SSPD Committee Meeting

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

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 6, 1999

• 0847

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): Bienvenue. Welcome. It is a great pleasure to begin this morning's session. I'm Carolyn Bennett and I chair the best little committee on the Hill, which is the new Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As you know, it is a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We are just thrilled you're all here today.

First I would like to introduce the masterminds of today. The truly wonderful and magical Danielle Belisle has put all of this together, magically. We thank you for having fought hard to keep this room, as it is a favourite room on the Hill. We have Sandra Harder and the wonderful Bill Young, who lots of you know because he has the researchers on this issue. They are well known to you and we have already learned a great deal from them.

We are welcoming people from all across this country, from the disability community, from the premiers' councils, the federal government, and of course the people who have been working extraordinarily hard on this from the voluntary sector. So we have representatives from children's groups and seniors, as well as unions and businesses.

It really does stretch from Newfoundland to British Columbia, and as we saw at the wonderful showcase last night from Industry Canada with Mary Frances Laughton, the companies that were represented were also from Newfoundland to British Columbia, in terms of the wonderful technologies that have been developed here in Canada.

So I would like to begin by introducing the members of Parliament, who will, in the working time later on, be your rapporteurs. As you know, the members of Parliament generally talk a great deal, and today we promise we're here to listen. We know it's extraordinarily important that by the end of today we have a real strategy.

I would like to begin with Wendy Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much. I am Wendy Lill, the member of Parliament for Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I'm on this subcommittee I guess because I have a son with a disability. He's a teenager. He has a whole life of hurdles ahead of him, as do I as his mother. He doesn't really know what I'm doing here. He calls this place the “big House”. I think that's a wonderful expression.

But I have to be able to think that I'm here at this time so something very concrete can happen for children like my son in the areas of income assistance, dignity, decent working conditions, and just a place for them in their communities.

• 0850

So what we want from this committee—and I know everybody in this room feels the same—is action. There have been fantastic reports done. The last one done by Andy Scott has really been the most eloquent. We have the reports; now we just have to somehow translate the written word into action for people like my son and for all the people we all know who need services. They need a space and a place in this country.

So I look forward to everything that's going to happen today, and what you have to say to us. Thank you.

The Chair: We gave Wendy extra time because she actually was the real pusher to make sure the subcommittee was formed. I will make sure the other members of Parliament keep to their 60 seconds.

Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Good morning. My name is Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral and I've been the Member of Parliament for Laval Centre since 1993. I will tell you something that's no secret to anyone: I personally chose the issue of persons with disabilities because I am a nurse who has worked in health care—I might as well tell you everything—for over 40 years. There you are, now you know everything. Therefore, I often had opportunity to meet with families with disabled children. I saw those children grow up and become adults. I know full well that the lives of these citizens are much more difficult and more demanding than our own. When you want to change things and give people the opportunities they are entitled to, there has to be some political will. If there's one area where that will must manifest itself, it's within the various legislatures. The Parliament of Canada must demonstrate its political will. We do see improvements, of course, but much more could be done. So that will be my small contribution.

Have I gone beyond 60 seconds?

[English]

The Chair: That was 89 seconds, but I know the math teacher will be able to get the numbers right. It's 60 seconds.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Thank you. I'm Ken Epp, a member of Parliament with the official opposition. Disability affects us all. I was six years old when my mother brought home my little sister, who, because of what they called an accident—I think it was straight medical negligence—suffered blood depravation during the birth process, so she has cerebral palsy. She has been totally dependent all her life. She does not speak, and she requires help. I guess it's pretty close to our family, with the struggles and challenges that come with it.

In addition, in my presumed adult life, I have a number of friends who have been stricken with debilitating diseases. One of my closest friends, who is younger than me—I know none of you think anybody could be younger than me, but there are some—had an early diagnosis of Parkinson's and now sits in a wheelchair. So again it strikes myself and my family very closely.

I'm really eager to hear what you have to say...and what we can do to bring together our society in order to provide the maximum support for you.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): My name is Mark Muise. I'm a member of Parliament for West Nova in Nova Scotia. I represent the Progressive Conservative Party on this subcommittee.

My interest comes from two reasons. First, I care about the issues we're faced with, but I have a closer link to that because my youngest daughter, who is 12 years old, has cerebral palsy, and I've had to experience what that means. I wanted to be here to have a chance to hear some of the things that could affect, and hopefully be able to influence, some of the decisions that will take place. I hope the work we do here will help lead toward some concrete advancements for the cause. Thank you.

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): My name is Andy Scott. The chair said members of Parliament talk too much; I thought perhaps she was speaking to me directly.

• 0855

I'm here because I believe this is one of the largest human rights issues that our country and in fact the world faces and that it's time for action. It's a question of citizenship.

I think the will exists. This is the most dedicated collection of individuals on this issue that I've ever had the pleasure of working with. If we can make the will that exists in this room among these members of Parliament translate into action on behalf of the government, we will have come a long way.

The time for study is over. The time for action is now.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm Judi Longfield, and I feel a little guilty listening to some of the others. Our family has been blessed with tremendous good health, but I have witnessed from afar those who have overcome tremendous difficulties and not always with the help of government.

I think the time is right, with the signing of the social union framework agreement, to beat down some of the barriers, as it were, between interprovincial and jurisdictional rights, and I think now is the time to build on the excellent work of people like Andy. So I'm here to listen and to try to put as much into action as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I'm Joe Jordan. I'm sorry about being late, but I want to echo the sentiments here. I got on this subcommittee and I expressed the naive notion that I thought there were some things we might be able to do through the tax system to improve the quality of life. From that statement I got drafted on this committee. It has been a tremendous experience for me.

I would like to recognize the work of Mr. Scott in terms of what he's done and his body of knowledge on the subject.

It's a tremendous experience for me to be on the committee, and I'm looking forward to today's round table.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I'm Sheila Finestone, and I am really delighted to be here. I can reassess, from the perspective of human rights, the fairness and equity principles of citizenship, as Andy pointed out.

As Judi said to you, social union for me is more than just a nomenclature. It includes how you examine the inputs to measure the output, not from a bureaucrat's perspective but from the recipient's perspective, and then the bureaucrats can take a look at how they're going to put that into factors. I'm quite fed up, frankly, with the other way around, so I hope this would be a major outcome of this meeting: some direction to the bureaucrats who may well be sitting right in this room and think they know how to measure everything. They don't. You don't measure humanness and the potential for human enlightenment or the procedure for self-worth and dignity, but those have great values in our society.

So I hope this will be the beginning of an enlightenment for our bureaucrats. If we can do that, I think we will have done a great deal.

I want to particularly say to Dr. Carolyn Bennett, who is our chair, and to Bill Young and, needless to say, to you, Danielle, that this is a wonderful undertaking. I'm thrilled to be here. Good luck. If our society shows some improvement, I think you can really thank the people who are in this room.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Finestone.

In an attempt to explain a tiny bit about the work of the committee today, I think most of you now know that we've actually called 11 ministers to this committee. So if anybody was questioning whether this is a horizontal issue or not, I think the fact that there are 11 ministers who have something to do with disability in their ministry tells the tale.

We also know, of course, that a lot of the work was done by the federal-provincial working group, and the In Unison document explains the real jurisdictional...what do they call it, the collaborative government, the constructive entanglement of this sort of complex issue.

As Andy and everybody has pointed out, this has been an issue that has been studied, and we now want to move to the strategies of how we actually make this work. So we really do hope that by the end of today we will have some real strategies, because I think a new day dawned on February 4 when that social union document was signed. I think it is one of the best things that has happened to this rather complex federalism in this country, and we need to use it. Talking about the social union won't work. We want to make sure we can drive it.

• 0900

I would think that anybody who picked up the social union and looked at it, as I did.... As you know, there was some criticism that it wasn't an open process, but you cannot negotiate these difficult things in the media. I think that is the truth.

It is way better than any of us could have hoped for, I think. When you open it, you actually see “All Canadians are equal”, “Meeting the needs of Canadians”, “Sustaining social programs and services”. Just in terms of the titles, you have “Public Accountability and Transparency”, “Achieving and Measuring Results”, “Involvement of Canadians”, actually asking Canadians how they want their social priorities determined and reviewing outcomes.

As Mrs. Finestone has said, outcomes are part of a political agenda. Outcomes are things the people set. Finally we have a document that says “Involvement of Canadians”...“in developing social priorities and reviewing outcomes”.

We want to make sure everybody today feels they will be part of helping us, as we pick up this document and look at it through the disability lens and say how we actually make this work for us.

I am thrilled that when you reread this document with a disability lens you can't be anything but optimistic and hopeful that the jurisdictional barriers will...not evaporate, but we'll actually be able to show that there is a way around them, because as every politician has said, the political will is there so we can now get on and just make them dissolve.

What we will do now is hear from the experts on the social union. Then we will sum up a bit and hear from the respondents, from the stakeholder groups, the premiers' council, and the community, and then we will, hopefully, have earned a small break.

I'm very thrilled to be able to introduce the presenters, who will each speak for about fifteen minutes, and then we will hear the respondents. Phil Jensen will speak first from Human Resources Development Canada and Shulamith Medjuck from Nova Scotia Community Services. They are both from the federal-provincial-territorial working group.

We will then hear from Marc Lemay from Intergovernmental Affairs and the Privy Council Office, who will speak about the larger context of the social union and apply this disability lens, and Don Lenihan from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, who will speak on what the new arrangements will mean in terms of outcomes.

Mr. Phil Jensen (Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic Policy Group, Human Resources Development Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to introduce my provincial co-chairs, Shulamith Medjuck from the province of Nova Scotia, for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Benefits and Services for Persons with Disabilities.

First off, we'd like to thank you for this invitation to appear before this committee. We welcome the opportunity to jointly report on the FPT working group's progress in responding to the needs of Canadians living with disabilities.

Dealing with these issues is complex, and we recognize that we can make more progress working together than in isolation of each other's efforts.

I wish to make a few preliminary comments about the background to the working group. At the July 1996 first ministers' meeting, the Prime Minister, premiers, and territorial government leaders identified persons with disabilities as a collective priority in the pursuit of social policy renewal.

At this time, first ministers tasked the new FPT council on social policy renewal, which we'll call the council from now on in our remarks, to focus on developing options for a more integrated income support benefit.

The Minister of Human Resources Development at the federal level, Pierre Pettigrew, and the Ontario Minister for Community and Social Services, Janet Ecker, were identified as leading the work in this area and were supported by an FPT working group on integrated income support for persons with disabilities.

The provincial-territory lead rotates, usually on an annual basis, and the current lead is Nova Scotia. At the ministerial level that is Francene Cosman.

• 0905

In January 1997 social services ministers endorsed a two-stage approach to future work. In the short term, the harmonization of income support programs was identified as an objective to focus on improving the effectiveness of current service delivery approaches.

The development of a replacement program for the vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons program, or VRDP, was also identified as a short-term objective to be pursued on a separate track by a VRDP subgroup. In the long term, options for developing a more integrated income support benefit were identified as an objective.

In April 1997 social services ministers agreed to the framework proposed by the working group on a harmonization strategy for income support. The strategy focused on three overarching goals, with a series of initiatives for each. The first goal was to reduce barriers to work in income support programs. The second was the development of rehabilitation and labour market re-entry supports, which would result in greater independence and social integration. Finally, there would be joint action to streamline and coordinate assessments and reassessment processes.

Social services ministers identified two collective commitments regarding harmonization in October 1997. First, they would introduce the rapid reinstatement of income support if work efforts failed, and secondly, they would explore taking the health costs of disability into account when determining cut-off points for income assistance. These commitments have been implemented by social services ministers.

Also at this time, social services ministers endorsed the multi-sectoral framework for the successor program to VRDP, which is now called the employability assistance for people with disabilities program, or EAPD program.

The minister of HRDC wrote to his provincial and territorial colleagues on November 21, 1997 to invite them to begin formal bilateral negotiations as soon as possible. The EAPD has a greater focus on employment than its predecessor, the VRDP. In addition, new accountability measures are being developed to track the success of EAPD. To date, EAPD agreements have been signed by all provinces.

I'll now turn it over to Shulamith for a discussion on the document, In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues.

Ms. Shulamith Medjuck (Senior Adviser, Federal-Provincial Social Initiatives Unit, Nova Scotia Community Services): I will highlight some of the areas of In Unison and then Phil Jensen will come back and talk about our plans for the next steps.

In spring 1997 the federal-provincial-territorial processes shifted from the specific focus on harmonization of income support to a broader scope. Social services ministers tasked the working group to develop a vision and policy framework to recognize the diversity and complexity of disability issues and to include a full range of strategies for improving benefits and services for persons with disabilities.

Social services ministers also supported the name change of the working group to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Benefits and Services for Persons with Disabilities.

In June 1997 officials of the working group hosted a round table session on disability issues with representatives from the federal, provincial, and territorial social services sector and external experts.

The discussion formed a basis for the vision and framework paper drafted by Sherri Torjman, vice-president of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy. This paper outlined a vision that is achieved through a long-term commitment to complementary measures in four interrelated building blocks: citizenship, disability supports, employment, and income.

At their October 1997 annual meeting, social services ministers reviewed the vision and framework paper, which built on past government studies and consultations. Social services ministers agreed that the vision and framework paper should be revised to address the following points. It should address the implication of an integrated multi-sectoral approach, the fiscal parameters, and should also include references to aboriginal persons and women with disabilities.

In March 1998 ministers approved a document on benefits and services for persons with disabilities and they were in agreement with the name of the document, In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues. Ministers asked that a targeted discussion of In Unison be undertaken with key stakeholders from the disability community over the next months prior to the release of the document.

As requested by social services ministers, in July 1998 the working group held discussions in Edmonton and Halifax with national and provincial disability stakeholders.

• 0910

Representatives of the aboriginal community participated in these public consultations on In Unison, in addition to participating in a session that was held by the federal government in Saskatoon with aboriginal disability stakeholders to which provinces and territories were invited as observers.

HRDC requested the Federal Aboriginal Reference Group on Disability Issues to prepare a paper outlining the aboriginal perspective on disability issues as a complement to In Unison. The report, entitled One Voice, was presented at the session in Saskatoon. At the same session representatives from the Assembly of First Nations tabled a paper called *First Perspective.

At the social services ministers' meeting in October 1998, Minister Pettigrew indicated that he would be sharing One Voice and First Perspective with social services ministers, his federal cabinet colleagues, members of the aboriginal disability community, and other disability organizations. These documents were forwarded in March 1999.

The consensus among stakeholders was that In Unison was an appropriate framework document. However, they raised a number of concerns, including: the need for a commitment to action; a call for a leadership role for the federal government; the need for a comprehensive approach to disability supports that enhance the concept of citizenship by enabling fuller participation through the provision of supports that are both individualized and portable; the need to acknowledge systemic discrimination; and a request for further opportunities to meet with federal, provincial, and territorial officials.

In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues was revised to reflect the discussions with stakeholders. Social services ministers reviewed the changes to In Unison and officially released the document at their meeting on October 27, 1998.

In Unison outlines a shared vision that promotes full citizenship for Canadians with disabilities, building on past initiatives such as the Mainstream '92 exercise and the Scott task force. It also provides a common policy framework for realizing the vision by identifying objectives and policy directions in three key interrelated building blocks: disability support, employment, and income. In Unison also represents a significant achievement in the collaborative work of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and it demonstrates the success of the partnership approach in the social union.

Mr. Phil Jensen: Thank you, Shulamith.

The FPT working group is currently working on two joint FPT initiatives that were announced at the October meeting of the ministers responsible for social services to complement In Unison. One is an FPT Internet website called Disability Links that will allow clients to access information on disability-related programs and services. The other initiative is the development of an accountability framework.

With respect to Disability Links, members of the working group have met with representatives of the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work and the Canadian Abilities Foundation to assist in the development of the website. The working group is also considering options for the components of an accountability framework, such as public reporting on results-based best practices and societal indicators; a disability lens, which is a tool for assessing the impact of new government initiatives on persons with disabilities while the initiatives are in the design stage; and finally, future public participation in the policy process.

The working group proposes to hold consultations with representatives of the disability community in the fall on the components of the accountability framework.

The working group will be considering possible societal indicators that could be included as part of the accountability framework. The discussion that will unfold today will no doubt help us in the development of this framework. We look forward to hearing your comments throughout the morning.

One of the questions presented by the subcommittee for our preparation for today's round table asked how this policy framework could be used in the short to medium term to address the inconsistencies between disability policies and programs.

In Unison cuts across different issues facing persons with disabilities and it sets policy directions for the development of programs in all jurisdictions. It will now be easier to move in the common direction provided by In Unison.

Our challenge is to turn the vision of In Unison into action, while at the same time maintaining flexibility for jurisdictions to adopt a vision as they see appropriate.

In Unison is a vision and policy framework. Whether or not the document could be used as the basis for a more specific sectoral federal-provincial agreement on disability would require further time and consideration to develop.

That concludes our opening remarks, Madam Chairman. Thank you.

• 0915

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Marc Lemay.

Mr. Marc Lemay (Senior Policy Advisor, Provincial Analysis Division, Privy Council Office): Good morning. First, I would like to thank the committee, in particular the Chair, Dr. Bennett, for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about the Social Union Framework and its potential implications for initiatives for persons with disabilities.

Having closely followed discussions on the social union, I can assure you that it always a great pleasure for me to see a committee such as yours taking an interest in this issue. There is much to say about the social union, but over the next few minutes, I would like to try to respond to three questions in particular. Why do we have a Social Union Framework? What is the Social Union Framework, exactly? And thirdly how can the Social Union Framework contribute to better policies and programs for persons with disabilities?

[English]

Why do we have a social union framework? As you can imagine, there are numerous factors that explain the first ministers' decision in December 1997 to undertake the negotiation of a social union framework for Canada's social union.

From a public policy perspective, more specifically, throughout the 1990s there was a growing recognition by all governments that new approaches and new tools were needed in order to develop modern and sustainable social policies and programs that met the needs of Canadians.

This happened basically because all governments were struggling with the same challenges. First, scarce resources were forcing all governments to do more with less.

Second, there was the need to modernize social programs. We began realizing that policies and programs developed in the 1970s were not doing the job anymore. They were not adapted to the new realities and challenges.

Third was the need to restore the public's confidence in government and its capacity to be a force of good in society. Early in the 1990s, as you will recall, there was a general sentiment that we were going downhill on both the fiscal and economic sides, and there was a general sentiment that governments could not do anything about it. This was creating major challenges for government.

Finally, another important challenge was the need to better manage interdependence, both horizontally within governments, but also between governments and between the different policy sectors.

So it is in that context that the idea of a framework agreement for the social union progressed. It built, first of all, on the great work that had started at the interprovincial level since 1995 and also on the work conducted under the auspices of the ministerial council on social policy renewal at the federal-provincial-territorial level since 1996.

At the political level, the idea of a framework agreement was first discussed by premiers at their annual conference in 1997 and was later endorsed by first ministers in December 1997.

Obviously, the public policy imperatives are not the only factors explaining why we now have a social union framework. For instance, they do not explain why nine premiers signed this agreement while one did not. Nevertheless, I would argue that those imperatives had a key role.

If you read the agreement signed by first ministers last February, you will see that it addresses those four key public policy challenges that confront all governments: the need to ensure adequate predictable sustainable funding to social programs; the need to modernize these programs to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of Canadians; the need to restore the public's confidence in government, notably through greater citizen engagement, transparency, and public accountability; and the need to better manage interdependence through reciprocal, collaborative practices.

As some of you may know, some commentators have argued that the social union negotiations were simply about power and money. At the risk of being accused of being naive, I have to say I tend to disagree with that interpretation.

• 0920

Of course, who does what and who pays for what were important issues for all governments, but having been closely involved in these negotiations, I can say there was also a genuine desire on the part of governments to establish a framework that would help us develop better policies and programs for Canadians.

This brings me to my second question: what is the social union framework agreement? I'm sure you will no doubt agree that this is quite an esoteric and abstract concept for the average Canadian. In fact, we ran some focus groups throughout the country last summer and rapidly found out that despite all the talk in the media, Canadians simply did not know what the social union was about. Those who were courageous enough to try to answer usually associated the social union with either a labour movement or a new left-wing political party. Needless to say, those focus groups were quite revealing about the ability of governments to communicate to Canadians in plain language.

Before commenting on exactly what the social union framework is, I would first like to say a few words about what it is not. The social union framework is not a legal document. Therefore it does not impose legal constraints on governments. Furthermore, it is not a quasi-constitutional document, and it does not change the distribution of jurisdictions and powers between orders of government. In fact, the agreement is quite clear. It spells out that governments will cooperate within their respective jurisdictions and powers. Therefore this agreement is about neither centralization nor decentralization; it is about partnership and cooperation.

Finally, the social union framework should not be seen as a panacea, and I think this is very important. We do not want to create expectations about what can be achieved through the social union framework. This agreement will not guarantee that we will have better policies and programs, and it will not necessarily eliminate all intergovernmental disputes. However, it creates a context that should facilitate progress and foster continuous improvement.

So what is the social union framework exactly? It is a political accord, and as such it puts political or moral obligations on governments. It is also an enabling framework, which implies that there is no harm in going beyond the strict letter of the agreement—in fact, it is quite the opposite. I would argue that the successful implementation of the agreement will require that governments respect both its letter and its broader collaborative spirit.

Broadly speaking, the social union framework includes two kinds of commitments: commitments to Canadians and intergovernmental commitments. Commitments to Canadians include a series of social policy principles that will guide the development of new initiatives. These principles include equality of opportunity, assistance to those in need, fairness and equity, and respect for diversity. They also include specific commitments on citizen engagement, transparency, public accountability, and, as you know, interprovincial mobility.

For their part, intergovernmental commitments describe how governments will collaborate with one another. These collaborative practices include joint planning, information sharing, notice and consultation, public recognition of respective roles and contributions, as well as processes for avoiding and resolving intergovernmental disputes.

Also falling into this category is the federal commitment to use its spending power in a collaborative fashion when launching new initiatives supported by intergovernmental transfers in the areas of post-secondary education, health care, social assistance, and social services.

The social union framework may be an agreement between governments, but it is first and foremost an agreement for Canadians. Its only raison d'être is the improvement of social policies and programs for Canadians, so it's not process for the sake of process. In other words, intergovernmental cooperation is not seen as an end in itself, but as a means to develop better policies and programs. This should be the key criterion we use to evaluate the effectiveness of this framework—whether indeed it leads to better policies and programs for Canadians.

• 0925

This brings me to my third question: how can the social union framework contribute to better policies and programs for persons with disabilities?

[Translation]

In my opinion there are six main reasons for believing that the Social Union Framework will help to improve policies and programs for persons with disabilities.

First of all, by setting out a series of common social policy principles, the agreement promotes more effective harmonization of policies. These principles will guide new initiatives for persons with disabilities and will thus help governments to "row in the same direction" toward greater equality of opportunity and toward the full and active participation of all Canadians in the social and economic life of the country, as is mentioned in the agreement.

Second, the agreement commits governments to working in partnership with interested groups and the general public. In my opinion, the emphasis on public participation in both policy development and results assessment is an important element that will help us to develop policies and programs that address the needs of recipients.

Third, the agreement contains clear commitments to eliminate barriers to mobility, a major concern for persons with disabilities, as you know better than I.

Obviously, the agreement alone will not eliminate all mobility problems, such as those associated with differences in benefit levels throughout the country, as Minister Dion pointed out when he appeared before your committee a few weeks ago. However it does set out a framework that should yield tangible progress, regarding portability, for example.

Fourth, the agreement encourages governments to place greater emphasis on results. The Social Union Framework commits governments to assessing the results of their policies and programs and to reporting their findings to the public on a regular basis.

In addition, the commitment to developing comparable results indicators and to sharing information will enable governments to compare practices, thus highlighting what works and what doesn't. These measures will promote emulation among governments and will help improve policies and programs on an ongoing basis.

Fifth the collaborative practices set out in the agreement, such as joint planning and consultation, will help governments to manage their interdependence more effectively. They will help to reduce the risk of duplication and to strengthen coordination of action by different governments. Intergovernmental co-operation should also reduce the risk of governments pursuing contradictory or incompatible objectives, as they have done too often in the past with regard to support measures and job market integration initiatives.

Sixth, the social union framework should enable governments to spend a little less time squabbling among themselves, and to channel that energy instead into constructive co-operation to serve the public better. In that respect, the agreement contains provisions on disputes between governments emphasizing conflict prevention and alternative resolution mechanisms.

[English]

In conclusion, I believe there are good reasons to be optimistic about the possibilities offered by the social union framework. However, as I said a minute ago, the agreement per se does not offer any guarantee of success. What we achieve with this agreement will depend largely on how it is implemented by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments.

As I said a few minutes ago, successful implementation will require more than respecting the strict letter of the agreement. It will also likely require that governments live the spirit of the social union framework, which is to work in partnership in order to better serve Canadians.

• 0930

I believe a key success factor will be the role played by elected officials in all jurisdictions by stakeholder groups and by the Canadian public in general, to ensure that governments live by their social union commitments.

Judging by the interest of your committee and the social union framework, the future looks promising. Thank you. Merci.

The Chair: Thank you.

Don Lenihan.

[Translation]

Mr. Don Lenihan (Research Director, Institute of Public Administration of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to make a presentation before this committee.

[English]

I'd like to thank you very much, first of all, for the chance to make this presentation, and I would also like to say I admire very much the committee's ambitions and the undertakings it has. This is an impressive group, and I really hope things continue along in this vein.

Let me start by saying what my expertise here is. I take it the reason I've been invited is not in the policy area. I'm not an expert on disability; my expertise is in public sector management, and you may wonder why I'm here. I was asked to come here because there have been a lot of changes in public sector management over the last five or ten years, which I think, and I would want to argue, offer a real opportunity for a greater involvement of committees and stakeholder groups and others in policy development and other parts of government activity.

So here is what I'd like to do today. I understand the purpose of this group really is a sort of planning session, to ask where this committee is going and what practically it can do. I'd like to try to provide some help or some input into that, not to lecture you on public sector management, but to try to get some basic concepts on the table about changes in government, about how government works now, and about how that may or may not affect the work of committees like this and stakeholder groups that want to interact with it.

So let me start out by saying it's probably worth distinguishing in a really basic way four stages of government decision-making. Governments plan, they implement—we talked about delivering programs and services—they report, and they evaluate. Certainly my view, and I think it's a reasonable one, is that committees and stakeholder groups should be involved in an intimate way at every stage of decision-making. In particular, they should be involved at the planning stage.

It seems to me the whole thing about the social union agreement is it may be a real turning point for committees and stakeholders in terms of the opportunities for engagement and input into the process, and that can go either way. On the one hand, it could be the case—and I hope this is not the case—that it would marginalize; it could actually shut out stakeholder groups and committees. Insofar as the social union agreement commits governments and will activate governments to begin to interrelate more deeply with one another at the interdepartmental level, there's a risk that governments move ahead with discussions and negotiations and arrangements ahead of stakeholder groups and committees like this one, as we see from the social union agreement.

I certainly hope and believe that's not the case. On the contrary, the opportunity should be for all of these different groups, government departments and stakeholder groups and committees like this, to move along at the same time. Otherwise we'll find out as we get a year or two down the road that government departments are way ahead of others and the others are still operating in, as we say, the silo.

So I guess what I'd like to ask is, what can be done to ensure that all of these things are moving along together and to some extent in harmony?

I wish I had time to talk here about all four of those stages—planning, implementing, reporting, and evaluating. I don't, so I think I'll focus on what's probably the most important one, and that's the planning stage. It seems to me if stakeholder groups and committees can get involved at that level in the right way, naturally what will happen is they'll find themselves involved in the other three stages.

Let me begin then by saying there are three parts I want to talk about. One is the so-called new tools of government. The second stage is—and please excuse me for the jargon—managing horizontally. Finally, what can committees do to get more involved in planning and policy development? When I say committees here, I certainly include stakeholder groups who will be representing themselves before committees and discussing with committees.

First of all, the new tools. Again, I apologize if this sounds abstract; I don't know how else to do this. The bottom line is governments do use new tools, and I think to be part of that dialogue you have to get a bit into the jargon, and maybe governments and bureaucrats will use less of it and on the other hand others will become more familiar with it.

Let me just say a couple of things about the jargon and the tools. First of all, over the last five to ten years there's been a really significant shift in the way governments operate at all four levels. If I could put it in the most basic language, or the most basic idea, and say what's changed, it's that we say governments have moved from focusing on inputs and outputs to outcomes. Again, in simpler terms, all that really means is that most government planning in the past tended to focus on what resources we have—inputs, and that's just people and money effectively, and what outputs we produce—what we actually do with this and what comes out of it.

• 0935

So in the area of health, if your inputs are a bunch of people and a bunch of money, your outputs will be actual things that you produce with that. It may be a hospital, or a certain service, or something like that.

But notice that inputs and outputs don't give you the bigger picture of what actually happens out there in the real world. It doesn't tell you what really results from the inputs and the outputs. You can have all the hospitals you want and still have lousy health care. So the bottom line is that governments began to say we need to focus more on not just inputs, the resources, and outputs, the things we actually produce with them, but what effect they actually have on the real world out there; what the outcomes are. We have to start planning for outcomes and deciding whether or not the inputs and outputs we have actually achieve the goals we want to achieve. If there has been a big shift in government, in government planning, and all other levels, it's focusing more on outcomes. It seems to me this is a very good development. It's something we ought to encourage; it's something we all need to think about. In the end, what we care about is what happens.

So what are the key tools for moving from one side, from the sort of input-output side to the outcome side? There are a number of them, but I think I would like to focus on one at the planning stage. It's called the business plan. Again, I hate that word. I apologize that we have to speak about business planning. If ever there were a misnomer, it's governments taking up the phrase “business planning”, which is not to say there aren't business parts of governments, but most business planning is about much more than just a business. It's about, as we say, strategic planning; it's about all kinds of things. It's about policy choices, but it all comes under the nomenclature of business planning.

Let me give you an idealized view of what a good business plan would look like. First of all, it should contain a clear statement of the broad outcomes a department is to achieve. Let's assume the department is doing its business plan. That means the department—the minister, presumably, with officials and others—has to sit back and say, what are the big goals, the big outcomes that we really want to achieve, what we want to be different if we could change the world? We actually have to say that. We have to say what it is that we want to do. So you want to start out by getting the big plan of what you really want to achieve.

A second stage, moving down, is a clear statement of the core businesses in which it's engaged to achieve those outcomes. What sort of business line do we say the government is actually involved in? What are they doing? Why? If they're in a particular business, does it actually contribute to that outcome? If not, why not let somebody else do it, or why not get out of it altogether? Let's start to be more methodical about where we actually put our resources.

Third is a clear statement of the specific objectives of its policies and programs. You have to notice we're sort of cascading down here in terms of levels of abstraction. We started with big outcomes and we moved down to business lines. The next thing is policies and programs. When governments choose to design policies and programs, it's not enough that they just have a program; they should actually tell us in clear terms what the objectives of the program are. The objectives of that program somehow should feed back up to the outcomes they want to achieve. There has to be some clear connection, some plausible connection, or else why are we doing it? So it's a clear statement of specific objectives for policies and programs.

Next is an analysis, a description, if you like, of how these policies and programs will actually achieve those objectives. Again it's not enough to say we have this program, we have this objective, and we want this outcome. You might ask, how do you know it's going to get me there? They owe you some explanation as to why this is a good policy and a good program. I think we ought to get that in our public documents, an analysis of how the objectives, if achieved, will contribute to the broad outcomes. So there should be a description of what the connection is between a program and a policy and its objectives, and there should be another description of how that fits up to the larger, broad outcomes. So this thing should cascade down in a reasonable way.

Finally, what we need—and this is sort of the hard core test of it all—is a list of what we call performance indicators that help assess the effectiveness of policies and programs in achieving the objectives and ultimately the outcomes. In the absence of some way of deciding, some test of whether we really have the right policies and programs, whether they're really achieving the objectives and whether the objectives really feed into the broad outcomes that we want, how do we know?

So all this is to say that one of the big shifts in government planning over the last five to ten years is that virtually every government in the country—federal, provincial, and most municipal governments—now have business plans. Again I apologize for the word; I would prefer another word. They take something like that form. I think I would say, first of all, that this is good news insofar as it gives us a much more clear and fuller description of what governments are doing, and it should make them more accountable.

I have a few more things to say about that. I don't want to take too long here, but let me make a few comments on issues surrounding business planning. I could go on all day. Unfortunately you wouldn't want to listen all day, and I don't have all day.

• 0940

Certainly one of the big problems or problem issues—and I think Sheila Finestone put it very nicely in her comments—is that when we talk about indicators, most people want these to be quantitative. They'd like this to be a science. Actually, it ain't. It ain't a science and it's never going to be a science. That doesn't mean it can't be more or less intelligent, more or less usable, more or less accurate. It just means it turns out there are a whole lot of things in here.

The world is a complicated place. It turns out that lots of the things we care about are qualitative, not quantitative. Trying to quantify them is just a big mug's game.

I like Sheila's examples. Dignity, right? How much is dignity worth? I don't know. How many cows is it worth? I don't know. It depends on what you're trading off here.

The bottom line is we do have to make judgments about these things. We owe it to ourselves to make judgments and we owe it to ourselves that we're forced to make trade-offs between different qualitative outcomes that we care about. If we care about essentially preserving people's dignity, we're going to find that we have to make trade-offs and compromises in other areas. So when we choose these big outcomes, we're making political choices. There's no science here, or if there is it's only a part of it. These are really important questions about what we value, what we care about, and what we want to do. It shouldn't be left to the bureaucrats. That's not to say bureaucrats don't have an input here—they're part of it—but they are decisions we should all be making together.

Secondly, I want to say something about so-called horizontal outcomes—again more jargon. I don't know what to do, I apologize. The bottom line is that when we set these big broad outcomes and we say this is where we want to go, suppose a department or even a government sets an outcome like that. Suppose the government says they want a lower unemployment rate or they want a healthier population—which is a good outcome; I hope we have a healthier population. The problem here is that no single government, no single department, not even all governments together, if we took all their programs and policies, are what add up to determining what we call a healthy population.

It has to do with all kinds of things. It has to do with the quality of the air that they may or may not have any power to regulate. It has to do with whether you want to get up in the morning and exercise. It has to do with a whole bunch of other things. In other words, in much of the outcomes we care about, government's policies and programs only contribute a certain amount to it. And usually it's not just one government; it usually cuts across a number of governments and departments, which is what we mean by horizontal.

So the really hard question, it seems to me, is how do we effectively manage our commitment to produce outcomes that are horizontal?

This brings me to the second point: managing horizontally. How can all of this stuff I've just said about outcomes and business planning help us to manage more effectively horizontally? Again, this is one of these things we could go on all day about, but what I'd like to do here is present in the broadest form a core idea of what's behind so-called horizontal management by business planning or by this kind of an approach.

Go back to what I said earlier about the business plan. If we set performance indicators for a program or a policy, what this should do is force us to think about whether that program or that policy is achieving that objective. If not, the indicator should tell us, sorry, you're missing the target, or you're not doing a very good job of hitting it.

So what this ought to help us do, and this is where the bureaucrats are highly important, is to refine the program to make it better. The indicators help us narrow in on the target on the outcome. They help us sort out the programs and policies that are actually not achieving the targets we want. They help us get rid of those. So if we pay attention to our indicators, and we have good and important and reliable indicators, it should slowly improve our programs and our policies and it should weed out the bad ones.

Think about this a little bit more broadly. Suppose two departments in the federal government care about the same outcome—sustainable development, for example—and they're committed to sustainable development as a big outcome in their business plan. Then what they have to do, as they work down the line, is they have to make sure the performance indicators they choose will force them to make policies and programs that promote sustainable development, along with their other objectives. If they pay attention to the indicators, if they force themselves to be disciplined and refine their programs and policies, they'll start adopting policies and programs that contribute to that outcome.

But suppose it's the Ministry of Industry that does that. Now go to another department, the Department of Health. Suppose the Department of Health does the same thing. In its business plan it says “We care about sustainable development; that's one of the big outcomes we want. We're going to make sure we have indicators to ensure that every time we develop a policy or program, it contributes to that objective. It helps us achieve, or at least prevents us from frustrating, that objective of sustainable development.”

What will happen is you'll have the Department of Industry over here going along this way, with its indicators, presumably the same ones, and you'll have the Department of Health going along its merry way, with its indicators, disciplining its programs and policies.

• 0945

In theory, these people should never even have to talk and they'll start to converge on the same goal. The indicators will force them to choose policies and programs that contribute to that objective. It won't tell them what policies and programs to choose. If you're in health, you care about health. If you're in industry, you care about industry. What it will tell you is that your policies and programs have to go in that direction.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the old story about Adam Smith's invisible hand in the marketplace. It says if there was the right balance of competition, things would unfold naturally. I don't want you to think I'm a simple-minded conservative here. I'm not here to to sell you on Adam Smith, but there's a neat little analogy here. It says something like this. It doesn't say we shouldn't talk. It doesn't say we shouldn't work together. It says there's a mechanism here for coordinating that we don't use very effectively, and this mechanism is ensuring that we use the same kind of indicators, that they're well-defined and effective indicators that force programs and policies and different departments and different governments to converge on the same goal. If we were more disciplined about that and we did it at various levels, we'd get better at it. So this is the core idea that it seems to me lies behind managing horizontally through a so-called business planning or outcome-based approach.

Finally, let me come to my last section. What can committees do to get more involved in planning? Again, I want to underline that my view on committees here includes stakeholder groups and others. I take it that committees are supposed to be tribunals of the people, and we're supposed to be able to go and talk to them and influence what they think. I will try to point out four basic things that I think could help move this along.

The first thing is what I would call top-down versus bottom-up planning. Let's go back to the business plan. The minister goes off to the department, sits down with his bureaucrats and the cabinet, decides what the outcomes are, drafts a business plan, and then what? I would say then ships it off to the committee and asks what do you think, rather than just implementing it.

At that point you should have a rough draft, I would call it, that goes to the committee and the committee sits back and says, all right, let's take a look at this thing. Let's look at how well you set up your indicators. Let's look at what kind of outcomes you've chosen and what the political values are that underlie these. Let's look at the logic you've given us for why these things are supposed to achieve those outcomes. Let's look at how well it coordinates horizontally with other departments and other governments. Let's do some policy development. Let's get back in the game.

If in the spirit of learning the departments came to committees with this way of looking and asked, what do you think, and they were maybe able to feed back from the bottom up, you'd get a nice dialogue going on, at least in the ideal world. You would have, again, some contribution and much greater input into what the policy development process, the planning process, is. So I think we need to think more about using these mechanisms for top-down versus bottom-up planning, and they should work together.

Second, and I've already said this, selecting objectives, indicators, and outcomes is a political choice. Not always—there is some science here—but ultimately most of the things we really care about are controversial because they're value-laden. There's nothing wrong with that. That's just the way human life is. The bottom line is we have to make those choices, and those are political choices and that's what politics is all about. That's why there should be a top-down, bottom-up choice.

The second thing I want to add to that is we're not just talking about outcomes here, but indicators. What gets measured gets valued. If you burn anything into your brain, burn that into your brain. What gets measured gets valued. We hear governments talking more and more and more about measuring, and that's a good and holy thing. I'm not opposed to it. But the bottom line is if we don't pick the right measures, if we don't measure the things we care about, we end up putting the value on things we actually don't care that much about and we get going off in the wrong direction.

Thirdly, I wanted to say something about what I would call formal versus informal collaboration with other players. To go back to this thing about the analogy with Adam Smith's invisible hand here, as I said, in the ideal world—and we don't live in an ideal world—you could just do that and everything would work out and we'd all be harmonized and all policies would be integrated. Really, I'm not that naive or stupid, and I don't think that happens—you don't think that happens—but it's a place to start.

So where do we start once we decide there is this mechanism? I want to say there are two ways to begin working towards more coordinated and integrated policies and programs. One is an informal approach, and that just means things like this where you get a bunch of people together, whether it's politicians or stakeholder groups or public servants, all exchanging views on what sorts of things we think count as good indicators. Maybe we can do this across jurisdictions. We do a lot of talking and sharing of ideas, of what we call best practices, what sorts of policies and programs seem to work well. We do a lot of talking and communicating and exchanging of information, which the social union commits us to. That in itself is a first step toward considerable refinement and integration.

• 0950

I want to say here that if it's true that governments across the country have adopted a business planning process, it's also true that we're all, all governments at a very early stage of this...none of them are very sophisticated. That means there's a lot yet to be learned. The more we talk to each other, the more likely it is we adopt common indicators, common outcomes, etc.

The second one, of course—formal collaboration such as the In Unison document provides a step toward more formal agreements, the social union. It just means we can actually have formal agreements between governments and others to adopt the same sorts of outcomes, the same kinds of measures, etc. That's for some time down the road, but certainly committees can work on that.

The last thing I'd say that seems to be a really important area for work for committees and stakeholder groups is that looking at these business planning processes and other planning processes is just identifying opportunities for strategic cooperation. We can look at business—I don't want to thump too hard on the business planning drum, but let's just say we can look at planning processes across the country, and that should be part of the work of committees, to see where there are overlaps in outcomes and opportunities for collaboration of a formal or an informal sort. I think that would be a good and useful thing to do.

Let me conclude by saying one last thing. If there's a main challenge that lies before us here, particularly with respect to politics and public service, it's what I call the development of a learning culture. The organizational culture in the public service and around politics tends to be, within the public service, the avoidance of error. There's a great concern over avoiding error. Bureaucrats will go to great lengths to avoid admitting errors or committing errors for fear of embarrassing the minister. Of course, the minister, in his political culture, doesn't want to commit errors because he's liable to be crucified in the House of Commons.

So that makes it really hard for governments to want to be open about the kinds of planning processes they have, the commitments they have, setting objectives, defining indicators. It makes the minister highly vulnerable. It makes bureaucrats highly vulnerable. I don't have a simple answer to this except to say the only way toward the future is that we work in some constructive way to help a little bit to transform the culture so that we accept that a learning culture is better than a culture of error. If we want to improve policies and programs, if we want to improve collaboration and coordination, we have to be able to talk openly to one another and we have to be able to accept that mistakes can be made, and that's not always a bad thing; we actually can learn from mistakes.

I want to underline again that what seems to be the biggest challenge we face, really, within politics and within the public service and elsewhere is taking a much more open view of our ability to make mistakes and to learn from them.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you all very much.

What we were to do next is to hear from some of our participants. I think what we've heard is that in this process that was described in terms of the social union, there is now a very clear next step. In the first presentation there were some subjunctives used—what could be used and what would require time and consideration.

I think what we now want is to take from the Privy Council Office presentation in terms of results, from what Don is saying in terms of outcomes, that setting outcomes is a political process in terms of what the values are of this society and how we now move in phase two to the race to the top. It should no longer just be partnership, meaning who ends up with the invoice for what, who pays for what. Partnership is a very different thing now, and we will actually try to decide what are the outcomes we would like to see and how are we going to get there.

We want, I think at this point now, to figure out how this becomes more than a process, how there actually is a loop, that there are outcomes and evaluations and back to outcomes, and that there's something in terms of reviewing policies and procedures and programs. How do we get there? I think it's an exciting challenge.

In terms of the time, I think it would be important to move on this question and answer period. If people want to go and get a coffee or something...I think I prefer that we don't have the coffee break, because we're going to serve you a little mini-brunch at 11 a.m. when you're working at your table.

• 0955

So if we could move on the questions and answers and have a little bit more time for that...what we had hoped is that we would begin with the questioning. For the sake of the CPAC people, when you come to the microphone, we need you to clearly identify who you are.

We were going to begin with the premier's council representatives, Charlie Macdonald from Nova Scotia and Elaine Chapelle from Alberta.

Mr. Charles Macdonald (Executive Director, Disabled Persons Commission, Nova Scotia): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd certainly like to thank the presenters today. They were very informative and helpful. Certainly in Nova Scotia we've been grappling with the concept of the social union and the In Unison document. I must put one caveat on it: when we discussed with the community the In Unison document, over and over and over again the issue of communication was raised by the community.

As you mentioned, you probably got some indicators of what social union means to the public. We certainly also got some rather funny double takes on what In Unison means to the community—not really hearing about it through the process and not really having an engaged public discussion about it upon its release. That was certainly raised, and I think that's a learning we have to do; when certain documents like this are released, are agreed upon, that the community is important to engage in that release.

Certainly from the perspective of a province like Nova Scotia where the concepts of In Unison are supportable by the community, the separation of income support and support services are valued, the policy direction of access to generic services are valued. The fiscal realities of the province and the need for a strong commitment for resourcing for a move to the development of a support services program, for instance, in a province like Nova Scotia, are crucial. So that is certainly a consideration I think a committee could engage in discussion.

Certainly there were components of the In Unison document that may be missing pillars that talk to the issue of cross-sectoral involvement. The involvement of ministries of education, for instance, in many of the initiatives in a document like In Unison—access to generic educational services, mainstream educational services, and that whole thrust—is a critical component.

As well there is collaboration—I think not only national collaboration through national reference groups but also ensuring representation from regions, the voice of provinces in those national deliberations. Certainly I like the concept of engaging the community in the planning, implementation, reporting, and evaluation process, and I think discussions and maybe learning will occur as we evolve the new EAPD program, as to how the community participates in that. We're engaging in that discussion in Nova Scotia at this time. It's our commission's perspective as well that the move to a social union, the move to a national disability policy framework, maybe the development of a national disability lens, maybe something similar to the seniors' framework work, or something that engages the entire country in developing that lens, will be critical in the evaluation.

One last comment in regard to Disability Links. We had engaged some discussion on that in our community, and certainly the electronic highway does open significant doorways of information to many citizens and is truly supportable, but there's also the issue of access, on-site access of either the equipment to access that information highway or the adaptive equipment to access the equipment that allows access to the information highway, etc. This piece of the puzzle can't be missed in the development of the Disability Links.

• 1000

So that is our summary perspective of it. Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

We are next going to hear from Connie Laurin-Bowie from the Canadian Association of Community Living. Then we are going to hear from Jérôme Di Giovanni from CAMO, Mary Reid from the Independent Living Resource Centre, Elaine Chapelle from the premier's council in Alberta, and Randy Dickinson, also from the premier's council, who is one of the facilitators at our table group.

So perhaps you could come and give us some responses to what the presenters have said. Then we will give each of the presenters just a couple of seconds to wind up this part of the proceedings.

Ms. Elaine Chapelle (Executive Director, Premier's Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, Alberta): Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. It's a great honour to be in the room with some of the champions who are making some of the disability goals happen.

I think the In Unison document and the framework document are very good beginnings, and I know that our council in Alberta is supportive of that same belief. I believe they have great potential. I also believe we need to move to the outcomes, and I thank you for the focus on the need for identifying outcomes.

I also support some of the comments made at the table. It was Andy Scott's report that said there are thousands and thousands of pages that talk about what it is that Canadians with disabilities want, and what we need is action on those thousands of pages. We don't need more definitions of what the outcomes are.

There are specific groups and organizations that will have submitted documents to this committee. We have a particularly vocal person in Alberta whom I'm sure you've heard from. I believe the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Paraplegic Association are submitting details, so I won't speak to the details of what we'd like to see, except I'll give a couple of general examples.

One example is the proposed Canadians with disabilities act, which again speaks to a commonality around philosophy. It doesn't necessarily make things happen, but it provides that values framework.

I'd like to see a disability lens, and I'm glad to see the emphasis on that here. We're looking at it in Alberta as well. I'd like to see some streamlining of the CPP disability process and the appeal process, and we'd like to see the appointment of a minister responsible.

So further details, I know, are already in documents that are probably in your hands, and I'd like to hear what the others here today have to say. So thank you to all of you.

The Chair: I would just ask the commentators to try to keep their remarks based on the input we will need from the experts we have here at this time. We hope to do the blue-skying and brainstorming at the table later.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie (Coordinator, Government Liaison, Canadian Association for Community Living): An advocate friend of mine always says that when you go to the parliamentary committees and you are presenting to MPs, you need to decide on one thing to tell them to do because they can only digest one thing at a time.

I'd actually like to start by complimenting this committee in particular on the structure you've established today because it in fact allows us to do more than that. It doesn't force us into having to come up with what the single recommendation should be, because these issues are complex.

Starting from there, I've been thinking about some of the issues Don has just raised around how we get lost from determining what our goals are to measuring what the outcomes are. We've seen documents like In Unison that have set out very clearly what we think are some really fundamental principles. We have specific recommendations in the Andy Scott task force report as well as other reports that went before it. So where do we get lost and why are these things not translating for individuals and families across the country?

• 1005

The two things that seem to resonate with our members are civil society and equality. And perhaps I'll just elaborate on those two things.

Coming back to this process, this committee has uniquely recognized the role of civil society. And what this group illustrates is that it isn't simply a program delivery mechanism. Civil society is not just a place where you contract out services. It's also not just a lobbying function. It's a place where Canadian society manifests issues, talks about them, understands them, figures out solutions. And there's a resource there that I fear is potentially lost in the development of the social union. I also think the social union provides huge opportunities for its elaboration.

I'll come back to the issue of outcomes. One of the things we struggle with in determining what our goals are as a society is a differential application of equality. We've seen at least two Supreme Court rulings on the issue of disability recently. The first was a success. It was the Eldridge case, where a woman who required sign language interpretation in the hospital when she was giving birth didn't have access to that. The court saw that as a concrete, simple thing they could address. They ruled in her favour and they said she was denied access to a critical service that other people have access to.

That decision was followed by a decision around the issue of inclusive education, particularly around a child with an intellectual disability in Ontario. The court in that case decided that it would be in the best interests of this child, because, of course, she had a disability, to be excluded from that classroom. And we've really struggled with why the court saw that issue so differently in terms of equality than they saw the issue of an accommodation.

Several things have emerged. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues of equality with respect to people with disabilities. That is reflected in our programs and policies and how they get measured.

People will forgive me if this critique of specific programs is a bit out of context.

Let's take the Opportunities Fund for one moment. The Opportunities Fund has some real benefits. It's driven by the need to measure indicators; it's driven by the need to measure how many people get jobs.

When you apply the complexity of the issues related to disability and the need for a broader approach to the issue, not just of how many people get jobs, how do we redefine what a job is so that we can measure it in a different way so that we're actually applying...and that has benefits for people who aren't just really close to getting a job but who need just this extra little bit. It actually is going to apply to people who have significant disabilities and who are significantly marginalized in our community.

I won't go on. On this conversation we are having today, we need to be thinking about what civil society means in the context of the social union and about how we embed it in everything that happens around the social union. The notion of equality and how that applies to disability is really critical.

We in this country seem to be able to suspend our notions of equality for disability, while we are able to have a very generous application of the notion of equality for a whole series of other marginalized groups. I don't fully understand that. We need to be aware of it and have it on our minds when we're applying the measures of outcomes that we have across the board.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Jérôme Di Giovanni.

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni (Vice-President, Internal Affairs, Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec): Good morning. I will speak in French. I tend to forget English when I get to Ottawa.

I would like to make a number of comments on what I've heard and possibly look at where we're going and based on what principles. First of all, I would like to congratulate the members of Parliament who sit on these committees; it's very interesting. Moreover, I don't want to cast out on your enthusiasm. In this room, I recognized a number of people who've been working on this issue, as disabled persons, since the early 1980s.

• 1010

Allow me to explain the historical backdrop for two or three minutes before I begin my comments. The contents of the document entitled In Unison and what I've heard here this morning is a more modern, year 2000 style reformulation of what was in the report entitled Obstacles in 1981. If we draw a parallel between that report and the In Unison report, we see that there is ??? overlap, but things are worded differently. In Unison also reiterates the five-year strategy developed by the federal government following the document on The future of disabled persons, Autonomy 92, the big international symposium that had taken place in Vancouver in 1992, and the Scott report. There's nothing new in what I see here, except in the way it's worded and presented.

We've now come to the time for action; we must act on the obstacles that we encounter as Canadians, whether we live in British Columbia, Quebec or Ontario. However, we must not act on those obstacles in any way at all, but based on a certain number of principles.

One of the principles that has to be seen within these discussions and documents is the notion of the right to equality, that is the equality of outcome for persons with disabilities as for any other person. I have absolutely nothing against result indicators. If we agree to apply result indicators in the organization of programs and services, we must also apply it to the equality of outcome, that is, assess the type of a discrimination that we are subjected to and see why we're still fighting, since 1981, for equality of outcome. We must equip ourselves with the legislative instruments that will ensure equality of outcome in the same way and at the same level as any other citizen.

It will be extremely important to look at that in your study, during the discussions or in the future directions because that will enable us to assess outcome measures in relation to programs and services, federal-provincial relations, program harmonization and the ability of a disabled person to travel from one province to another, from one city to another, from his workplace to his home, or to a recreational activity. This does not apply only to people with disabilities or to organizations.

The other principle is self-representation of people with disabilities through their own democratic structure; I am not talking about representation for consultative purposes. We have been consulted since 1981. I have been asked to come to Ottawa on many, many occasions to appear before committees and talk about the status of the disabled. If we had been paid for that, many of us would have earned hundreds of thousands of dollars, or just about. This comment relates to all the departments, not just HRDC. The Canadian Human Rights Commission brought us in for two or three days. We agree on an action plan, on the analysis of the various problems, we identify solutions, but then things fizzle out because there is no will and no action plan. There is no will to establish an equal partnership with the disabled community in terms of taking action, making decisions, implementing decisions and evaluating outcomes.

I have nothing against outcome measures, provided that I'm at the table to evaluate the outcomes and I have what I need to ensure that the federal government and the provinces fulfil the commitments they made to people with disabilities. That's all I have to say about the right to self-representation.

The other principle is respect for the disabled and for differences. I would like to give you an example of what I'm experiencing today. I'm asked to take part in a round table. This morning, people said that the In Unison was the framework, model, policy or foundation of a policy to ensure that people with disabilities can be full-fledged citizens. I don't have access to any report. So I'm going to remain sitting at the table and see how I can intervene.

• 1015

I believe that we have to start taking action. We now recognize that the disabled are entitled to represent themselves instead of being represented by non-disabled people speaking on their behalf, as will be the case this morning. A non-disabled person will speak on behalf of the disabled, on behalf of the Quebec model, but without having any link with the Quebec structure. For many years, we have been fighting for the inclusion of this concept of the right to equal outcomes and for the means we need to make this a reality.

If we succeed in building this decision-making partnership today, we will have taken a large step forward. Otherwise, three or four years from now, when another government may be in power, someone will wake up, read the Scott report and Obstacles, realize that something must be done for people with disabilities and will try to convince another committee of that.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Now I'll ask Mary Reid from the Independent Living Centre in St. John's to make her presentation.

Ms. Mary Reid (Independent Living Centre, St. John's): Thank you very much. I also want to congratulate the committee for the enthusiasm and interest that was shown in your opening remarks. It feels good to have this come back. For a long time I've sat before groups of people and wondered if they cared. But I really felt reassured that you are coming from personal perspectives and that you are also coming from a deep and genuine commitment to action. The word I kept hearing was action, action, action. So that also makes me feel really good.

I want to respond to a couple of things Marc Lemay said. I think he made a challenge that the social union document be used as more than just a launching pad, that we need to take it another step and that we need to be able to go further than what it suggests. One of your six points, Marc, had to do with the elimination of residency-based barriers. I think we do have an opportunity right now to take that to the step of the elimination of all barriers throughout the governments and the departments and in the policies, regulations, and legislation.

I think this is an opportunity to use the In Unison agreement to be able to do that. It was said that to use the agreement for a sectoral agreement would take some time to develop. I heard that, but I think the time is now. It's time for us to start developing and doing that together as a community. It is also essential and very urgent for us to have a minister responsible.

I don't want to take more time now. I do want to share it. But I want to thank you as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think the members of Parliament understand that there are time constraints. So we will ask our mentor on this issue, Andy Scott, to just ask a couple of questions on behalf of the members of Parliament, and then we will ask our presenters to respond to what they've heard.

Mr. Andy Scott: I should tell you that Alfred MacLeod is sick, and that's how I became a mentor.

The Chair: No, Andy.

Mr. Andy Scott: That's just to set the record straight.

I would like to put a couple of questions, but I'm not sure for which witness. How do we reconcile the very human nature of the spirit we hear today with the very often quantitative nature of the outcome measures that are necessary to hold the government to account?

We're here wanting to achieve things we have often said we wish to achieve, but we cannot get to that place because we cannot hold the people responsible to account. The way to hold them to account is to put measures in place. Unfortunately, dignity is hard to measure in conventional government. I don't know who answers that, but that's one question.

• 1020

I think the second question is more specific to the federal-provincial piece, including everyone who's involved in that. With regard to the social union document, it would seem that while everybody likes what it espouses, it is not in itself a good example of its own values in the way it was done. I don't say that as a criticism of anybody. But I think it's important to put on the table the criticism I have heard on this issue, which is that they like the values that are articulated, but it's not a good example of itself. That's not a criticism. It's an understandable problem. It's a new way of working.

How do we do that? How are we going to get past that in its application to a much more specific issue? The social union was not designed to deal with disability. It was designed to deal much more broadly with social programs and social policy planning. Now we want to take that framework and make it apply to a specific sector. How can we do it, and how can we do it better this time around?

I'm not sure, Madam Chair, to whom these questions should be addressed. I'm looking over here.

The Chair: We hope that all of the presenters will comment on all of the comments. We'll begin with the federal-provincial working group.

Mr. Phil Jensen: Thank you, Madam Chairman, committee members, and members of the community. I may miss the odd item, and if I do, take me up on it and point out to me that I haven't responded to that.

Listening to the comments from the community, the sense I had was that there was pretty clear support of In Unison and of the overall directions we're going in there. But there was a fair amount of concern about how we take it to the next step, how we get action, and how we actually get to the full objective of full Canadian citizenship for persons with disabilities.

On the issue of action and moving it a step forward, I know we've been trying to do that in the last few months. Just to talk about some of the issues we're facing and some of the parameters around our work, first, this working group is fairly new. It has only been going for 18 months or so. Just recently we had another government added, Nunavut, so now we're up to 14 jurisdictions we have to deal with in terms of making sure documents are available and that we have a common understanding of issues, and bringing together what's going on in those 14 jurisdictions.

That is good in the long term because, if I heard you correctly, you want to make sure that everybody's involved and that people's views are considered. But it does take more time and a fair amount of thought to make sure we do that. Unfortunately, by nature that slows down the process. I know it has been a long time since the minister released In Unison in October, but given the number of governments involved, we have had to do a fair amount of research on where we can go forward. We hear you and we understand you, but that is an issue we have to deal with.

Another issue we have to deal with, to be frank, is that we're in some sense breaking new ground here. Previously, jurisdictions did their policies, programs, and services in very much of a silo method, based on the requirements and needs of their own jurisdiction. The point was made earlier that there has now been a movement in government to try to get measurable society outcomes away from just inputs. So we're in a transition phase here, and we're trying to manage that at the same time.

The working group's work is very much focused on outcomes. I'd like to make a comment on one of the issues my colleague mentioned, which is how you deal with the fact that outcomes at the societal level don't have a large amount of attribution to governments. You didn't use the word “attribution”, but I think that's what you meant. In other words, what's the government's role in reducing unemployment or creating dignity? Well, it's probably 1%, 5%, or 10%—it's not 100%. How we've tried to handle this in terms of our frameworks at the federal level and some of the initial discussions we've had with the provincial governments.... I can quote a couple of pieces that have been done on this. One is by Kathy O'Hara, who did a report for CPRN. She came up with five categories. We did some research on the economic side of the government and came up with three. But just let me give you a flavour, to answer that question.

• 1025

First off, at the top, you have some societal outcome indicators that are very broad. Government's attribution is low. Then you have a group in the middle that looks at your specific programs, policies, and services and tries to answer the essential questions: Are these programs, policies, and services any good? Are they doing what they should be doing? Are they moving toward that broad one?

Then you have the bottom tier of what I call service standards. In other words, do we process CPP disability claims very quickly? The answer to that, unfortunately, is no, not as quickly as we should. That's the very bottom level. We're using a three-tiered approach, but we are developing something new. There's no template here; it's not anything set out. We have to work our way through it. That's part of the reason it takes a little bit of time.

I'll get to some specific issues. The issue of a Canadian disabilities act was raised, and this is not new to us in the sense that it has been raised to us several times in our discussions, particularly with regard to the federal disability strategy. It was also raised in our consultations for In Unison. The government simply, at this stage, has not taken a decision on a Canadian disabilities act. There are pros and cons to it, and we've discussed this with the community. Obviously, a pro is that it puts everything together in one act. It draws the attention of society and the government and focuses us on those issues. A con is that it would take two or three years to get through Parliament, and there may be other things that require our attention.

As an interim step, the Minister of Justice has announced a review of the Canadian human rights legislation and she's going to be looking at all aspects of this. So it will be covered in there, and we'll have to see what the ultimate decision on the CDA is.

There were a couple of other issues specific to the federal government that I may want to respond to. This is a federal-provincial one, but since we produced it.... The comment was made that some people were not aware that In Unison was available in alternate formats, but it is and has been since last fall. If you haven't been able to get it, please contact us, because it is available.

The Chair: There seems to be a problem that even when things are available, such as the social union document and In Unison, the front-line person sometimes says it's not available, when indeed it is. I think we need to make it much clearer that these are available, and have one place where people can go for alternate formats for all government documents. Also, there was apparently some glitch on the website that meant people weren't able to download it in all formats. I understand that last night, the worldwide web agreed to accessibility guidelines. As of 5 o'clock last night, we have to make sure we're in compliance with the worldwide web guidelines for accessibility issues on the web.

Mr. Phil Jensen: I apologize for that, but they have been available. Obviously, there has been a communication problem and we'll have to try to address that.

I'd like to deal with two final issues that were raised. One was the need for sectoral agreements. We hear you, and yes, we'd like to see what we can do there. We'll be talking with the provincial governments about what is possible and what we should do. But a basic issue we face fairly often when making new policy is that our data and analysis are so dated, as people in this room know very well. Our last point-in-time survey for persons with disabilities was 1991, and that's eight or nine years ago. We have no longitudinal data.

• 1030

As an interim step, HRDC has reallocated some funding within the last fiscal year, and we're going to do it for the next fiscal year to fund HALS, so we'll have a point-in-time survey.

We're also developing some longitudinal data, because longitudinal data is very important for persons with disabilities. People move in and out of disability, and we have to be able to track the situation. Hopefully, that will give us a better analysis and better data to build policies.

On Mr. Scott's question about reconciling human nature with the issue of the quantitative side and what governments can do, our assessment both in In Unison and in development of a federal disability strategy is that this is an issue for society. There's a role governments can play, but there's very much an attitudinal adjustment required on the part of all citizens, on the part of the private sector, and so on. What is the role of government and the community in achieving that attitudinal change? I think that is something we should discuss. In In Unison, that was what our objective of full citizenship was trying to achieve. In the federal disability strategy, which builds on that, we're going down that same track.

To be frank, I think we've identified some things governments can do in their own domains, but I'm not sure we've yet figured out how to get all of society on the same wavelength—the private sector and so on. I'd be interested in your views with regard to that.

I'll stop here and turn it over to my provincial colleague.

Ms. Shulamith Medjuck: I just have a short comment, and it's in response to a portion of your question. I think people at the working group are struggling with the issue of qualitative and quantitative outcome measures. I think that's a very difficult issue. The intention of the working group, at least, is to produce an outline of the accountability framework on In Unison. It's our intention and our hope that in the fall we will be going out once again to do consultations, as we did with In Unison to ensure that we have captured the outcome measures that are meaningful to people.

The Chair: Thank you.

Marc.

Mr. Marc Lemay: Thank you. I think these were very important issues that were raised by members of the community and by Mr. Scott, and I will try to address four of them more specifically: the criticism that the social union framework was negotiated behind closed doors;

[Translation]

the concept of equal outcomes;

[English]

the opportunity to make progress on mobility issues; and the current problems and dissatisfaction with outcomes measurement and reporting.

First, on the criticism that those who negotiated the social framework agreement did not practice what they preached, to some extent it is a fair criticism. I will not try to justify here today why it was done like that. However, I believe we now have a real opportunity to make some changes. We have an opportunity, as we implement this framework agreement, to involve the community, to involve stakeholder groups, to involve elected officials. As you will probably recall, as I said in my presentation, one of the key success factors of the implementation of the agreement is whether this is done in an inclusive fashion. If there is, I would say, no pressure on governments to live by their social union framework commitments, I think the danger is that it will remain words on paper and it will not translate into concrete action for the greater benefit of Canadians.

So I think, yes, it's true that this deal was largely negotiated behind closed doors, but I'm tempted to say that this is the past and from now on we have an opportunity to change that, and as we implement this agreement we should try to be as inclusive as possible.

• 1035

[Translation]

I have a second comment on the concept of equal outcomes. I do not claim that the Social Union Framework will provide solutions and settle this matter. However, I do believe that some elements of the Social Union Framework agreement will enable us to make progress or will help guide governments towards this concept of equal outcomes.

One of the principles of the Social Union Framework is the promotion of equal opportunity for all Canadians. A second principle is respect for equality, the rights and the dignity of all Canadians, as well as their different needs. The concept of different needs is in there.

Finally, there is a third principle which is to ensure that all Canadians enjoy access to essential social programs of approximately the same quality. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we are not talking about comparable programs, but rather, of programs of comparable quality. We can argue that the concept of approximately comparable quality indeed implies equal outcomes.

[English]

On the issue of mobility, I think the social union framework agreement really presents an opportunity to make some tangible progress. The agreement has very clear and specific commitments that governments will eliminate residency-based barriers within three years. Governments are also asked to report, on an annual basis, on what those residency-based barriers are and report on the action plans they have developed to eliminate those barriers. So I think on this issue the social union framework can really be of assistance.

Finally is the level of, say, dissatisfaction with current outcomes, measurement and reporting practices. Personally, I'm inclined to think this may be the result of two factors. First of all, there are different information needs in the system. As you know, the information that the program manager needs to run his program on a day-to-day basis is quite different from the information you need as members of Parliament. But often this kind of operational information is rated to outputs. It is easier to measure and therefore it is easier to report on, and very often this is the kind of information you find in public reporting on results, as it is found in part III of the estimates.

So I can understand the frustration of members of Parliament and the public in general. On the other hand, this information is essential, as I said, for the program manager who has to deliver his program in an efficient manner.

Another problem with performance measurement and reporting is that it has in the past usually been done on a program and department basis, each reporting on how each of its programs is performing. I think what we will see in the future—in fact, what we should see in the future—is more thematic reporting, client-based reporting, where a government, or ideally all governments, would report on how they serve specific client groups or how they address specific issues. This of course requires a horizontal approach, and again I would suggest that this is entirely consistent with the thrust of the social union framework.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Don.

Mr. Don Lenihan: I have only a few comments to make coming out of this.

First of all, a word that we heard a number of times—I think it's a good word, an important word—is action. Enough talking; now let's do something. I remind you that from my point of view I'm not an expert at all in this area and I wouldn't claim to be. I'm sure everyone in this room, or certainly most of you, would know much more about it than I do, which is a way of excusing myself for saying I don't know what stage you're at. You'll remember I talked about planning, implementing, reporting, and evaluating. Maybe the lesson from that—if there's a lesson to be drawn—is that there has been lots of planning and it's time to implement, which I don't think changes anything I want to say, except that we begin to think, how does all this apply to the implementing phase? Let me say something very briefly about that.

In my organization we distinguish between what we call action research and...I don't know what you want to call it, more basic research perhaps.

• 1040

In basic research, one would imagine, in the planning stage you really want to know a lot about what's going on out there, what the choices are; you sort of think things through. Once you've done a lot of thinking things through and you want to move to implementing, that doesn't mean you don't need research and reflection and indeed a different kind of planning. You do. But it's what we call action research. Maybe some of the stuff that's going on here today is a kind of action research.

Action research is a way of taking the planning stuff and moving it into the next phase. When you're talking about large numbers of people and diverse groups, you need organizations and fora like this that will help you build profile for the staff, that will help develop some momentum and some consensus on issues and outcomes and other things. In a sense it is a kind of coalition of people working together.

All that is to say that insofar as action is the next stage and implementation is part of that, or maybe it's the other way around, maybe a committee like this really ought to think about the difference between action research at this stage as a way of showing leadership in the community and within governments and among governments toward moving this agenda ahead.

The second thing I want to say is there were a lot of comments on indicators and measuring, in many ways much to my delight. I guess all I'd want to do is echo what people are saying. On the one hand, measurement is important. If we don't measure what we do, we don't really know if we've succeeded. Otherwise, your guess is as good as mine and we just sit around and argue. So there's a crucial role here for indicators and I think we do ourselves no service if we ignore that.

On the other hand, what comes up clearly is what gets measured gets valued, and you can measure different things. That's a hard, hard question. I guess I'm not here to solve it for you. That's the value question. That's the policy part of it. That's the political part of it. That's where debate and discussion is crucial. I think you're dead right to focus on that and question what's going on here; what should you be measuring. But again, I would simply caution against throwing out the baby with the bath water. The fact that we are concerned about the importance that measurement now plays doesn't mean we should get rid of it. It means we have to think very hard about what we measure, why we want to measure it, and how we do it, and we should make sure we're being inclusive in our discussion about what gets measured.

Finally, a couple of comments in reply to Andy Scott. Human nature, the spirit versus quantitative measures: there is no simple answer to this question. I wish there were. If there were, we'd have a science, and we don't have a science. I'm one of the guy who wants to thump the table and say “Look, if I'm in favour of performance management, I'm certainly not in favour of calling it a science”, and that's why I'm here today. I think there's an enormously important political role to play here, and the sooner we learn that lesson, the better.

On the other hand, having said that, it doesn't mean that one answer is as good as another. For example, the discussion over equality...we've had lots of discussions in history, political theory, and elsewhere on equality and other big values of that kind that we care about. So it's not like we're starting from scratch and it's not like we don't know a lot sometimes about what sorts of things are more plausible in trade-offs than others.

All that is to say that at the level of the big issues, the big values, the big societal outcomes that we're trying to achieve—and they were mentioned here—this is really a large role that we have to play collectively, if it's a democratic society, and we're going to have differences. We're never always going to agree on this stuff, and governments at some point will have to make choices and show their part in the leadership. There will always be these differences and there are going to be trade-offs.

That's why I think also, once we've made the sorts of choices at the big level—mind you, it's not enough to stop there, and by stop I mean the consulting, the reflection, the analysis, the debate. We must move from that big societal level down to the level of policies and programs. Then we start saying “All right, you guys won the debate on this side, you got your definition of equality in there; let's go down to the programs and policies and give me a second chance to get back into the game”. And the game goes on.

Finally, I move from social union to specific sectors. I think it's the same answer. Again, this is no science. It's not going to be easy. There are better and worse ways of doing things. All we can do is hope that this is a more informed, more reasonable, better way of managing our affairs, a more democratic way of managing our affairs, and that we make sure we take these steps down. The whole thing cascades down.

Again, I don't want to sound overly rationalistic. I realize there's always lots of messiness and up and down and back and forth, but the bottom line is there should be emerging here a kind of plan, a kind of logic to what we're doing, and if there isn't, some of us have it very wrong.

I guess the assumption is that we can be more rational as a group, and that's all I want to advocate here.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Don.

We have a small request from the official opposition for a tiny question for Mr. Lemay.

• 1045

Mr. Ken Epp: It really is very short, and thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I want to direct Mr. Lemay to page 4 of the English copy of his report. He says that commitments to Canadians include a series of social policy principles that will guide the development of new initiatives. They are listed there: equality of opportunity; assistance to those in need; fairness and equity; and respect for diversity.

My quick question is, are those characteristics applied to the individuals who, like all Canadians, are very diverse in their special needs, and in all of their needs as a matter of fact, or has that to do with equality and fairness and equity and so on between the provinces? I know this was a federal-provincial agreement. I just want to know what that refers to.

Mr. Marc Lemay: These principles are, as I said, commitments to Canadians, and they have to do with the equality, rights, and dignity of individuals. That doesn't mean the notion of equitable treatment or equality of status would not apply to intergovernmental relations, but in this context the focus is on individuals.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I think it's an excellent note on which to finish this portion. I think that's the exciting part of the social union, that it is no longer big brother looking upon little brother at various levels of government, pointing fingers. There has been a commitment by all levels of government to report to Canadians on how these things are working. I think it is a new beginning.

Thank you all. I certainly learned a great deal this morning.

We will now suspend very briefly while we bring forward Laurie Beachell from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities; Joan Westland from the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work; Marc Pomerleau, the consultant on the new Quebec models; and Doreen Demas, from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The jurisdictional nightmare!

• 1047

• 1100

The Chair: The MPs will bring back the small discussions to the group at large. So I will ask Laurie Beachell from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities to begin.

Mr. Laurie Beachell (National Coordinator, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here again. Our chairperson had hoped to be here but unfortunately had some medical appointments that could not be rescheduled. Eric Norman, who is from Gander, Newfoundland, would love to have been here, and I would love to have had him do this presentation rather than me.

There is one other comment I have to make. A few of us got pulled out by some media this morning to discuss not this process or comment upon it, but just so that people are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada this morning announced that it will hear Robert Latimer's appeal. His leave for appeal has been granted, and we can expect once more to go through that whole process. We can expect that the disabled community will have to gear up one more time to address an issue of what we believe to be fundamental rights, the right to life for persons with disabilities. So it is auspicious that we are here in Ottawa again, and we recognize that many issues just don't go away; they come around again.

CCD recognizes that we're entering new and uncharted territory when we discuss social policy development within the context of the social union agreement. We recognize that a considerable challenge exists in determining not only what must be done to improve the status of persons with disabilities, but how it might be done within the framework.

There are some within our community who are fearful that the social union agreement is the federal government's abdication of responsibility for ensuring the citizenship rights of Canadians with disabilities. I think that fear comes from exclusion from the process, and that fear comes from a long history of jurisdictional battles. If the social union is to become a reality, we hope that we can actually see some action in the timeframe in which it exists.

Being ever pragmatic in its approach and recognizing that fundamental change is incremental, CCD views the social union agreement and the In Unison framework as an opportunity for improving the status of persons with disabilities. CCD is pleased to see a renewed interest in policy affecting persons with disabilities, at federal, provincial and territorial levels.

The endorsement of the In Uunison document by federal and provincial ministers is a step forward in identifying the objectives and the framework for developing new initiatives that would improve our status. As well, we are encouraged by the principles enunciated in the federal government's federal disabilities strategy Working in Partnership for Full Citizenship. This document, along with In Unison, clearly supports the fundamental principles of full citizenship, equality, inclusion, empowerment, and participation.

We're also excited by the principles outlined in the social union agreement: that all Canadians are equal; ensuring access for all Canadians wherever they live or move in Canada to essential social programs and service of reasonably comparable quality; providing assistance to those in need; working in partnership with individuals, families, communities, voluntary organizations, business and labour, and so on.

Fundamental also is the principle of mobility within Canada. The statements in the social union are that all governments believe the freedom of movement of Canadians to pursue opportunities anywhere in Canada is an essential element for Canadian citizenship; governments will ensure that no barriers to mobility are created in new social policy initiatives; and governments will eliminate within three years any residency-based policies or practices that constrain access to post-secondary education, training, health and social services, and social assistance, unless they can be demonstrated to be reasonable and consistent within the principles of the social union framework. These are principles we have endorsed, and frankly these are principles we thought we had in the charter.

The situation of Canadians with disabilities today is such that these guarantees and those of the charter are seldom realized. Canadians with disabilities continue to experience major barriers to participation in the life of their communities. Discrimination on a day-to-day basis is so rampant that unfortunately many have begun to accept it.

• 1105

Canadians with disabilities do not have mobility rights. In fact their mobility is increasingly constrained as programs have been cut during the process of deficit reduction.

Eligibility for supports has increasingly become more restrictive, and certainly there is greater and greater disparity among regions in the types and levels of services provided. For a Canadian with a disability to consider moving is to put at risk those support services the individual has presently been able to be entitled to. There is no guarantee that he or she will be able to re-establish eligibility under similar programs offered by another jurisdiction; thus many refuse to take the risk.

I'd like to give you just a couple of examples of this. An individual we know from Saskatchewan wished to pursue their post-secondary education in Ontario but was unable to establish an Ontario eligibility for the attendant care program without having a residency requirement, therefore could not pursue education at the university of her choice in Canada.

An individual from Manitoba was offered a job in B.C. This individual uses attendant care. The attendant care program in Manitoba is not income-tested but it is income-tested in B.C. In considering whether he would accept the job he had to consider whether the job paid enough to now pay for his attendant care.

We had an individual also who wanted to move from one province to the other. He used a wheelchair. The wheelchair belonged and was the property of that provincial government. He couldn't get a wheelchair in the province in which he was moving to, or he had to buy it. The scenario was starting to emerge that we would have to transport him to the border and have government officials from another province meet him at the border so he could transfer from one wheelchair into another wheelchair, so he could continue his business.

That's what we're talking about in the day-to-day mobility rights of people with disabilities in Canada.

Canadians with disabilities were elated with the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in the Eldridge decision. In Eldridge the Supreme Court ruled that the charter guarantees persons with disabilities equal access, not only to government-operated programs and services but also to programs and services delivered by non-governmental individuals and organizations in accordance with the government program. To our community this was a confirmation of fundamental rights. But governments have more or less ignored Eldridge, continuing to regard accessibility arrangements as discretionary and optional rather than as required by the charter.

Systemic discrimination against people with disabilities is the rule rather than the exception in our society. It is necessary for government at all levels to take a strong position now to guarantee there will be zero tolerance for this type of discrimination.

I will not take time to highlight for you in detail the current situation of people with disabilities. For all of you it is well known. There are many documents and many reports. Suffice it to say the vast majority of Canadians with disabilities live in poverty, are unemployed or isolated from community life, and face daily barriers that continue the discrimination they have faced for years.

Progress has been made. However, I would have to say the last decade has not been one of progress, it has been one of fighting to maintain what we had. Minister Martin in his budget speech acknowledged that Canadians have paid a significant price to address the deficit. We would argue that Canadians with disabilities who already were disadvantaged paid an equally high price. Certainly time for reinvestment is now. The social union agreement and the In Unison document set out the principles that we believe must become action.

Recently, and my comments are not those singly of CCD, a number of national organizations of people with disabilities came together. Dr. Bennett, you were able to spend some time with us as well. We have come to some common views and we are working to develop our own strategy paper that we believe will help to guide action in the future. That document is in a very rough draft at this point, and we hope to have more consultation and more discussion with a number of community groups and bring it forward soon.

One of the things being talked about is the application of a disability lens. We've all talked about it, we've all used the terminology, but what does it mean?

• 1110

One of the things we talked was allocation within all departments of a budget line to ensure that an analysis of the impact upon persons with disabilities is undertaken as any new policy initiative moves forward. It is a sad commentary to think we have spent considerable energy in the last years in Canada trying to define a children's agenda, and it is only as an afterthought that we have begun to add to that, and address within that, the needs of children with disabilities and families with children with disabilities.

We need a creation of a coordination mechanism with government to assist in the application of a disability lens, to teach people how to do it, to coordinate activities cross-departmentally and present an annual report to the House of Commons on the status of persons with disabilities. We need to resource the voice of Canadians with disabilities, not only to be consulted but to carry out their own research on appropriate solutions and policy initiatives.

Don't just call us to a table with a week's notice and ask us what we think. Give us some time to make sure we can give you the best that we think. We must have open federal-provincial policy discussions for input from the community. So far those federal-provincial processes have been behind closed doors and are not open to the community. There seems to be some positive light that they may become open, and once we get through several provincial elections, maybe those lights will go green again.

We would suggest that one of the needs is an expanded court challenges program to allow for challenges to provincial legislation that discriminates on the basis of disabilities. We believe that the Auditor General should review funding for an implementation of accessibility for persons with disabilities as part of his or her annual review process and report to Parliament. We believe that a minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities at the federal and provincial levels is essential.

Those are the structures we talked about. I want to speak to two issues, and then Joan and Doreen will address some of the other pieces that were arrived at within the discussions among our community.

One is the poverty of people with disabilities. This is an incredibly complex area in that it includes general income support programs, insurance programs, workers compensation, auto insurance, social assistance, etc. Poverty, however, remains the single greatest barrier to community participation and equality of opportunity.

The community of persons with disabilities calls for a comprehensive study through a royal commission or parliamentary committee into the issue of income support for persons with disabilities. This study will develop the information necessary to make major reforms. We recognize that this is a long-term issue; it is not an immediate fix.

I'd like to speak very briefly about disability-related supports. I believe Don Lenihan mentioned we need to find opportunities for strategic cooperation. I believe this is one of the areas where we may be able to do that. There are a great many essential disability-related supports that are currently unavailable or unaffordable to thousands of Canadians with disabilities. While these necessary supports are diverse, the most widespread and acute needs relate to three areas. They relate to prescription drugs and related needs, special diets, etc. They relate to personal support services of all kinds, such as self-directed attendant care, home care, sign language interpretation, communication supports. They also relate to assistive devices and supplies such as mobility aids, hearing aids, communications aids, etc.

A priority of the social union initiative should be a coordinated plan by federal-provincial-territorial governments in each of these areas to ensure that Canadians with disabilities are guaranteed these essential supports. This would go a long way to ensuring the mobility rights of Canadians with disabilities.

Essential disability support will be provided on a comparable basis in all provinces and territories and must be portable across jurisdictions. Support should be funded and provided on the basis of need, without unnecessary administrative procedures or unnecessary involvement of health professionals. Consumers with disabilities and service providers will be involved in all aspects of developing plans to ensure access to essential supports.

I'm going to end with just a couple of comments, and then ask Joan and Doreen to add to other parts of the discussion that our community has had.

We hope the expression of support for the principles our community holds dear in these documents is not just another dose of lovely rhetoric.

• 1115

The major challenge for our community is not that we do not have the goodwill of governments and the public in general, but rather that we cannot seem to get that goodwill translated into good actions. That is the challenge before us. Coordinated action that includes the disabled community in defining solutions is what is called for. The social union framework offers another opportunity for progressive movement forward. Our community is committed to working together with all levels of government to achieve results. Let's seize the opportunity and begin the process of defining outcomes and actions to achieve those outcomes.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Laurie.

So we've heard the agenda. Now Joan Westland's going to give us a little bit more detail on the supports and services side.

Ms. Joan Westland (Executive Director, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): No is the short answer. I think Laurie was trying to address some of the supports and services. When we collaborated before coming to this meeting, we agreed that I would expand the discussion into an area that might set the tone for the discussion groups we're going to have later, rather than try in ten minutes to go into the complexities of supports and services.

The Chair: Excellent.

Ms. Joan Westland: I'm pleased to see my friends from the disability mafia are all doing very well.

[Translation]

Thank you for your invitation. I'm always pleased to come to Ottawa to explore solutions to the challenges that people with disabilities face.

[English]

Since 1981, the Government of Canada has dedicated a considerable amount of time, energy and resources to issues concerning people with disabilities. Similar to a roller coaster ride, the issues, the questions, and the solutions rose to the top of the agenda only to plummet down again. I'm pleased today to announce that we are on our way back up to the top of that roller coaster ride, and I congratulate all the members of this subcommittee and all the people who are participating in this event for making this happen.

There have been several significant peaks along the way that have had impact on the lives of people with disabilities in particular, and society in general. I'm certainly not, as Laurie also pointed out, going to threaten you with a review of all of them. I suggest you take a look in the archives and read the many substantive documents that have been published that address issues concerning people with disabilities and the solutions to those issues.

In the most recent history, there are several pieces of public policy that impact people with disabilities. In the area of employment and support services, these include the federal-provincial labour market agreements, the employment act, the employability assistance for people with disabilities program, the social union, and the amendment and continued amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. What these documents do direct us to do include the delivery of a comprehensive strategy that promotes full citizenship. These documents also direct us to develop a labour force strategy that is inclusive of people with disabilities.

Within such a strategy, it will be critical to ensure specific provisions for people with disabilities, and within such a strategy it will be even more critical to ensure that issues concerning people with disabilities are addressed at all levels. In order to be effective, such a strategy will also need to include broad definitions of eligibility criteria for support programs and, in the case of labour, programs or eligibility criteria that go beyond the narrow one of being eligible or not eligible for employment insurance.

They tell me that an optimist is a person who believes this is as good as it gets and a pessimist is a person who knows this is as good as it gets. The transfer of the delivery of training and employment services from the federal government to the provincial government is bringing out the pessimist in many of us. Governments are seizing the opportunity to toss issues back and forth, each level claiming that solutions are within the jurisdiction of the other. This results in these jurisdictions creating a situation where they can feel good about doing nothing. Is the social union a commitment to act or an occasion to continue to talk while people with disabilities bear the brunt of inaction? The issue is not how clever the process is, but rather how effective.

• 1120

National organizations are in a place to facilitate a process that will open up the dialogue between these jurisdictions and put a stop to tossing around the hot potato. Not only is the potato not hot, there's a question as to whether or not it is a potato.

The reality is that we see disparity in the quality and quantity of support across the country. The reality today is that instead of collaboration, we experience confrontation, and the very people we all claim to be so concerned about are set adrift within a sea of bureaucratic squabbles and finger pointing. But I want to pursue the view of the optimist, even though I know it's stepping out of character.

I've been invited to speak to you today and somehow consider, in my remarks, points about job accommodation, the role of federal and provincial governments, and issues around contracting to third parties, in order to address the interests of Canadians who have disabilities—all within ten minutes. So I won't even presume that I will be successful at covering all of those areas, and I challenge you to do your best in the discussion groups.

We cannot talk about employment without also talking about housing, transportation, disability support, education and training, and access to all goods and services—in fact, all the aspects that are essential to the community infrastructure.

The federal government is responsible for promoting and protecting the rights that come with citizenship. Within that context it must exercise its authority and leadership to ensure that all of its citizens enjoy the benefits of an equitable society. The members of the subcommittee are elected by the people and need to ensure that the interests of the people are addressed in an appropriate and effective manner.

Government can exercise its responsibility and authority in the federal-provincial agreements, in its third party contracts, and through its own administration and operational practices. The terms and conditions of the intergovernmental accords and private sector contracts can stipulate exactly what must be done to include people with disabilities.

Recognizing and respecting provincial differences should not mean abdicating responsibility or compromising on principles. The Obstacles report and all the subsequent articulate parliamentary committee reports and task force recommendations repeat the call for the inclusion of people with disabilities into the mainstream of society. The call continues to be answered with special programs and separate services.

I believe there will always be a place for distinct programs that address particular interests and needs. However, these should not be established as programs of only resort, nor as a mechanism to promote isolation. These should not be in place because we cannot rise to the challenge of addressing the systemic barriers and attitudinal barriers that continue to marginalize people with disabilities.

This is not to say that progress has not been made. When we take the time to step back and look around, we have ramps and curb cuts; sign language interpreters and interveners; supported employment programs and community support services; independent living centres; people with disabilities graduating from universities, as long as they don't have to travel; attendant care and 24-hour message relay services.

We also have people who advise that although they support the employment of people with disabilities, they cannot commit to hiring them because no one has the skills necessary; people with disabilities will be sick more often, absent, or too difficult to supervise; or too expensive to accommodate. Even though there is overwhelming evidence that people with disabilities have a range of interests, skills and abilities, just like everyone else, our services and systems often trip over each other to complicate and confuse.

• 1125

An entire industry of government and private sector interests continues to experiment, analyse, assess and measure the obvious in an effort to make it obscure. Just as we rise to the crest of that roller coaster ride, we are asked to reconsider, reconvene, readjust and redesign. It is time to stop.

We know what is effective and what is not. We know where the barriers exist and where they do not. We have heard all the jargon and pronouncements. We have the performance indicators. It is time to step out of the disability box and raise the level of this discussion. Now is the time to explore the notion of inclusion and universal access and design. This means looking at the methods and approaches that are effective and successful for people with disabilities, and applying them to the training and employment services, for example, for everyone.

We know a training program ends with employment only when the employer commits to hiring the successful trainee before the training starts. We know the employer needs to commit to participating in the recruitment of the candidate for that training program, as well as in the design of the training program itself. We know job accommodation is a personnel issue all managers provide to all employees, whether it is flexible work hours, paternity or maternity leave, job sharing or ergonomic office furniture. It is not a special program only established to support people with disabilities.

We know a barrier-free environment benefits everyone. After all, who doesn't want hallways or corridors that allow for ease of movement? Who does not appreciate the automatic opening doors at airports? Who does not benefit from lighting that is effective and natural without glare, or packaging that does not take the strength of Hercules to open? Who does not prefer an environment where respect for differences and individual dignity are the norm, rather than the exception?

We all sit somewhere on the ability spectrum. There are no people with disabilities, only people with a range of abilities, interests and needs. Today and in the discussions of all of our tomorrows, we must talk about access, inclusion and changing systems and environments.

This subcommittee has the opportunity to take on the leadership role necessary to ensure that documents are not just paper, agreements are not just words, and points of view are not just excuses.

In 1985 the subcommittee recognized the potential, the responsibility and the importance of its role, and advocated successfully to be mandated as a standing committee. This must happen again. In keeping with the optimistic theme of my presentation, think of the reinstatement of the standing committee as a recognition of the 14-year anniversary, with a minister mandated as the minister responsible for issues concerning people with disabilities as the anniversary gift.

We are a roomful of optimists. If we were not, we would not have continued with our efforts over all these years. However, we optimists need to stop this machine while it is at the top of the ride and get off the roller coaster before we become pessimists, with no more energy left to benefit from the lessons learned or appreciate the new interests, wisdom and vision. I think we are all here to meet these challenges and explore the detail of this discussion during our group work.

I thank you for the opportunity to share some of my views and concerns with you.

The Chair: Thanks, Joan.

Marc.

[Translation]

Mr. Marc Pomerleau (Individual Presentation): Madam Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

[English]

I want to express that I'm really glad to participate in the subcommittee today.

[Translation]

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before the sub-committee. Before I read the opening remarks I've prepared, I would like to explain some of the background behind certain parts of my presentation.

• 1130

I was asked to talk about a Quebec model. I must tell you that there really isn't any homogenous Quebec model. There are several interesting initiatives in Quebec to improve the living conditions of people with disabilities. I decided to explain a number of these initiatives to you. I must acknowledge that the Quebec model is not always the one to be followed. Many improvements are needed, and that is why people remain very interested in monitoring changes in Quebec policy relating to the disabled.

I would like to touch on another point. A few moments ago, Mr. Di Giovanni spoke of representativeness. I fully agree with him when he says that it is important for the disabled to represent themselves. They are in a good position to tell others about their experiences and how their situation can be improved. To my mind, the most important part of his remarks was the importance for the disabled to be heard, to be able to take action and thus be taken seriously. I think that first remark is very important.

However, I have to disagree with some of his remarks. He was saying that I didn't necessarily have any link with the Quebec structure. On one hand, I make these presentations because I am the parent of a disabled child. On the other hand, I have worn different hats, and I still wear some. I was the chairman of the advisory committee on adjustment services for disabled students at the local school board. I drafted the regional assessment on the economy and employment of disabled people for the Saguenay—Lac- Saint-Jean region for the labour force adjustment committee for people with disabilities. I currently sit on the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work. I have represented community organizations on the advisory committee for the organization of services for the disabled, all disabilities, for the Regional Health and Social Services board. I am a former director of employment and job readiness services for people with disabilities.

For these reasons, and because of my training as a sociologist, I am interested in the disabled. I may not have any apparent limitations, but believe me, I do have some. It's more a matter of looking at this entire set of problems in a systematic fashion, and above all, from a human point of view.

That's the background that I wanted to give you.

As for my opening remarks, as a teacher, I don't really like to read out speeches, but since I only have a few moments and I'm talking about things that already exist, and so as not to use the wrong terminology, I'm not going to ad lib. These remarks reflect only my own views, but they were prepared so as to allow for discussion after. They aren't the Bible or the absolute truth.

For those of you who have a copy of my remarks, I'm on page 2. I would like to give you a quick background on various elements that have affected the evolution of various policies or structures in Quebec relating to people with disabilities. Then I will discuss education and the labour force, and finally, I will make a few small recommendations for your sub-committee.

In 1978, the government of Quebec unanimously adopted a bill on the rights of persons with disabilities which set out the basic government and civil obligations in order to further autonomy and social integration for persons with disabilities. This was followed up with the creation of the OPHQ, a Quebec office for persons with disabilities. The OPHQ became the para-governmental organization responsible for promoting the interests of people with disabilities as well as coordinating the development of services for such individuals in the various departments.

• 1135

Over the years, the OPHQ's staff acquired expertise in many spheres of activity, such as residential resources, transportation, employment, education, recreation and rehabilitation. This expertise makes it possible for them to provide advice or direction to departments with responsibilities in this area, and to support or coordinate their actions.

In 1984, the Office published À part égale, a document which outlined the situation of persons with disabilities in Quebec and recommended ways of removing barriers to their integration into society. For people dealing with persons with handicaps, service agencies and departments, this report soon became the essential reference document. Although the measures proposed in À part égale are now out of date, the facts and recommendations remain valid.

Through innovation and experimentation, the Office developed and set up programs which contributed greatly to the social integration of people with disabilities. In recent years, several of its programs have been transferred to other agencies which have responsibilities in this area. For example, the program for home adaptation is now administered by the Société d'habitation du Québec, Quebec's housing corporation.

One area where the OPHQ has had a major influence is that of school integration. The Office made many representations to Quebec's Department of Education, with the result that the Department amended its Education Act. Legislation was passed regarding school boards' obligation to provide services adapted to the needs of various groups of persons with disabilities as part of their regular activities. Additional funding per student in this category was granted annually. School boards are also required to set up an advisory committee of parents and school representatives to make sure that adequate services are in place for integrating persons with disabilities into the school setting.

There must also be an individual plan for each student identified as having disabilities or learning or adjustment difficulties, which will ensure concerted and realistic action to meet the needs of the person in question. This plan is an essential tool, because it assigns responsibility to all those dealing with the person with disabilities. Various school paths and various models have been tried out.

As far as access to vocational training is concerned, barriers still exist. A great deal remains to be done at many levels. In view of the importance of basic training for personal and social independence, we must admit that this undertaking on the part of the government to persons with disabilities is essential. It is still the best way to achieve maximum independence as an adult.

Integration into the work force: Quebec's experience in this area offers models which deserve our attention. For more than 15 years now, various services and projects to support the integration of persons with disabilities into the work force have come into being. SEMOs, manpower out-reach services, which are often funded by the provincial government and sometimes by the federal government, will assess, prepare and escort people with disabilities when they are trying to get integrated into the labour market.

The OPHQ has two other employment assistance programs apart from the SEMOs. The adapted work centre program has made it possible to set up 41 special businesses, subsidizing the wages of persons with disabilities who are productive but would not be competitive in the regular market. This program has been quite successful in many respects, but needs to be reassessed, because some businesses are experiencing financial difficulties. There are some other reasons which I will not describe at length at the present time.

The job integration contract program provides wage subsidies to employers to make up for the loss of productivity on the part of a person with disabilities. The subsidy may be spread over several years and is often regressive. It is a very important tool for manpower advisers in out-reach services, since it helps breakdown an employer's initial resistance. Adjustments to work stations may also be funded under this program.

• 1140

Many other very useful programs have had to be abandoned because of a lack of funding. As far as the job equity program in the Public Service and big business is concerned, incentives have been too low to make it possible to meet established objectives in a satisfactory manner. It is not enough just to propose a measure, however positive or simple it may be, to have it automatically accepted by everyone. It must be accompanied by positive or coercive incentives.

Since Emploi-Québec, has taken over the management of most employment programs, it bases its action on the advice of the CAMO, the Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre, or the manpower adjustment commitment for persons with disabilities. Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni will be able to say more about this, but generally speaking I would describe the mandate of the CAMO for persons with disabilities as follows.

It is a decision-making partnership composed of associations of persons with handicaps, businesses and their associations, the labour movement, agencies specialized in employment and manpower development and the federal and provincial governments. It operates at the provincial, sectorial and regional levels.

This CAMO was set up to develop and implement a strategy for action to improve access to the labour market and keep people with disabilities in their jobs, working in co-operation with local organizations.

The CAMO for persons with disabilities identifies and analyzes obstacles which may be encountered by people with functional limitations as far as workforce integration, access to information, maintaining a job or professional mobility are concerned. It also looks for the most appropriate solutions and practical ways to eliminate these obstacles. Finally, it experiments with new models in this field.

This CAMO administers the work force integration fund for persons with disabilities on behalf of Quebec. One of the first things it did with respect to administering this fund was, in 1998, to carry out an analysis of the economy and employment of persons with disabilities for each of the regions of Quebec. You have to know what you are talking about if you are to provide the most appropriate solutions.

In view of your work to develop an action plan, and given certain elements of the Quebec policy, Madam Chair, without being pretentious, I would like to make the following recommendations: that the sub-committee examine and compare various models for intervention and support; that it study the appropriateness of creating an advisory body which could support the departments in setting up programs and services for persons with disabilities; that it examine the feasibility of establishing support mechanisms or supporting resources which already exist; that it study the feasibility of creating incentive programs to encourage the integration of persons with disabilities into the work place; that it study the rules for recognizing the eligibility of employment- insurance target-groups. The virtually systematic exclusion of persons with disabilities from the labour market denies them access to training and support programs which could be useful to them.

In conclusion, I would like to identify some parameters which should guide our actions. Any steps taken to improve the living conditions of persons with disabilities should be done in such a way as to increase their independence in that way they will be better able to fulfil themselves and take their proper place; we do not need to substitute ourselves for them.

Second, this quest for independence cannot be achieved without support from society. This support may take many forms; the best and most stimulating will always be human involvement. We say yes to programs and yes to financial incentives if they have a human dimension and show the necessary degree of creativity, flexibility and adaptability to achieve real results. We have to pay attention to size. Generally speaking if programs are transferred to large organizations, persons with disabilities tend to lose out.

• 1145

Finally, experience has shown that participation in the different programs stemmed more from obligation than voluntary action. Of course, positive measures are the first ones that should be resorted to.

Economic, corporate and organizational imperatives mean that, most often, worthy intentions are nothing but wishful thinking. By reiterating the necessity for equity, political words and actions force a meeting between economic development and social union with a view to a response better adapted to our fellow citizens' needs, whatever it may be.

In conclusion, and to get back to my preamble, I will add that if we want to recognize the person with a disability as being a fully participating citizen, it's up to all citizens, including those who don't have disabilities, to make this their fight and their concern. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Doreen.

Ms. Doreen Demas (Adviser on Disability Issues, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs): Thank you, Carolyn.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the subcommittee and Dr. Bennett for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you this morning on the issue of aboriginal people with disabilities.

Who are aboriginal people with disabilities? Aboriginal people with disabilities live in every part of the country, from the Arctic Circle to the Métis settlements, to the largest urban centres, to isolated fly-in communities in remote areas. Aboriginal people with disabilities live on and off reserves. We are urban and rural dwellers. Geographics impact strongly on the availability and quality of goods and services related specifically to aboriginal people.

In the last post-census survey the statistics showed that the number of aboriginal people with disabilities was twice the national average. Therefore, compared to 13%, we had estimates of about 31%. That tells me that the problem we are dealing with is immense. Obviously, the solutions and answers to our problems are not going to be easy, but they're going to take the effort and the responsibility of all levels of government, including our own governments as well.

In April 1997 the Aboriginal Relations Office of Human Resources Development Canada convened a round table wherein about 21 aboriginal people with disabilities from across the country gathered to talk about what the current situation was for us, what some of our issues were. This kind of consultation is by no means new to us. For those of us who have been doing this for a number of years, this was something we had done countless times before. We have always come to the table in good faith and with a willingness to work together and to participate, and certainly to be the voice of aboriginal people. We feel that because we live the reality we are the best experts at what the issues and what the solutions are for us.

As a result of the round table, there was a smaller working committee formed that is now referred to as the aboriginal reference group on disability issues. This group consists of first nations people, Métis people, and non-status Inuit. The Assembly of First Nations does come to the meetings in an advisory capacity.

• 1150

In the consultations we've had up to now some of the issues we've dealt with have stemmed from things like the social union process and of course ultimately the In Unison document that was developed by the mainstream community.

When we looked at the In Unison document, as members of the reference group, we felt that although the four principles that were laid out were important and relevant to us to a certain extent, because of our unique socio-economic and cultural situation and circumstances we felt we really needed to have something that would give us an opportunity and an avenue to bring our issues forward. As a result, we put together a document called One Voice. At the same time, the Assembly of First Nations also tabled a document called First Perspective.

As mentioned by one of the speakers earlier, in July 1998 we did in fact convene a consultation process in Saskatoon to specifically talk about issues dealing with aboriginal people with disabilities. At that time we tabled these two documents and eagerly awaited and anticipated a response by the government and by policy-makers and decision-makers on the next steps. In October the In Unison document was tabled. At that time we were told our document or our perspective would then follow shortly thereafter.

In March 1999 we received a letter from Honourable Minister Pettigrew, who indicated that they were in receipt of One Voice and First Perspective and that they in turn would share these particular documents with both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

We were very disappointed because we were waiting in anticipation of some very specific actions to follow the recommendations we had brought forward in One Voice and First Perspective.

Because I only have ten minutes, I cannot adequately address the many issues and barriers we deal with on a day-to-day basis. You would have to allow me a whole week, and I know that's not possible. What I will say here today is that the documents One Voice and First Perspective were certainly the beginning point for us in terms of working in partnership with government on how to address these issues. I'm sad to say that I am still waiting for what I would call a formal response and certainly a plan of action on what the next steps are to be.

This morning I heard speakers talking again about what the next steps would be, and yet I still didn't hear anything that specifically addressed the issues we had presented last summer in Saskatoon. This really worries me, because I in turn have to go back to my community and let people know what the government plans to do, particularly as we're dealing with things like the social union process and the federal disability strategy.

My message here today would be that if we as aboriginal people with disabilities are to be a part of this process, if we are to work in partnership with the government and if we are ultimately to be heard, then we need to have a comprehensive strategy that begins to address that. We have to have a process for which we can further discuss and explore what some of those possibilities are.

I don't come here today assuming I have all the answers. These are complicated problems and issues, as I've stated, and they're going to take time and they're going to take energy and they're going to take the willingness. Every level of government, including our own governments, have a responsibility to jointly deal with that.

This is the message I bring here today. If fundamental issues like the jurisdictional problem that first nations people with disabilities face on who ultimately is responsible for these issues are to be addressed and adhered to, then we need to be at the decision-making tables. We need to be heard and we need to be acknowledged as the experts within the community on these issues.

• 1155

I would ask that your government go back and look at One Voice and First Perspective, if you are to know what the issues are, what we are asking for. I can speak for other members of the reference group in saying that we are willing to work with you. Even though we've waited for a long time, as Joan said, it's very easy to be pessimistic; it's harder to be optimistic when you've seen many documents and many reports that just give the same rhetoric.

In fact I was telling somebody yesterday that I can even actually say it by memory, off the top of my head, because I've seen it so often. I have heard people saying this is the time for action, this is the time for concrete solutions, and we're ready to do that. We're willing to do that, but we need to have the process, we need to have the resources to do that.

Aboriginal people with disabilities are probably a good 10 or 15 years behind the mainstream disability advocacy organizations in terms of their advocacy and lobbying abilities. We don't have any vehicle at this point, nationally, except for the aboriginal reference group on disability issues, which is currently a technical advisory committee. Therefore, it has a limited ability in terms of its boundaries in giving input and expertise outside the jurisdiction of HRDC.

If we have a minister who is going to be responsible for people with disabilities issues, then we need to have the departmental approach, because obviously some of the fundamental issues we deal with fall under the jurisdiction of Health Canada, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and so on.

I will end my short presentation by saying that we continue to want to be involved in this process, but we also have to acknowledge...when we do give the input.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Doreen.

We promised everyone we would actually finish at 1.30, because I know some people have planes to catch. We will cut the table time down. We will make sure there is a good five minutes for each table to report back, and then we will see how much time there is for a general discussion.

Marie, would you give just a brief wrap-up?

Ms. Marie Lemieux (Senior Analyst, Treasury Board Secretariat): Thank you, Madame Chair. It is a real honour to have been invited to talk to you and to the distinguished people in this room.

I'm a former HRDC employee, and I'm talking here just in my name. You haven't asked me to make a written presentation, but just to bring some comments. These are very modest comments.

When I heard the representatives from the disability community I had a thought.

[Translation]

I hear them try, each in their own way, to explain what the priorities are for persons with disabilities today and I think I'm hearing sighs at the same time as the explanation. In fact, these people must surely be wondering, from one time to the next, how they could go about saying the same things over again in a different way to serve up the objectives of the advocacy associations of persons with handicaps with the flavour of the day that will be understood and heard by those who will be making decisions concerning them.

During the last 20 years, it is these representatives of the advocacy movement for persons with handicaps, all the people present here today, who have defined, for governments and parliamentarians, the problems, the priorities and the questions of the day.

What is expected from the advocacy movement of persons with disabilities seems out of proportion to me. They must have detailed and simultaneous knowledge of the world of education, professional training, labour market transactions, specialized support measures, the building code, adapted living spaces, paramedical environments, community environments and public transport. They must also educate the public, in other words, demonstrate to anyone who's ready to listen that a human being is a human being and a fellow citizen, a fellow citizen.

• 1200

I'd like to reassure the representatives of the movement and tell them that their agenda and their priorities are clear: To be a fully participating citizen, go to school, work, access all necessary support measures, live in their own community, have friends, enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of their fellow citizens, be able to move around freely without barriers and contribute to community life. Those objectives have not changed ever since we have had persons with disabilities amongst us. The objective is to be a participant in society without discrimination nor privilege, as they say in Quebec.

There is one priority that is the same in each area of activity and it's that of equal opportunity, the right to participate. Whether for jobs, education or transportation, the priority is the same.

Today's question is the following: can the Social Union Framework and In Unison be useful to persons with disabilities? In response, I'll put this syllogism to you with hopes of garnering a smile. The social union is good for Canadians; persons with disabilities are Canadians; thus the social union is good for persons with disabilities.

I would add that it's true, not only for the social union and the document In Unison, but also for agreements on the labour market, job strategies for youth, policies for children and so on; we can name all the policies. A strategic framework is only a tool making it possible to orchestrate actions and to take consistent measures to attain the desired results. Trying to define the results and attain them is a weird debate because for people with disabilities, the results to be attained haven't changed over the years: total access to technical aids, support measures which, as we know, are the real prerequisite for the participation and social and professional integration of persons with disabilities, school integration, participation in professional training, post-secondary education, increased participation in the labour market, the right to an independent life, access to information under all its guises and in all media, to name only some of the results we're trying to attain.

How do we measure results in these areas? Simply by counting one, two, three. I do not want to be simplistic in saying that. Each time that we quote a figure, we are speaking about a disabled person who is employed and this suggests that all the accommodation measures have been provided that the support measures exist and that it was not a struggle to obtain them. It is time to start counting the number of people who are integrated into the labour market; these results are easily measured. How many students and how many jobs are there? These are the types of things that we try to measure when we refer to this type of action. It is also very easy to measure individuals' income growth, the number of adapted housing units in a community, and the number of adapted vehicles for transportation and so on.

I seem to see in the eyes of parliamentarians that they think that this is not up to them. You are right, to some extent, but you have a key role, because you are public decision-makers. The decisions to act are partially up to you. The disabled are your constituents, your citizens, the children of your friends, your relatives or people who work with you. It is up to you to decide what is within your field of jurisdiction and which areas of activity you support in the short and medium term.

You should not say, that as parliamentarians, you do not manage programs or government actions. You must remember that the officials implement your decisions, and without your decisions, their power to act is frankly limited.

I can tell you, because I have seen this on a number of occasions, that some officials are tirelessly dedicated and can show great ingenuity to try to help the handicapped. I have also seen programs that have infinite possibilities, but are not used to serve the handicapped as they should be.

• 1205

It is up to you to make decisions concerning resource allocation. When Minister Paul Martin appeared before you, he asked you some questions. What are the most appropriate measures for federal action? How can federal initiatives complement provincial initiatives? How can the tax system be used to help the disabled?

These are not new questions, we have never found clear answers. This government has tried to answer them on three occasions with, we have to admit, limited success. We can recall the social security reform under Minister Axworthy, the task force headed by Andy Scott, three years ago, and, most recently, in the context of the Social Union, the federal-provincial-territorial effort that led to In Unison.

When we list all these things, everything seems to have been said. We have defined the questions with respect to the disabled, parliamentarians have asked the questions on the role of the federal government on many occasions. The policy analysts identified the results and we're trying to find ways to measure them.

It seems to me that everything is now ready for action. But where do we begin? I'm saying that we have to go beyond all of this and turn words into actions.

The parliamentarians have to clearly define the role that the federal government intends to play with respect to disabled people.

The federal bureaucracy must facilitate the related actions, i.e., identify a responsibility centre for issues dealing with the disabled, a sort of nerve centre that would have the authority as well as the financial and human resources to act, as is the case for issues related to children.

The advocacy associations for the disabled have defined the problems over the years. They must now state the results that they expect. In trying to identify the desired results, start by looking at the sectors that are really within the federal jurisdiction. We have to see what the expectations are in the fields of post- secondary education and with respect to employment support measures; what do you expect from In Unison, and how do you want to turn this framework into action; what type of negotiations might take place between the federal government and the provinces and territories with respect to the disabled; what proportion of regular programs should be voted to the disabled; what research subjects do you wish to pursue. I think that it is now your turn to speak.

I would like to conclude by reminding you that three years ago, Andy Scott entitled his report The Willingness to Act. There is a willingness, and the present enthusiasm is truly encouraging. If the will is there, now is the time to act. This is the type of discussion that we would like to have in the round tables.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you so much, Marie.

I think that sets a huge challenge for each of the tables, and I think we need to go directly to the tables. We will have hopefully 45 minutes at the tables.

As for picking up a little lunch, it's whatever you can design, so that there isn't a big lineup for lunch. If we spent 25 minutes getting lunch it would make my heart go pitter-patter. So I would like you to go to the tables and at least introduce one another and maybe go and get lunch on an ad hoc basis, or as we come back.

Yes?

• 1210

Ms. Ruth Warrick (Hard of Hearing Society): Could I make a request? If table seven could meet over here then we would have access to the hearing equipment. Would that be possible? At the back we do not have access to the equipment.

The Chair: Ruth, you're now at table two. In trying to get us five minutes per table to report, and having lost one member of Parliament, we will now collapse table seven. So I will ask, Ruth, that you join Judi Longfield at what was to be table two, but we'll move it over here so that you have the hearing equipment, and that Sarah Hardy could also be part of that group too. We also would like Sharlyn Ayotte and Peggy Morgan to join Ken Epp at table three. We would like Fran Cutler and Pauline Mantha to join Wendy Lill at table four.

It's la table bilingue, is that right? We'll have Madeleine at la table bilingue, numéro cinq, and Andy Scott, and we will have Ray McIsaac joining Andy Scott at table six.

• 1212

• 1307

The Chair: We will resume. As there are six groups to report, with the will of the room, we can decide to have four-minute reports or five-minute reports. Are people comfortable until 1.45? Is there a consensus that we can go 15 minutes over? Okay. Thank you.

We will begin with Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott: Thank you.

I apologize in advance for the fact that I'm going to have to leave. I don't want to suggest that I'm not as interested in everybody else's report as all of you will be in mine.

I think our group, in dealing with the question.... We all did the same questions, I take it, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Andy Scott: When we discussed how the social union and the In Unison concepts could be applied to the lives of people with disabilities, I think we were of two minds. One was that we would identify specific substantial public policy areas of interest—and I think one of the people mentioned, for instance, employment support programs—and focus our efforts around using those instruments to deal with specific questions. However there was another view that in fact we should use those instruments to deal with a broader challenge, which is probably the accountability, the lens issue, and so on.

I think I can say safely that what we decided in our group is that we are going to have to do these concurrently, that we need to do both of those things at the same time. We need to do practical things. We need to use the instruments that are available for us to do practical things, like employment supports and so on, and at the same time use the social union framework to deal with disability in a broader context, if for no other reason than that we wouldn't probably ever be able to decide which substantial one to pursue, if that became our objective.

So on the question of how they could be applied, I think we've picked two different ways. One process is broad and intergovernmental, although always Canadian-driven, and the other is more substantial around particular areas that we all recognize are a problem.

Regarding what the disability agenda is today, I think we decided not to deal with that question because it has been dealt with enough. So it isn't what we want, but how to get what we want that is of interest here.

In terms of the desired outcomes, again, at a very general level, I think we know what those are in terms of citizenship and so on. We want the same basic standards of quality of life that everybody else takes for granted in the most part.

• 1310

So the question then becomes, to achieve those outcomes, what is it that we should do that will actually have some results? And we talked about some things that seemed to be moving forward on the political agenda. I think we determined that the reason we don't get what governments appear to want to do is because of the complexity. It isn't because they don't want to do it; it's because they can't figure out how. And that takes us all the way back to our first question about the social union and In Unison. We would like to see those approaches be the “how”.

So we fill it in, and the way we fill it in, Madam Chair, is by recognizing, I think concurrently, a number of practical issues that we would feed into the system. We'd say okay, have you got your In Unison document? Deal with this, this, and this. And at the same time, we'd convince the government, in its social union discussions, to put something in place to actually find out whether they ever did. Is that fair?

Now that is a very short shrift on a very good conversation—I'm looking for nods, because I know who was in the group—but I think that is fair.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Excellent.

Madam.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Here is the bilingual table. I'm delighted to say that the bilingual table spoke primarily in French. That's extraordinary.

Before I try to summarize what was said at this table, I would like to tell you that everyone found that it was excellent to organize people into small groups, because the discussions were very dynamic. In any case, this is a winning formula, and it should be promoted if this is something new.

We obviously had three very broad questions. We didn't actually fix them all up, but we did consider everything in the context. I will give you our comments based upon my notes.

It is clear for the participants that the framework agreement is a tool. We had a very interesting discussion in this regard on assessing the results, and we wondered who should be given this responsibility. There was consensus on the fact that the results should be assessed by the people who receive the services, namely by the people who are different and have different needs. Moreover, one participant said with much humour that we could even make comparisons between the various governments, at the federal, provincial or municipal levels. I thought that this was quite interesting, because when we think we are being assessed, we may work a little harder.

With respect to the evaluation, we have to look at the community services, examine how human resources are developed both in the fields of education and labour, and perhaps consider positive discrimination, which would require an enormous initiative in education. It was pointed out that positive discrimination for women was not being achieved very easily.

A number of reservations was also expressed. It was said that the document In Unison was full of fine objectives and values that everyone supports, but a fear was expressed that it might be used to lower standards. One of the participants told us that in Alberta, the government had indeed used the document In Unison to reduce services, even though it had to back down after there was a major outcry. And let's not forget what one of our witnesses told us this morning about the wheelchair story. Have some things changed in Manitoba and Ontario? It would seem not.

We also talked about the importance of training officials. In many departments, there is a group of officials who look after the disabled, people who are considered as being excluded. But the officials looking after other services in the departments are really not aware of these issues and are not ready to work. If we are in an inclusive society that recognizes the value of persons, in spite of their differences—we all have differences—it might be advisable to undertake training that goes far beyond strictly technical training.

• 1315

I was happy because I was biting my tongue, however, I was careful not to speak: it seems very clear that there has to be a responsible minister, a minister who has the right to review what is being done in the departments. This minister would not merely be responsible for coordination, but would also exercise power. It should not be a junior minister.

If we believe that our society is mature enough to recognize that people who are different are 100% citizens, we have to show this very clearly. We know very well that the importance of the issue is recognized when there is empowerment.

Somebody was speaking to us about the example of Quebec, which has set up an office for persons with disabilities. Apparently that office had had some very good results as regards disseminating information, but there were some less desirable effects as well. For example, there is a temptation to say: You are someone with disabilities, go to the office for persons with disabilities. Organizations working in this sector are sometimes less enthusiastic, fearing some subsidies may disappear. Everyone has noticed that the cuts occur not just in these offices, but at all levels.

A great deal was said this morning about measuring our success in achieving objectives. Participants all agreed that the real standard should be the quality of the overall environment. We have to consider whether the environment in which we find ourselves can suit everybody. In other words, the more an environment meets the needs of everyone, all needs being included, the more this environment deserves a high mark. There would be a change of attitude: it would no longer be the person with differences who was being studied, but rather the environment in which this person evolves.

We finished by talking about fundamental rights, of course, which is very good. But it is perhaps more telling if we speak about economic and social rights. That is an aspect which deserves our attention.

I don't know if I have managed to summarize everything that was said. Someone is nodding. So you see, it's not bad when a member of Parliament listens.

[English]

The Chair: Excellent listening.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We had a delightful group: Angelo, Nancy, Elaine, Tony, Gary, Mary, Peggy, Sharlyn, and myself. I'm going to read the notes I took.

The first question was how can the social union and In Unison be applied to the lives of people with disabilities.

First, the documents have not been made available to people who are visually impaired. This was as a beginning. One of the members indicated that she, as a member of the public, was given quite a runaround before she was able to get them, right from the organization itself here. I think that is a bit of an indictment.

Second, business has not been invited to the table. Businesses run by the disabled have to compete with not-for-profit companies, and they have unfair tax conditions. Of course, implied in that is that those tax conditions should be fixed.

Third, economic disincentive is a major problem. If you go for training, you lose benefits: assistance, health, transportation. It's primarily provincial, but it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

Fourth, we need a federal policy in place showing a commitment at cabinet level. We need leadership shown by a minister in the federal government, as well as at each provincial government. We need high-profile leadership.

• 1320

Five, we need a Canadian disabilities act. Is the charter enough? We need a commitment of resources. Reallocate the resources we have, assigning them more equitably.

Six, the document In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues and the will to act are good. We now need to get into action.

Seven, there is consensus that the documents are a good framework and a beginning around which action can be built, subject to the allocation of adequate resources.

Then we came to the second question regarding the disability agenda for today and for the next 18 months. Right off, someone questioned whether the 18-month timeline was reasonable. We are really looking at the long-term future for the disabled in our country.

Second, again it came up, appoint a minister, assign accountability, assign resources, assign responsibility, state measurable objectives. There are lists of desirable outcomes in the documents that are available.

Third, develop and start implementing an action plan. This plan can't be built in 10 minutes. We need a comprehensive business plan that meets the objectives of the social union.

Fourth, we need an office for disability issues. It would create profile and a place where issues could be focused. It should be taken out of HRDC and put directly under the responsibility of an individual minister, answerable to the Prime Minister and to government.

Fifth, the government should design programs and services that work for all Canadians. There was an emphasis here that we should be as mainstream as possible.

Sixth is to develop criteria that define what the disability lens is. Procurement should be included in this lens. The government should be required to buy things that are accessible. This would do much to speed up design by suppliers. The standard in all offices and workplaces should be universal accessibility. Maybe the name should be changed from disability lens to accessibility lens.

On the third question of what the desired outcomes are, we should first aim for equality in all the issues—transportation, housing, education, health care and employment.

Second, we need a comprehensive labour market strategy. Its measures of success would include evaluation of the kind of work people are getting. What you measure is what you value. We are so focused on employment that other things are being lost. The emphasis on outcomes instead of inputs and outputs is good.

Third, the government should demonstrate its commitment to the principle of equal access to information and public consultation by requiring that the communications plan associated with each memorandum to cabinet include a section addressing the accessibility requirements appropriate to each initiative. In other words, it would become a pervasive plan.

Fourth, when labour market agreements are reviewed, they should specifically address disability issues.

Fifth, there should be legislative teeth put into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sixth, the recommendations from The Will to Act should be picked up and implemented without further consultations, study and endless committee meetings.

Madam Chair, those are the notes I took. We have much beyond those. I would particularly recommend to the committee and to the officials that they should look at the document by Sharlyn. She has a further development of one of the concepts there, so I'm sure she'll give you a copy of that if she hasn't done so already.

I have a copy of my notes here for your records. I also made a few extra copies for those members who are at our table, if you want a copy of them.

Thank you.

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

As Ms. Longfield has had to go to a booking she couldn't get out of, I'm pleased that Randy Dickinson, from the Premier's Council on the Status of Disabled Persons of New Brunswick, is prepared to report from your group.

Mr. Randy Dickinson (Executive Director, Premier's Council on the Status of Disabled Persons of New Brunswick): First of all, it's a pleasure to represent a female MP. It's another disadvantaged minority group I would like to put into my inventory as having had some opportunity to share in their experiences.

• 1325

Our group is very active. We want to preface our remarks on behalf of the group by pointing out that it really was frustrating, because of the time constraints, to try to come up with constructive and really value-added discussion in such a compressed timeframe. We hope the committee will, in future avenues and opportunities for consultation with the public, perhaps reserve more adequate time periods to enable this to take place.

We flipped the order of the questions around a bit and wanted to sort of make sure we had some consensus about the sorts of desired outcomes that would be needed in order to be able to decide how the strategy might be developed to get there. I'm not going to list all of the different ones that came out of the group—that is a sort of cross-disability range of issues—but there were a few interesting variations on a couple of them in the way they were expressed. There was the observation that we could frame equality in terms of outcomes, or the equality of results, and not necessarily try to set up a system where everybody gets exactly the same service or support but rather what it is you're trying to achieve with that system.

There was also a fair amount of consternation about the interpretation of some of the recent court cases in Canada, the Eldridge case and the Eaton case, which on the one hand may move forward legal protection for certain rights and perspectives for people with disabilities, but in the actual implementation or interpretation at the front lines may not actually follow through in that manner.

We felt there needed to be more partnership with industry in the private sector to support accommodation for people with disabilities—for example, the efforts on the automatic banking machines. We felt it was important to not just talk about government programs and services being accessible, but also accessibility in the private sector.

There was a lot of commentary in the various recommendations about unavailability of supports generally to people with disabilities, whether they be assistive devices, supplies, attendants, interpreter services, etc. Again, there was the observation that the time and effort for consultation at a national meeting needs more opportunity to get consumers involved and to work toward the next phase, which is the solution orientation, not just repeating over and over again what the problems and the issues are, or the objectives.

We talked about some of the methods that came out of our discussions about how to achieve or move this agenda forward—possibilities, for example, of increasing funding to the court challenges program that would allow more pressure to take action, and maybe changing some of the criteria in the legislation so that provincial legislation and programs could be challenged as well as enabling representative groups to proceed under court challenge and not require individual consumers to take all that burden on their own.

On the accountability measures that needed to be developed in different programs, provincially and federally, we were hopeful that the parliamentary committee itself would take the opportunity to spread the information and the messages you've heard here today to other parliamentary committees and departments so that we don't create another silo of disability information in your own committee without the cross-pollination to the other MPs and the other ministers.

There is need to get Treasury Board more aware of information needs of persons with disabilities, so that as they move forward to reorganize government technology and information exchanges, accessibility will be prominent in their planning, not something they add on at the end after they start getting complaints from the public.

We seemed to have consensus in the group for some sort of support for a minister of state or somebody specifically responsible within the highest level of government for disability issues and some kind of coordinating mechanism across the bureaucracy also to cover disability issues. That might be something different from the current Office of Disability Issues. It was felt that some reformation has to take place in order to ensure cross-departmental status and power and not be housed within a specific department.

Some of the other mechanisms we talked about were the need to share information before meetings, to get better access to data on current employment levels, income levels, access to supports, etc. There's a feeling in the group that a lot of the service providers don't want to provide current data on their programs and services because it will only fuel the criticism about how little they're doing for people with disabilities and achieving results.

As a way to spring forward on the agenda from this meeting, we thought the issue of disability support should be a key issue for action. The In Unison process is hopefully going to lead to partnerships with consumers and communities. But we felt disability supports was an area that crossed all disabilities and all sectors and could help people put their heads around something concrete.

There was also a suggestion to establish some kind of an advisory council to either your committee or the federal-provincial-territorial group on social union that would be specifically disability-focused and would have significant representation from the disability consumer area, as well as having a clear mandate and adequate resources to have some impact on the discussions so they would actually benefit people with disabilities.

• 1330

It was clear, in our group at least, that there needs to be a coordinated federal-provincial, and even municipal, if I can add that, disability strategy, because the federal government alone cannot act in isolation, and certainly the provinces can't act alone if we want to have some consistency or portability of results across the country. There was some support in the group for a Canadians with disabilities act, and it was clear that we wanted concrete action.

If I could add a couple of quick other observations, because I was also supposed to have a role in the provincial level, again, the group had a lot of other comments, but I want to start my remark by saying we need action. We heard that this morning over and over, from speaker after speaker, from perspective after perspective. The issues are complex. Coordination, cooperation, and partnerships need to move forward, from the “in theory” and “in principle” to a reality. The areas of In Unison—citizenship, disability supports, employment and income security—are the areas in which we need to see that agenda progress.

In one way, I was very excited to hear the speaker this morning talk about an avoidance of errors theory of government bureaucracy, but I think that's an issue and philosophy that sometimes impacts negatively on all sectors and partners within the delivery system. We have to get across the message that the biggest error of all is failure to act. Acting and making a mistake should not be something for which people are penalized, as long as the objective and the motivation is positive.

By the way, we like the idea of changing the name from “disability lens” to “accessibility lens.” I think that's a more positive issue. If we criticize the federal government and departments for silos and turf protection and lack of communication, we have to pass that same message along to provinces, and also to the non-governmental volunteer community section. I've seen the same things happen, where we talk about cooperation, communication, and partnerships, but when it comes down to it, people are competing for resources, power, control and, even worse, credit and recognition, instead of working together for fairness, sharing, common sense and progress on these issues.

I like the concept of a business plan with outcome indicators that are both quantitative and qualitative so that we have some way to measure whether we've been successful, and not just be in a reactive knee-jerk position all the time.

Leadership is essential, whether we have a minister of state and certainly the parliamentary committee that you're all a part of, and perhaps some kind of a citizens' forum on social policy as it relates to disability issues might help move this agenda forward.

Again, if we're going to have a national meeting, it's like training students to read their examination papers: They read all the questions, but they have to save enough time to write the answers as well or their exams aren't going to be of very much value. The community must be involved, and the federal-provincial-territorial governments, but the tires hit the pavement at the front lines and we need a reality check to ensure that all of the hands know what they're doing and what they should be doing.

So instead of assigning blame for things that are not being done, let's assign responsibility for who should be doing what and get on with the business. It does not have to be all or nothing, because if we wait for the Utopian society, we will never have all the resources, we'll never have all the priorities lined up at the same time, at least probably not in my lifetime. But we can move ahead once we have some coordination and some agreement on what the priorities are.

Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of our committee and on behalf of the other people here, we want to leave you with the same message as I began the talk with: It's time for action; it's time for results; it's time to move the agenda forward. We appreciate your interest and your support. Let's work together to get something done as a result of this meeting today.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I will report from our group that there were concerns that the social union mustn't just be left as a process; there actually had to be content. There were some concerns that the description of the social union was mainly a process exercise. On things like mobility rights, particularly even reserve and off-reserve mobility rights and the vocational rehab, you almost speak to the necessity of a separate social union for aboriginal communities, but that we actually have to make sure that we understand what those words in the document really mean.

• 1335

There was a feeling that the public is already onside on the disability file and that there's nobody who thinks we shouldn't be doing this. As is often said, no taxpayer thinks we shouldn't be creating more taxpayers. So I think this is not a difficult sell.

On the 18-month plan, our group felt that really what we want is a real strategy, and a real strategy must say what, by when, and how. It can't be loose. Real strategies mean there has to be stakeholder buy-in, and the strategy will not work unless the stakeholders have bought in. I think people feel that what has been happening is not strategic. There was a lot of resonance for what Don Lenihan said in terms of planning and needing to have the community and the politicians involved as early as possible and not to ask them to rubber-stamp something that has already been to cabinet. If you believe that two and two makes five, you can only get a better document by consulting earlier and immediately getting the buy-in.

There was a lot of resonance again with regard to this business plan, that we have a vision and now how do we operationalize it, what are the outcomes, and where's the accountability. All of that should be part of a real strategy, which surely could be developed within 18 months.

The performance indicators and outcome measures we talked about in terms of a strategy would have to involve citizenship and inclusivity, but we know that you also have to value unpaid work, especially the work of families looking after children with disabilities, that unless you actually measure that, as Mr. Lenihan pointed out, it's not valued. So we have to make sure we're doing that piece as well.

I certainly enjoyed hearing that people did feel politicians could do policy. Even the first few letters are the same. It seemed like a good idea to me. Again, I think it's important to involve politicians and the stakeholders. With regard to the evolution of the social union document, people need to understand that politicians weren't involved in this either. This is now step two.

We felt that if you were going to put in a strategy, you would need some comment on the structure. Whether it is the minister responsible for persons with disabilities or even seniors and persons with disabilities, we would give on that. We do have a Secretary of State for Children and Youth, and maybe we could have what I lovingly refer to as a minister responsible for body betrayal. We would take away the “we” and the “they” of this issue and recognize that one day everybody will be able to relate to the issues around independence, financial security, full citizenship, and participation.

There was a comment that the subcommittee become a standing committee. There was a comment that we should be active participants in the review of the human rights legislation over this next year and that the human rights office could do things other than just complaint-based work, that they could bring to themselves the capacity to do proactive audits. There was a comment that just dealing with complaint-based cases doesn't do the job if you aren't sending people out to find out about transportation and the reality of living with disabilities that would actually affect way more persons than in the complaint-based group.

In the outcome measures, there were things we can measure, such as how educated they are, whether they're underemployed, the disproportionate number of aboriginals, and transportation. All of those outcomes you can measure. But there was a feeling that we could set the same targets there as we do on balancing the books. Governments have set some targets in the past and have met them, so that's good.

• 1340

There was a caution, however, about workplace targets, that able-bodied people are sometimes cherry-picked to meet provincial targets in labour market agreements and that you will hire the easy people. But there is also a spectrum of persons with disabilities who may actually have that same problem. Somebody with a smaller disability may be chosen to get the training, rather than somebody who might need more resources in order to get employed. So the same in and out needs to be looked at as a huge spectrum, and it should be clearly not okay to exclude in averaging the people who have the more major disabilities.

I think that's it.

We will finish with Wendy Lill. I didn't say it before, but Wendy Lill pushed very hard to get this subcommittee struck, and we're all very grateful.

Ms. Wendy Lill: How is it that everyone else in this room had an hour and a half to discuss things, and we had only half an hour?

I also should say that I'm very handicapped by my own handwriting, so I'm going to just do my best here.

We had a very good discussion. I'd say that the main concerns were around the social union and its meaning, and then we came back to the different roles of the subcommittee.

I'll start with the social union. There is a sense that it does no harm, it's out there, and it's a nice document. It does say that governments will cooperate more, and we want to hold on to that idea. I think the group wants to like the social union and wants it to be a useful document. But the point was made, following up on what Laurie Beachell said, that the charter of rights already says what we need for persons with disabilities, so let's just get on with it.

The point was made that deaf Canadians may just see the social union as being another gimmick. They want to see something a bit more specific. The bottom line at the end of the day and all of that is whether the social union will improve the situation for persons with disabilities. Will it remain the same or will it worsen?

The social union document does indicate that there is a massive jurisdictional problem. Someone mentioned the fact that there's going to have to be an increasing bureaucracy to somehow administer this new document and possibly a federal-provincial-territorial secretariat.

All of these things look as if they will have to come about, but the main point is, where is the beef? Are we or are we not going to get better services for persons with disabilities?

One of the areas we kept coming back to is children, the idea that children with disabilities somehow just never make it into the picture. Someone suggested that the national longitudinal survey of children and youth is a great instrument in following children through academic and social performance and all sorts of things, and it would be very easy to include disabled children in that. It should happen, obviously, and we should recommend that strongly.

With regard to persons with HIV, which includes many disabled persons, it's the idea that people want the opportunity to work.

Just in terms of recommendations right here and now, we need more accessibility to CPP a number of times, we should remove the support service from income testing, and we need fast-tracking to get on CPP, so that there's much fluidity between working and not working or in taking a break from the workforce.

Just in terms of our committee, one person made the interesting point that this subcommittee could be a rapid response team that, basically, would keep an eye on departments and try to actually be a watchdog on issues that are supposedly under way and being looked after. We could very specifically be watchdogging the will-to-act task force, and in fact we have actually done some interrogation on that already.

• 1345

Well, I think that's probably enough. There was a comment that government is providing band-aid solutions, and I want stitches. I kind of like that expression.

I'm going to say one thing in summary. I'm so grateful that the people in this room continue to have faith and patience in coming to Ottawa and sitting in rooms like this, on and on and on. It's the generosity of the human spirit that keeps you here, and we appreciate that. We understand we have to be involved in action, and out of this meeting, we will certainly try to see what we can act on reasonably and effectively.

I think in stories, because I'm a playwright by trade, and Laurie's story about the woman who had to possibly go to the border and get moved from one wheelchair into another says a million things about the problems we're facing right now. So if anything, as I sat and listened to the voices and the papers being read, I thought that it's the stories that fire people's imaginations and fire my own ability to understand what has to happen next. It's stories like that and those that I hear from people.

I think the policy-makers and the politicians, but particularly the policy-makers, have to be really involved in those stories. You almost would like them to not be able to put pen to paper until they had heard and known about and thought through clearly a day in the life of someone with a disability.

That's it. Thanks very much.

The Chair: Well, Wendy, I think you've summed it up beautifully. I think we are all grateful you are so patient.

I thought when I heard the people from Nunavut talk about how.... People wanted to know how they'd accomplished this without a war or any of these things, and they said “We're patient people. We're used to sitting by the ice hole waiting for the fish to come.” And I thought it was interesting, as we see the kind of....

I hope you will see that we don't really want you to have to be patient any more. We think you've done an amazing job keeping the flame burning on this issue, and we hope that structurally and using the full weight of Parliament we'll be able to actually move this agenda for you—move all of your good work and all of the vision and values you have set for us—to actually help implement and move it in real action.

I do say again that the social union has opened a window for this in terms of a way of going about it, but the “what” will have to continue to be in the domain of the political setting of vision and values that can only be done by a true and real consultation by the people who know best.

Jane Jacobs always says that good public policy requires that you be able to see in your mind's eye the people affected. I think even better public policy is set by the people who actually are in the trenches and know exactly what the gaps are and what needs to be done.

We hope that with our little committee, which has been able to deal with the eleven ministers and the reality of the silos, we will begin to deal with these difficult jurisdictional horizontal issues in a totally different way. And we hope the relevance of Parliament and the relevance of the tribunal of the people.... We will take our hoped-for successes in this very perfect horizontal issue into a better way of doing business in government and decrease the cynicism people have about government and politicians. It is actually about democracy and citizenship, our taking this little tiny wedge at making sure we will begin to do things differently.

• 1350

I thank you so much for being part of this. And I think all of us on the committee commit that we will make sure you have not wasted yet another day. We will move this issue forward.

I do want to say that I have to thank all the facilitators, the interpreters, the translators, and of course the magical support staff, who just made things happen, including the Braille versions of In Unison that miraculously appeared out at the registration desk. I'm thrilled about that. And I thank Fiona and Lucy, Sandra and Bill, whom you know, and the magical Danielle, who was able to put all of this together.

Thank you all. I hope we will see you again, but with an “A” report card.

The meeting is adjourned.