well.

I thank you for your time and attention.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We have roughly an hour, and I have a list of people who wish to ask questions, which I'm going to get to right now.

I wonder, though—one of the things one always searches for in an exercise like this, at the end of the day, is specific action. I hear some things within some of the presentations that have been made that would seem to suggest you are looking for, or you would like to see, or you think it would be useful if there were.... If you were writing a recommendation for this committee, I'd be interested in hearing what specific kinds of things you would like to see this group do, to help you advance some of the issues you are concerned about. The issue of the disability lenses is one that the committee has already discussed at some length, trying to think our way through that one.

• 1055

But I will not take any more time. Was it Mrs. Bradshaw who came rather late? Yes, it was. It was Mrs. Bradshaw.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mrs. Bradshaw went to the wrong building because they changed us today, Mr. Chair.

I have four points, and then I have to leave early. So I'll really get it from the chair.

As for the Latimer case, I had to struggle with this one. I want to tell you a story; It's the reason I became a politician.

I started an agency 30 years ago for children who were abused, so I know a bit about where you're coming from. I sat at this table often and saw my friends grow old at the community base level.

The reason I became a politician was that last October a young man was murdered in Moncton. I got a call from my husband. The parent of that child worked for social services. This mom loved everybody who walked into her office, whether it was a doctor, a disabled person, or a street person. She loved them. Now here is her kid murdered. It was her only son.

The child who murdered this child was a Head Start kid. He did have a nice life from prenatal to six. The last time I spoke to his mom, he was seven years old. The last thing his mom said to me was a comment about whether he was going to have to kill somebody for them to get the support services they needed. This child is 21 years old. He's in court. We're going to pay $56,000 to $72,000 a year for the rest of his life for him to be in prison.

So when the Latimer case happened, it brought back the whole hurt. That night in Regina my husband told me that I was finished going in front of standing committees; he said I was going into federal politics. That's why I'm here.

So listening to you present, Joan, and the way you started, I appreciate what you said.

I have a couple of questions for some of you. One, a lot of people come into my office in Moncton and tell me that if they're disabled and they're a couple, they have to separate so they can get services. I want to know if that's true.

Two, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the community living agency in Moncton and in New Brunswick is bringing our provincial government to court. I know you can't tell me a lot about that, but I wonder if you are involved at the federal level and if you're supporting our provincial friends who have to bring our provincial government to court.

I was sitting outside this summer in front of Yesterday's with my husband, having a nice drink, and I saw a disabled person with an attendant walking on Sparks Street. I started to cry, because we won't see that any more in New Brunswick. I'd like your comments on that.

This is the other thing I'd like to know. When I was on the National Crime Prevention Council and looking at poverty, we found one person who we felt could give us a model for the country on child poverty and child abuse, and that was Dr. Steinhauer. Could you agree, all of you sitting here, that there is one person in this country who knows disability and who could work on a model for us and you? Is there that type of person in this country on whom all of you could agree? We found one for national crime, since 25 people agreed that Dr. Steinhauer could do that for us.

Here's the other thing I have. You won't believe it, but the last thing I wrote was: how many times have you presented to the standing committee, and what changes have you seen since you've been presenting to the standing committee?

I was there for 29 years. I wonder if, when you all get together as a group of people who all have the same basic wants, you can do a video of what you each do. You can come in to meet politicians and business people and show the video. Then when you present your seven minutes to us—I don't know if it's still seven minutes, but it used to be—you would give us your solutions and action plans.

What we need from you are solutions and action plans. Then if we don't act, you can do an assessment of our work at the end. But if you just come in and tell us what you do all the time, and we only give you seven minutes, then you don't know how to judge us in terms of whether or not we did our work. If you gave a solution and an action plan, then we'd have to act.

• 1100

For example, your library at the CNIB. Do you have that in place? Do you have a model in place for that, and do you have a price tag on it? Those are the kinds of things I'm going to leave you with.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to ask my question. I appreciate it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Bradshaw. It's always a pleasure to have you here.

Now, does anyone wish to pick up in response? Laurie.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: In terms of the issue of supports to married couples versus singles, it is a problem. Benefits are better for individuals rather than for married couples based on income, and it is a problem.

In regard to the poverty issue, there are a couple of key people probably in Canada. I think if we got together to discuss that, we could come to some consensus.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I mean for the disabled, not poverty. We have our model.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Yes. Sherri Torjman, who's right here, might be one of those people, and there are others. But I think we can get back to you on that.

What solutions?

We've been before this committee many times. This committee is tremendously important, and in keeping in the spirit of Joan Westland, let us speak frankly. We continually come to the committee to re-educate. We continually come to other parliamentary committees to re-educate, to begin the process over and again. It is exhausting, it requires resources, and it is frustrating to no end. It is also frustrating at your end, I am sure, to have the range of responsibility you have and the number of social issues to address.

Let me just say that the difficulty in the disability field, frankly, comes from something that many people don't want to admit easily, and this is that it is extremely complex. What most political-level decision-makers are looking for is the one answer, and there is no one answer.

The complexity of disability issues has not been recognized, and once people get enough information to recognize the complexity, they get frightened and they back away from it. So we get this excitement around disability and doing something, we get people motivated, and we get general expressions of good political will. We start to get some understanding on the complexity of it, and in fear of raising expectations, or fear related to cost, or fear that we just don't know how to do it, we start to diminish our commitment. And that has happened to us time and time, and time again.

What is required by the committee is a long-term commitment. What is required by governments is a long-term commitment and a recognition that our community has worked in a collaborative process. We aren't out there picketing your doorsteps, we aren't out there demanding change overnight, we aren't out there saying that this system can be absolutely overhauled within the next six months. We know it can't. We are asking that there be a plan in place, that there be incremental progress and that you work collaboratively with community. To do that, you have to strengthen the disability lens-piece within government, the Office on Disability Issues, the ability for cross-departmental co-ordination on disability issues, so that we don't deal with disability in all the various silos.

We have to ensure that there is support for a community voice. A number of organizations have to be able to bring to you concrete examples of what works, why it works and how we might expand upon those models.

We have to have a transparent process, and the fear we have on the move to the social union side is that process is not transparent. That process does not involve community. That process does not support a community voice.

We need a long-term planning process in collaboration here and we need some accountability measures, possibly an annual report to Parliament on the status of persons with disabilities in Canada, a serious report, with measurable outcomes: what is the poverty that is being experienced; what are the gaps in service delivery; what are the problems in jurisdictional areas in finding service for people with disabilities, etc.?

Those are some of the first things, and I think we can get back to you with others.

The Chairman: I'd like to jump in there for a second.

There's this discussion about building a report relative to children, which was part of the commitments that came out of the last campaign, part of the social union. Is that what you're talking about, an accountability document that would fit into the context of the social union?

• 1105

Mr. Laurie Beachell: I believe if there is going to be a disability initiative within the social union, there has to be an accountability mechanism, there has to be a reporting mechanism, and there have to be measurable outcomes that are reported publicly, so that we know whether we're making progress with the dollars we're spending or we're not.

The Chairman: Thank you. I'm sorry, I know there are some other people waiting.

Henry, and then....

Mr. Henry Enns: I'd like to respond to a couple of things. In Manitoba, certainly we have the situation where at least one or two of the people I know who have a disability and who are married have in fact been told that they should separate and then they would get a lot more benefits. That definitely is an issue.

I'd also like to say we have to put things into perspective. As I started by saying earlier, there have been a lot of gains. I mean, the charter.... The Canadian society in 1980 was a lot different from how it is now with regard to disability issues. What is frustrating is that we keep fighting the same battles over and over. You make some gains. We did some evaluation in the last year and so, in preparing for the Andy Scott report and others, and we looked at ourselves and said we're no longer talking the same language about rights and accessibility and national standards as we were even six years ago. That becomes a little frustrating.

I've worked with a research and education centre at the University of Manitoba. We have been able to look at some of those creative models you are talking about in those initiatives. One of the things we did was look at the whole area of entrepreneurship and business development for disabled people. It's an issue that hadn't been touched. We did some research in that area. It led to an $18 million program that is now operational in western Canada. It's not yet operational in the rest of Canada. It is receiving some tremendous interest and having some great successes. So there are models that are starting to develop.

We talked about funding, earlier. One of the things that needs to happen is that the disability issue needs to be dealt with in other departments and other sectors that are not dealing with it. Again, going back, that was part of the principles that were established earlier, which I think over the last five or six years has not happened to the same degree, except for a few cases.

But there are those models, and some of them are starting to be quite exciting.

The fundamental things around support and the social union and issues around independent living and attendant care are not yet adequately being addressed. That's where you need what is talked about—some real action plan that Parliament can really deal with.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Diane.

Ms. Diane Richler: First of all, I'd like to make a comment on the court case in New Brunswick. For those who aren't aware of it, the New Brunswick Association for Community Living and 11 families are taking the provincial government to court over the fact that supports in the community have been cut to their sons and daughters as a result of the health-based assessment that's now in place, which is saying that people with a certain level of disability have to live in long-term care facilities as opposed to the community.

Unfortunately, because of the structuring of the court challenges program federally, there is absolutely no support for families like that to be able to take a case forward. They are doing that on their own, with the limited support of their local association, of the provincial association, and of our nation-wide federation. Citizenship—yes, but the mechanisms that exist and the funding that exist to allow charter challenges to be taken cannot support any actions against provincial governments.

I'd like to make another brief comment, adding to Laurie's comments about the next steps and the complexity of the issue, and to go back to the question that was raised by Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

• 1110

Speaking about the EI surplus is one example. It seems to me that, to some extent, people with disabilities now are where women and women's issues were fifteen or twenty years ago. What we're calling for is not specific programs; we're calling for a massive overhaul of the way our communities and all of our structures function. In order to do that, we need multifaceted plans. There is not going to be one quick fix.

One of the problems is that because we've been kind of keeping our fingers in the dyke, we've been focusing very much on disability-specific programs. The surplus in employment insurance that exists right now is a huge resource that's not available to people with disabilities, though. What happened with the CHST was that we knocked the bottom out of funding for community programs, but we didn't look at the other existing mechanisms that might make it might possible to build in supports to compensate. I think we have to be really careful that in developing new strategies we're working from both ends.

In terms of the generic issues, I'm very worried about what's happening around Canada Pension Plan reforms, for example. There are funding mechanisms that exist for people who have been in the system, but there aren't similar kinds of programs for people who haven't been attached to the labour market, as Joan said.

One last point is who is involved the discussion. The primary people involved in discussion about EI are from business and labour. There's no mechanism for involving people with disabilities in that discussion. Similarly, where are business and labour in talking about disability issues? We need to open up the discussion so that more of the community is involved, and so that the community starts to take on disability as an issue in the same way that women's issues now are not gender-specific.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Yes, I have two questions.

If you were charged with the task of substantially reducing unemployment for people with disabilities over the course of the next Parliament, what would your strategy be? Where would you focus most of your efforts?

Secondly, in one of the documents here, there are a few terms I just wanted to get clarified. One was “environmental disadvantage”, another was “expert systems”, and a third was “hypermedia”. I was just wondering if you could define what those are.

The Chairman: Mr. Nikias.

Mr. Angelo Nikias: I can't answer all of his questions, but I'm sure the issue of reducing unemployment involves a number of actions on different levels.

I do want to share one fact that relates to the unemployment experienced by blind and visually impaired people, and it has to do with learning and education. Most visually impaired people do not read Braille, but there are a lot of people who actually use Braille. A lot of people in the area have characterized Braille as a liberating experience for blind people because it's really the only means by which blind people independently can read and write. It's been so historically, and it continues to be so.

The library actually has done a study on the issue of Braille literacy. I want to read you something that I think will surprise you. It surprised me, and I have been working on this issue for many years, since I was a teenager. It reads:

There is a high degree of employment and education among braille readers responding to the survey.

—this is a survey—

Six percent are unemployed, a significantly lower figure than the general population (10 percent) as well as for the general blind and visually impaired population which is estimated to be 75%.

This is astounding. People who have had access to good education, to learning opportunities, to Braille literacy, and who have been able to take advantage of our educational system clearly are doing much better in the labour market than those who have not. There is nothing surprising about that, perhaps, but the figures are amazing.

If you want to do something for blind and visually impaired people, this is what you can do: strengthen our information infrastructure, our libraries, our learning systems. We will do the rest.

• 1115

The Chairman: Thank you. That's a very skilful use of one topic. That's good. Does anybody else want to respond to that?

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Yes, with respect to the question on employment, there are several specific things I would suggest. One is to ensure the availability for work-related aids, and at least provide additional support for work-related aids. We find that it's often very expensive for people and employers to provide certain technical aids and equipment. I would look at that area.

Second, I mentioned this before, but I think it's very important to have national round tables throughout the country on the issue of accommodation. Explain what that is. Have employers talk about it. Have some model programs, such as the Wal-Mart and other technology programs. Get this information out there and around. Have people talk about the actual initiatives and success stores.

Third, as I mentioned before, the federal government itself has to be a model employer and take more leadership.

Finally, I would provide financial support and technical assistance for community economic development and self-employment. Those are some employment-related kinds of things that I think are important.

There's another lever that I think is important to look at right now. There has been a lot of discussion federally about home care and the possibility of supporting home care. I think what's important about this initiative is that it provides an opening for support for community living. I would hope it's not too narrowly defined in terms of medical entry points and medical assessments, because this can really help provide a lot of supports for people trying to live independently at home as well as for the families and caregivers we referred to earlier. I hope our discussion of home care in the country would be more broadly defined than simply having medical services at home.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Torjman.

Mr. Lloyd, did you wish to comment on this?

Mr. Stephen Lloyd: I might respond to the question about the expert support systems and the hypermedia specifically.

The Chairman: Could I hold you off for a minute? We should finish this question of work. Henry.

Mr. Henry Enns: Yes, I'd like to talk about employment. There are a couple of pieces. I referred earlier to one of the studies we did, which was the whole area of self-directed employment, which led to the major initiative with Western Diversification. This got a body involved that had never before dealt with disability issues.

They now have an $18-million program to support self-directed employment in western Canada. It's not yet available in the rest of Canada, but it's already proving that some very interesting things are developing. One is that people are adding on to what they are doing at the present time in terms of exploring self-directed employment. It's also opening up a new expansion of, for example, disabled farmers who are already working in the area. They can expand their farming operations.

There's another piece. Severely disabled people also need pre-employment kinds of initiatives that would need to be built into some kind of a program. Take the areas around peer support, peer counselling. We need to get them to a point at which they're really thinking about alternatives both to employment and self-directed employment. The independent living resource centre in Winnipeg has a three-year program right now to look at that whole area.

There are some new models and initiatives that are developing in the whole area of employment and self-directed employment that I think have some real possibilities. I think these should, in addition to some of the other things that have been said here, really be added on to an overall program.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Enns. Ms. Westland.

Ms. Joan Westland: I'm not going to pretend to answer those last three items and define them for you; I'm leaving that to Mr. Lloyd. I want to address the employment question, because as I said, it's certainly the mandate of CCRW to promote employment.

Here's the strategy I would see in terms of the federal government. Pieces of it are already in place. You do have some financial resources. You probably need to look at the criteria being developed and how to access those financial resources. We had a little bit of that discussion earlier.

The major frustration we have in developing effective employment programs is that we have to dance to too many drums. We have too many criteria that need to be satisfied, and you consequently start massaging and adapting and readjusting your program so that it doesn't really deliver the outcome that initially was intended, or it isn't able to implicate the participants who really need to be provided with that opportunity or support.

• 1120

We have contradicting criteria. You may be of need on one side, but you can't qualify for the program on the other side. The federal government, when it looks at its resources, should want to promote employment programs and initiatives that have some consistency, so that it doesn't get bogged down in process; so that it doesn't develop when it's looking at measurable outcomes; so that it doesn't develop assessment tools that become so complicated that we spend all of our time answering questions and filling out forms, with none of our time spent actually delivering a program; and so that it is a little bit more conscientious about timeframes. For example, when you assume you're going to address the employment issues of people with disabilities in an 18-month program, I don't think that's very realistic, and even in terms of that timeframe, by the time approval is received for a particular program, you've lost another 6 months and an 18-month program in fact becomes a 12-month program.

These are the kinds of real things that I think you, as a government, can address in a fairly short term. The complication or the challenge obviously comes out with all of the various other factors that enter into the issue around employment of people with disabilities, with a large part of those factors not being the jurisdiction of federal government. It's that whole other area of.... You know, it's not a simple question. It is a long-term initiative, but there are some fundamental things that can be addressed in the short term in terms of design of programs.

The Chairman: Ms. Richler, did you want to jump on that?

Ms. Diane Richler: Yes. For people with intellectual disabilities, a real concern is that often the support that's needed is not a short-term fix or adaptation, it's an ongoing support. In designing criteria, it's therefore really important that the criteria be written in a way that doesn't exclude people whose need for support may be ongoing.

The other issue is that many people can be very successful when working, but they may have trouble getting a job either because they can only do part of a currently existing job and there needs to be an adaptation of the job description—which sometimes requires negotiation between labour and management in terms of redefining positions—or people may not be able to take a job because of the other benefits that they're going to lose. So it's just to make sure those issues don't get lost in any new programs.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Lloyd, do you want to warp out the hyperspace?

Mr. Stephen Lloyd: Yes, but before I do, I can show something quite graphically again. I didn't mention that the work we're doing is the range of learning technologies from the very basic to the higher-end ones.

Mr. Anders talks about more high-end work. It's important to know that the combination of learning technologies is the key to this whole thing. One of the projects that Henry and I will have to talk about and that we're funding right now in British Columbia is called “Online in Business at Home”. It uses a combination of videoconferencing, audioconferencing and the Internet to be able to look at how to help people who want to take entrepreneurship programming. About a hundred people with disabilities are involved with the Neil Squire Foundation, the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, and the B.C. Paraplegic Association, and they're working with the Open Learning Agency in British Columbia. Some of the folks are taking the course at home, some in community centres, and some at work, and it's going to include a virtual work experience. So again, we're just trying to open our eyes to future possibilities.

The expert system you spoke of is essentially being used more and more, and could be used in Joan's resumé writing course, for instance. This would be enabling programming worked into a software package that would ask the right questions at the right time, based on expert advice. The person might be looking for a job, so there would be specific questions built into the program to help them work through the program in a self-directed kind of way. That's a kind of expert support system.

• 1125

In regard to hypermedia, you've perhaps heard of hypertext links on web sites, including Joan's. You might be looking for a particular thing, like a job, but suddenly when you're in Joan's web site, you will notice that there are a number of related sites you hadn't even thought about, which really might help you in your job search. It might be HRDC's electronic labour exchange.

Hypertext allows you to touch on some lighted text in Joan's web site and immediately go to the next web site. This gets back to Angelo's issue of making information more readily available with these new technologies. Information becomes much more available to people, and to people who might never have had that kind of access before. The trick is to figure out how to do it effectively and what kinds of personal and technological supports need to be put in place.

Does that help?

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Anders, does that satisfy your question?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Agreed. Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like you to comment on something I consider very important. We have talked about action plans. Ms. Bradshaw was very clear on that point.

Where would you put awareness-raising in your action plan? I think one problem can be solved more easily if there is genuine awareness-raising among people in the community. So how important is it? Is it worth 10% of your efforts?

I think it should be very important. For example, people are talking a lot more about child poverty because they are much more aware of it. I would like to hear your comments.

Ms. Diane Richler: Awareness-raising is extremely important. The question is, how do we go about it? For example, Laurie mentioned the recent impact of media coverage of the Latimer case. Disabled people and their families found the public perception of disabled people to be extremely negative, until this week's decision was released.

In the past, most of the federal government's awareness-raising efforts focused on public education. We paid for awareness-raising. We paid for television commercials, but I really don't think that's what we should be doing.

Strategies like those Sherri suggested are much more important—for example, community events where people can learn to work with the disabled. How do children learn about disabilities? By having a pal in their own class who is disabled. In the work place, it's by having a colleague who is disabled. Paid advertisements are not going to do it—they are not enough. Awareness is a personal thing that happens one on one.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We have been talking about provincial governments, but let's not forget municipal governments. Luckily, I live in a fairly large city, but not too large. In my city, Laval, a significant effort at integration is being made.

So shouldn't municipal governments be the ones to decide how community funding is managed? After all, they are very close to the community. Shouldn't you be organizing intensive campaigns focusing on elected officials at the municipal level? That's where the disabled are experiencing the most problems in their daily lives.

Ms. Diane Richler: That's true, but it still depends on what you mean by an awareness raising campaign. I'm sure Joan could say a lot more about the municipal level than I can, but I do think we need to work with them. Raising people's awareness is not enough.

Ms. Joan Westland: As mayor of a municipality in the province of Quebec—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Where, Ms. Westland?

Ms. Joan Westland: ... I can perhaps talk a little bit about the problems of raising awareness among my municipal colleagues. We always see the same problem at the provincial and federal levels. This goes back to the issue of priorities, and to one problem: the disabled are always considered a separate community.

• 1130

When we talk about integration, support and other important issues, we see them as a separate group. We are not always aware of the awareness level we want to achieve. If we continue to think of the disabled as a separate community, it boils down to money. We say: we would love to do some training, awareness raising, or job or school integration, but we don't have the money. For most people, the priority is recycling.

Everyone agrees that the phrase "our fellow citizens" means everyone. I agree with my colleagues that media campaigns or disability awareness days are not enough. We need municipal, provincial and federal governments to be genuinely involved in implementing integration and inclusion programs in areas such as education and employment, as well as all other programs and services offered to our fellow citizens.

So if we are not ready to put our money where our mouth is, we'll just keep on going in circles. That is the problem.

[English]

Ms. Sherri Torjman: I think awareness can come through working with strategically selected organizations. For example, you could invite representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities here and meet with them to talk about what's happening at the municipal level. You could ask them, “What can you do? What are some of the important initiatives that are taking place and what can you share?”

You could do the same with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Independent Business. There are strategic ways of reaching different sectors to do that sort of awareness building. I certainly agree it would be a waste of money to do a general campaign in a media sense. You would really want to identify the sectors you think have some leverage or could make some difference and then work with them selectively.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Torjman. Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: First I'd like to say how much I've enjoyed this morning. Even if we don't have clarity, you certainly do. A lot of the blinkers have come off in terms of what the real systemic barriers are. I am delighted, Laurie, that you've explained the federal-provincial negotiations problem without any citizen involvement. I was trying to figure out what was bugging me about it. I was also pleased, Sherri, to have you explain the social union to me. It is something I've never understood, so I'm very happy we can now actually go at it, in a way.

A lot of us here are concerned about devolution. We are concerned that whether it's environmental protection, labour market agreements, or co-op housing, we are having trouble. In response to Joan asking why we are asking these questions, it's because some people think the cow's out of the barn. A group of us are trying to find the cow and put it back into the barn.

• 1135

Ms. Joan Westland: I think the barn burned down.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: What we're trying to say, I guess, is how do we go about that? In health care, I know a little bit because of the Canada Health Act, but I am equally worried that we don't have any measurements of quality. We are talking about accessibility, the low-quality care now, and we haven't measurements of high-quality care. So promising portability, accessibility and universality doesn't mean much if it's to bargain-basement, low-quality care that Canadian people don't have confidence in.

I'm heartened by Sherri's comment here that Ottawa no longer sets the rules that provinces must follow in order to get money, but I actually think Canadians think we're stupid if we're running around making handshake federalism with people when, if things don't happen, it ends up being our fault.

It's nice to have pleasant handshake agreements with provinces, but if they don't deliver, I do want to come back to what you think we can do in terms of finding both national standards and levers that actually do have an ability to enforce or to protect the citizenship for all Canadians. I think that's actually what a federal government is supposed to do.

How do we do it if we can't, and are there measurements that you guys could help us determine that we could hold provinces accountable? Do we need to be able to withhold money or not? Does there have to be a Canada Health Act equivalent for people with disabilities or for, really, the social safety net? Is that part of getting the cow back in the barn? I don't know.

The Chairman: I was going to request that Mr. Discepola piggyback on your question.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Yes. My question was very similar.

First, however, I want to apologize to Mrs. Westland for adding to her frustration. I want to explain. When I started this debate, I was trying to initiate exactly what Dr. Bennett is after. I apologize for having left for half an hour, but I had to leave for an important briefing.

First of all, I want to express to you, for Carolyn and myself, who are new members on the committee—and I think there are some new members on the other side as well—that I didn't want to arouse your frustration. If you check my question, though, I think you'll recall that I didn't say “if” the federal government had a role, I asked “where” the government should show a leadership role.

When we leave here this morning I would like to have from you a direction here. Should we as a committee now recommend to the federal government that they should sit down with the provinces and all the stakeholders to establish a dual-funded program with the provinces and the federal government, administered by the provinces, with national standards that we've both agreed to—for example, mobility, access, funding issues, etc.—or should we say, no, forget that approach; do it at the federal government level and create a separate secretariat, if you have to, but do it at the federal government level?

I think that's the proper direction in which I was trying to engage during the initial debate. I don't have that direction right now. Again, if it was touched upon during the half hour I was gone, I apologize.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The second question I have—and I guess they're the two things coming from this morning—concerns the Latimer case.

Mr. Nick Discepola: We should do that later.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Separately?

The Chairman: Yes. Let's deal with this, and then we'll end with that.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I was going to follow up on Wendy's—

Mr. Nick Discepola: We'll do that as a separate motion.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: But while they're still here, right?

The Chairman: Yes. If you hold it, we'll do it quickly.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Okay.

The Chairman: Laurie.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: Thank you, sir.

In terms of framing this discussion, I think it is extremely complex. The questions you were asking are not easy to answer. Let me start from the understanding that for our community, we are in an extremely difficult position. Our history has been to argue for access to generic programs. Our history has been to argue for access to the labour market programs offered through HRDC or the municipal or provincial governments.

The position in which we now find ourselves in the social union debate, frankly, tends to be argument for a targeted initiative for people with disabilities. Now, while that may be welcome in some sense, it is a fundamental shift in how we think about solving the problems in Canada. It focuses on a concept of the “deserving poor”, which says that somehow this population group is deserving and we have to do something about it, and also says that maybe there are a bunch of other people that are deserving but aren't really on the agenda right now.

• 1140

The problem with the solutions in this is that we then start to create targeted, segregated initiatives for people with disabilities, some that can be good programs, but it is not what we ever set out to achieve.

We set out to achieve access to the local school. We set out to achieve access to whatever colleges and training programs were in existence. We set out to achieve access to the income support and the social safety net of this country that all other Canadians had. And what we are now having to defend and fight for is a targeted initiative, which is not where we wanted to be.

The Chairman: Thank you, Laurie.

What I'd like to do, because we are narrowing in on the time and I need five minutes with this group before I can let them go—not you guys, these guys—is have Carolyn.... Do you want to pose the question on Latimer and then I'll give everybody a chance just to make—

An hon. member: It's not a question, it's a motion.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It is a question.

The Chairman: If it's a motion, it's not in order, so you can't propose it.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: No.

The Chairman: If you want to ask a question, you're welcome to ask a question.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Yes. I'll ask a question. I'm going to ask a question about whether a motion would help.

The Chairman: Ask all the questions you want about it.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: If we could get the unanimous support of committee members to back up Ms. Lill's letter, I would like to ask this group if we could entertain a motion at this committee—on Tuesday or whenever—that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities requests the Attorney General of Saskatchewan to appeal the Latimer sentence and that the committee advise the federal Attorney General that it is opposed to any separate legislation on whatever it would be, whether it's mercy killing or murder with compassion or compassionate grounds.

I think it's the least we could do immediately to actually let...if we could find unanimous support for that.

Ms. Diane Richler: It's a fabulous idea. I don't know what your manoeuvrability is in terms of what you can do, but the federal and provincial justice ministers are meeting in Montreal today and tomorrow, so it would be wonderful if there were a mechanism that could send a message today to their meeting rather than next Tuesday after they've made their decisions.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Could I speak to that? I think, Mr. Chair, if we had unanimous consent today and if we did it today...most of the ministers will be called back for the vote at 5 p.m. and I know our Solicitor General is going to be back. He was attending the meeting in Montreal. We could certainly give him a copy of the resolution and he could discuss it at least tomorrow.

The Chairman: I'm very loath to enter into a debate on a substantive motion at this point. In any event, we don't have a quorum to officially pass a motion. But having said that, I will let Mr. Anders respond.

Mr. Rob Anders: While I think we would be supportive of that motion, Mr. Chairman, earlier in this committee's development we disallowed motions unless there was a 48-hour notice.

The Chairman: Yes, but we did allow them by unanimous consent, so if there was consent—

Mr. Rob Anders: You don't have it, then, because that imposition was put upon us, and it was done so that government members would not have to be here in full force every day and could have only three members sitting across the other side. It was done so that they didn't have motions foisted on them. As a result, if somebody would like to put forward a motion for Tuesday, please do so, but no, there is no unanimous consent for a motion today.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Let me just say that this is so important that playing politics seems really irrelevant. Is there a way we can get around a motion and just say that there was unanimous consent of the people at this table to urge the minister—and it doesn't have to be a motion—to say that there is consensus at this table that we would like to urge...? Maybe, then, we should not do it in motions.

Mr. Rob Anders: If politics was not to have been played, then that move should not have been pulled—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Unanimous consent of the people here was agreed upon.

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, I know that, and I saw that as a limiting mechanism on the opposition's ability to put forward motions, and if the politics was pulled in that case and Mr. Nault put forward those provisions early in this committee's debates, that's the way it's going to be.

• 1145

The Chairman: Mr. Anders, perhaps I might just clarify the situation for all members before we get into a lengthy debate on a process that is arcane and not terribly interesting for everybody.

The problem was a situation like today, where we had a whole bunch of people who had come a long way to speak to us and we wanted to prevent time in the committee being eaten up by a bunch of political wrangling and holding witnesses at bay. We tried to create a process that moved motions to a time when we could plan for them and deal with them. That was the reason for it.

In that motion, it was also agreed that at any time the committee could override that, and it has done so. We did it in our last meeting on some process motions by unanimous consent. There is no consent here, and every member has the right not to consent under the motion we passed. I don't want to have a lengthy debate on this particular one now.

I have Madame Dalphond-Guiral, and then I'll come back to you, Mr. Discepola.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I just have one very brief comment. Mr. Beachell, I was extremely touched by your short presentation on the Latimer case.

Moreover, I would have profound reservations about having a committee ask the Minister of Justice to request that the Attorney General of Saskatchewan prosecute the case. I would consider that interference in provincial affairs, and you can understand that I am very touchy about that. Perhaps some people will be angry, but at this stage, given that it was not the purpose of this meeting, I cannot support the motion, even though I fully understand. I understand, but I cannot support it, and I am sure my colleagues understand my position.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Discepola, do you wish to speak?

Mr. Nick Discepola: Well, if there are two parties opposed to it, I'll still speak.

[Translation]

We have a magnificent opportunity to do this, because all the Attorneys General will be meeting in Montreal today and tomorrow. In these circumstances, I think the motion could be very useful. I ask for unanimous consent, because this is truly an exceptional opportunity.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Discepola. Consent has not been given. However, I note, as was pointed out by someone here, there will be a vote later today and the Minister of Justice will be required to attend. She sits in an area that is close to certain members on this committee, and I suspect a communication can be carried, whether it's official or not. Thank you very much.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: If the committee is unable to act as a committee, we should urge members to act individually to communicate their concern related to this. The committee should also urge the chair to communicate this issue and the fact that the committee brought it to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Beachell. I will do that very thing before the conclusion of today.

I'm sorry, Wendy, did you want to comment?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I see the time is being eaten up, and I'm just wondering what's going to happen next. I guess I want to know what they need and what we need to do for them. I feel there's a need for some closure here, and that's about what you're going to do, Reg.

The Chairman: That is about what I'm about to do.

Let's step back. There's an interesting issue here that I agree there's some urgency on. I think we've seen what we're going to do on that.

The purpose of this was to do exactly what's been done. It was to get people who are expert in these areas in front of us. Whether you're tired of doing it or not, Ms. Westland, the reality is that committees change on a regular basis. I think it's an important exercise that people be sensitized to the issues.

I also asked and got some feeling from a number of you on specifically what action we should take. At the end of the day, it's gratifying to sit around and have everybody complain about their particular problems, but if we don't do anything and nothing results from that, it becomes the kind of frustrating exercise Ms. Westland is concerned about.

There are some points of action we can use immediately to highlight some of these issues. It was pointed out to me that the employment equity report will be tabled in the House very shortly and this committee could hold a review on that particular report and look at it through the lens of disability.

• 1150

I want to share with you a discussion that took place in this committee prior to your appearance here, and prior to your being called here. In fact, it occurred at the moment we were formed, because the formation of this committee was the breaking apart of another committee that had special responsibility for people with disabilities. That responsibility was given to us here, and there was a discussion about whether or not there should be a special subcommittee that worked just on disability issues. The conclusion was that there should not be. I think that conclusion was reached for many reasons—and Laurie, you were quite eloquent on it, in a sense. I think the thing we're struggling with is to do what you're asking us to do, which is to....

This committee deals with a whole range of issues—employment, pensions, and you could go through the list. On every one of those issues, we apply our our disability lens, if you like. The test of whether or not we're effective is whether or not, in all of the work we do, the issue of persons with disabilities is considered in the context of that work. That's an undertaking that I can make to you as chair and that we can make as a committee, because that's what we're trying to reflect in the way we organize ourselves.

There are also some specific issues. Some of you don't know me, and some of you people do know me. My very first job was working with the deaf. I've worked in these communities for a very long time.

The social union issue is a bit of a good news, bad news story. There are all of the problems about declining revenues and reducing resources, but it's the first time in my experience—and I look at the child poverty area—that the federal government has given an increase in support to a targeted group and the provinces have not just clawed it back and used it to build roads or something, but have taken it back in a planned way and have committed to reapplying it to services in that community. It may not seem like an earthquake, but it is. Sometimes you need to be happy for small mercies.

On behalf of the committee, I commit to you that we will be very sensitive to these issues. We would like to see you back here as we look at some specific actions that the federal government can take.

This issue of an audit is also something that in the larger context.... If we're going to audit, let's not just audit the social union narrowly on one interest. Let's audit the bloody union. Let's understand what we're doing on behalf of all people in Canada—and people with disabilities need to be a piece of that.

Sherri.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Before we conclude, you asked about federal instrument. I just wanted to point out that there is one area we haven't discussed today at all, and that's the income tax system. There is a lot of support made available to Canadians directly by the federal government through the income tax system. Your researcher, the expert in this area, has written a report on it in the past. There was a lot about it, so I want to point out that there's another mechanism that can be used if you want to do some specific types of support, federally only.

The Chairman: Before I say thank you, because I do not want everybody else to run away, Wendy, I'm going to have to constrain this. I have a piece of work that I absolutely have to do before we leave.

I thank all of you for your time here, and I look forward to seeing you again.

Very quickly for members of the committee, Wendy, are you going to representing Libby in the discussion on student assistance? Is that one of the files you're going to carry?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I want to be involved with any disability issue, and you, Reg, are now telling us that all issues are going to be disability issues. Obviously I'm not going to be here at all times, but if we're now going to be looking at every issue through the lens of disabilities, then I guess I should be here a lot more.

The Chairman: Yes, thank you.

Monsieur Tremblay.

Wendy, it's important.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm sorry. The question was...?

The Chairman: Can I have your attention for a minute, please?

We are not going to proceed with the meeting this afternoon. We have a meeting booked for this afternoon on the issue of the student assistance report, so I just want to give you some information that you can take back to your group. We have to finalize this report in order to present it to the House before the House recesses for Christmas. The limitation that imposes upon us is time for translation. A copy of the draft report has been circulated to all members. What I would ask is that members respond to our very able researcher in the following way.

• 1155

If you have concerns of, shall we say, wording and tone—if it's a matter of discussion and negotiation, if we can agree to do this or that with a section and then you're happy with it—let us know that. We will attempt to accommodate as much of that as possible.

If you have a substantive concern about a recommendation or wording in the document that you would like changed or removed, then it comes down to a question of how you want to register that. There are a couple of possibilities. One is that you write a dissenting report that gets attached to the report. And I'm asking, because of the shortness of time, that if you're thinking in that way, you proceed to do that. Another option, however, that has been used in the past is if it's simply a recommendation that you have a concern about, with one or two pieces in it, we can footnote those by simply saying in the body of the report “The X party does not support this particular recommendation”.

That gives you three options to proceed. I will be calling a meeting on Monday afternoon in order to formally vote on and pass the report, so that gives today and tomorrow for the researcher to collect any input where we agree. Then we'll go into a process where we actually approve or disapprove the report on Monday afternoon. Okay?

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to reflect on some of the wording in the document. On page 5, third paragraph, it says—

The Chairman: I'm sorry, but because it's still a confidential committee report, we should in fact be in camera. Can I ask that you speak to me about that right now and then we can deal with it publicly when we come back?

I will adjourn the meeting at this point.

[Proceedings continue in camera]