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, April 15, 1999

• 1532

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

There are a couple of tiny little housekeeping things we would like to do before the minister arrives, if that's possible. Wendy has requested that, and she can only stay for the first half hour.

Wendy, just table the one report and then we'll deal with the correspondence later.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I would like to table correspondence I received. I put forward a request for a status report on the Andy Scott task force back in October, and the document has finally come back to us. I want to table this so that everybody can take a look at it so we can get an update and you can all see where we're at now with this. We can perhaps have a discussion about that at a later time, once everybody has digested it.

The Chair: Thank you, Wendy. The clerk has pointed out that at this committee we don't table, but we can give it to the clerk for distribution to the committee.

Ms. Wendy Lill: That's fine, perfect. And translate it, right?

The Chair: You also just wanted to comment on the letter from....

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think all of the committee members received a letter from the president of the Association for Community Living, expressing concern about the national children's agenda and the fact that it is very exclusive of disabled children. I'm thinking that perhaps we might want to have somebody from the national children's agenda program discuss this with us. I'm not sure; I throw that out as a suggestion.

The Chair: Actually, Wendy, I think that's excellent. Minister Rock will be coming next week, and I think it's something we can discuss with him.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay.

• 1535

The Chair: I also want a little bit of direction from the committee, in that we have drafted a response and said that we would send a copy to Minister Rock and Minister Pettigrew. On these sorts of things I need a bit of direction, when it's so straightforward as to be requesting inclusion in a process. Is it the will of the committee that as chair I respond and circulate it, or do you want the correspondence to come here first?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just personally want to be able to give assurance to CACL that we have noted this really important problem and that we will be pointing it out at every opportunity to the ministers involved.

The Chair: Excellent. We've drafted the letter, and we will do that. I'm sure we will make sure that those questions are asked of the minister next week.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay.

The Chair: The text of the minister's remarks are on their way over here. Is it the will of the committee that we begin, and then they will be distributed in English and French as soon as they arrive? Is that okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We welcome to our committee the Honourable Stéphane Dion, who is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Privy Council, and Phil Ventura, from the Privy Council Office.

I will advise the committee that I had the privilege of having Minister Dion in St. Paul's last week for a townhall meeting on the social union, so he is apprised of our interest in having the disability file high up on the agenda of phase two of the social union.

Welcome, Minister.

[Translation]

The Honourable Stéphane Dion (President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'd like to introduce Phil Ventura who is with me today. He works in my office and is director general of all kinds of things.

Mr. Phil Ventura (Director General, Coordination and Advisory Services): I'm Director General of Coordination and Advisory Services.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Right, Coordination and Advisory Services.

[English]

Intergovernmental cooperation does not guarantee success, but it is an essential condition for improving policies and programs for people with disabilities. This is what I will try to demonstrate over the next few minutes by focusing in particular on the opportunities and advantages afforded by the new social union framework. You will understand how pleased I am to appear today before your committee to discuss this fundamental issue.

[Translation]

As you know, governments by themselves cannot bear sole responsibility for the integration of people with disabilities into all sectors of Canadian society, much less one order of government on its own. This is an objective that concerns all of us, whether we are business leaders, union representatives, members of a community group or private citizens. We all have our share of this responsibility and we can all do something to bring about change.

The federal government helps people with disabilities, in accordance with its constitutional powers, for example through the pension plan, EI sick leave benefits, tax credits and other fiscal measures and services provided directly to veterans and aboriginal people.

The federal government also helps fund programs and services delivered by the provinces and territories, through intergovernmental transfers such as the Canada Health and Social Transfer, equalization payments, and the Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities Initiative.

The constitutional foundations of the federal government's legitimate and necessary action are therefore solidly established. To deny their existence, as the government of my province does, is certainly not in the interest of people with disabilities. It would be difficult to find even one country that has adopted good policies for people with disabilities without using the resources of its central or federal government.

• 1540

Having said this, however, the provinces also have important, even vital responsibilities in this field, including their role in relation to social assistance, education, health care, workers' compensation, and social services delivery in general.

Finally, municipalities, which fall under provincial jurisdiction, also play an important role in the everyday lives of people with disabilities, both through their responsibility for delivering social services and social assistance, and through their responsibility for the development of local infrastructures, public transit, and recreational and cultural services such as libraries and parks.

[English]

Since all governments have responsibilities in this field, we need to work together, all the more so since even in the opinion of experts in this field the issue of people with disabilities is an extremely complex one, one of the most extremely complex files of policies we may find.

As you know, the needs of people with disabilities vary substantially from one person to the next because of the specific type of disability. Obviously, the needs of a vision-impaired person are not the same as those of a hearing-impaired person or those of a mobility-impaired or mentally-impaired person. As well, some disabilities are temporary, while others are permanent. In some cases the severity of a disability is stable and varies little over time, while in others it can fluctuate significantly or be degenerative and become more severe as time passes.

This means that there are hundreds of possibilities, thus increasing the complexity of the problem and underlining the importance of working together in order to share our respective strengths, experiences, and skills.

In my opinion, working in isolation would be a great mistake. The watertight compartment approach is not helpful to people with disabilities, and reduces their opportunities to become fully integrated into all sectors of Canadian society.

Governments are already spending considerable amounts on behalf of people with disabilities. Federal investment alone in this area amounts to $7 billion each year, but the results don't always reach our expectations and many needs are still not being met. People with disabilities and Canadian taxpayers generally are entitled to ask whether they are getting value for their money.

Although Canada's performance is recognized internationally, as demonstrated by the fact that we received the Franklin D. Roosevelt international award last year, I am convinced we can do better, and that the way to do better includes a more effective partnership and better cooperation among governments. This is the path we have chosen in Canada, following the example of all the other federations that have had some success in this area.

We must continue to work together with people with disabilities to develop flexible approaches that will allow us to respond to the diversity of needs. We have to work together in order to share information about what works well and what does not work as well to create a sort of emulation among governments and to allow each government to benefit to the greatest possible degree from the experience of the other governments.

Finally, we have to work together to develop a common framework for action, not in order to standardize everything, but on the contrary, to build on the diversity of our experiences. We therefore need a framework to provide at least a minimum degree of cooperation for government action, to promote equal opportunity across the country, and to address issues that affect more than one government or are intergovernmental in nature.

• 1545

Let's take, for example, the issue of interprovincial mobility of people with disabilities. I know you are all well aware that this is a major concern for people with disabilities, who too often are afraid of losing access to the programs, services, or equipment essential to them if they move to another province or territory.

The other day my colleague Pierre Pettigrew cited the case of a high school student in Burnaby, British Columbia, whose chances of attending university are reduced because the expensive hearing aid he uses belongs to the school board, which will take it from him the day he leaves school.

As you know, that is not an isolated case. Too often, people with disabilities may risk losing access to services like home care or equipment essential to their full integration into Canadian society—for example, an electric wheelchair—if they decide to move to another part of the country.

A common framework for action is an important tool to help us resolve problems such as interprovincial mobility.

In recent years, in partnership with the provinces and territories, a great deal has been accomplished in the three areas I have just mentioned: first, developing flexible approaches to enable us to respond to the diversity of needs; secondly, exchanging information; and thirdly, establishing a common framework for action. In my opinion, the decision by the first ministers in June 1996 to establish the Federal Provincial Territorial Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal—what a title—and to make people with disabilities a priority for interdepartmental cooperation has a great deal to do with this.

That decision did not happen by chance. The first ministers realized in 1996 that interdepartmental cooperation was the right approach to improving social programs and services for Canadians, especially those for people with disabilities.

I feel that the employability assistance for people with disabilities initiative is a good example of a flexible approach that serves people with disabilities well by responding to the diversity of their needs. As you know, this is a shared-cost initiative, on a 50-50 basis, which has been developed jointly with the provinces and territories and is designed to put in place measures to help people with disabilities prepare for the job market and find and keep a job. These measures are designed and implemented by the provinces, which can adapt them to the specific needs of their populations. The federal contribution to this initiative is $193 million this year, and I want to point out that cost-sharing agreements have been concluded with every province.

The enhanced interdepartmental cooperation of recent years has also begun to promote better exchanges of information between governments, and we are already seeing the benefits of this. I will give you an example that, while it may seem trivial, could have a major impact for people with disabilities and lead governments to rethink the way they develop their policies.

The Government of British Columbia decided that any new policy proposal must be subject to an assessment of its impact on people with disabilities. The information provided by the B.C. government about this process attracted quite a lot of interest among social affairs ministers across the country. I am told that a number of them will consider adopting a similar practice, if they have not already done so. So here is a specific example showing how the exchange of information between governments can help to improve assistance to people with disabilities. Our knowledge of our respective policies and programs is still too limited.

• 1550

The interdepartmental cooperation of recent years has resulted in substantial progress toward putting in place a common framework for action. As you know, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers, with the exception of the Quebec minister, recently agreed on the content of a paper entitled In Unison. This paper recognizes the shared responsibility of governments for people with disabilities and the need to work in partnership.

[Translation]

I would now like to turn my attention to the Social Union Framework. The Social Union Framework does not represent a new direction in our efforts to help people with disabilities. It provides a strong incentive to continually go further in essential intergovernmental cooperation.

Concluded in Ottawa by the First Ministers, with the exception of Premier Bouchard, on February 4, 1999, the framework agreement is based on the same three pillars of intergovernmental cooperation that have guided us so far in working for people with disabilities: flexibility, common action and exchanges of information.

In this regard, the Social Union Framework opens up new opportunities to strengthen intergovernmental cooperation even more and service people with disabilities even better.

I closely followed the discussions leading up to the framework agreement on February 4, and I can assure you that both my colleague Anne McLellan, the minister responsible for this issue, and the federal negotiating team always kept in the forefront of their minds the concerns and needs of people with disabilities. And the various components of the agreement reflect this.

The agreement contains the commitment of the governments to demonstrate transparency, to be more accountable to their public, and to work closely with the population and groups concerned.

We also insisted that the agreement include strong principles concerning the equality of all Canadians and the promotion of equal opportunities for all, as well as the need to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live or travel in Canada, can access essential social programs and services of comparable quality; and the need to promote full and active participation by all Canadians in the social and economic life of our country.

With the provincial and territorial governments, we made a commitment to ensure that social programs receive adequate, affordable, stable and durable funding.

The agreement also commits the governments to improving their cooperation and cooperating more effectively with the aboriginal peoples, among who, as you are aware, the proportion of people with disabilities is significantly above the Canadian average.

We also made a commitment to cooperate with the provincial and territorial governments in exercising the federal spending power. In all modern federations, this power plays a vital role in implementing major social policies.

In Canada, the federal spending power has been used less than in other federations, and fewer conditions are attached to it. It has played a useful role, which must be preserved. We will achieve this, once again, through intergovernmental cooperation, and not through unilateral action on the one side and refusal to cooperate on the other. From this point of view, the social union is an innovative model not found in other federations.

We also agreed on a new dispute prevention and settlement mechanism providing for joint fact-finding and the participation of third parties to determine the facts or secure the services of a mediator. The mechanism focuses on avoiding disputes and resolving them informally when they do occur, as all Canadians want.

Last, we required a clear commitment by the provincial and territorial governments to the mobility principle, and we agreed on specific provisions to eliminate barriers to mobility.

It is doubtful whether the framework agreement can eliminate all barriers to mobility associated with differences in benefit levels among the provinces. However, it will encourage the governments to make substantial progress, particularly regarding portability of support measures, an objective agreed on by the governments during the In Unison exercise, as you know.

As provided in the framework agreement itself, it will be the subject of a comprehensive review at the end of the third year. I know you will agree with me that one of the criteria for the success of the Social Union Framework will necessarily be the progress made in the area of policies and programs for people with disabilities.

• 1555

[English]

To conclude, the social union framework expresses the political and moral commitment of Canada's first ministers to more effective cooperation in order to improve our social policies and programs. There is still a great deal of work to be done to better integrate people with disabilities into all sectors of Canadian society. The size of this task is equalled only by its importance.

I believe the social union framework will be a key tool in enhancing intergovernmental cooperation and citizen engagement and in strengthening our social programs and policies for the greater good of our population, especially people with disabilities. I am confident that the review of the framework, which we will undertake in three years' time, will confirm this belief.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

With agreement of the member from the official opposition, because Wendy has a plane to catch, we will see if she has a quick question for the minister.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming in.

I think we may be seeing some exciting things here with the social union idea. I just want to look at some very specific problems, though, that we face every day in our offices as MPs. I guess the overall basis of it is the sense of federal and provincial programs not meshing with one another; one gives and one takes away. I want to know how that is going to be addressed in very practical terms. There are many initiatives from the federal government designed to help Canadians, an example of which is the child tax credit, and that is clawed back from people on fixed incomes through provincial programs. We are often talking about people with disabilities in that instance.

Again, in the social union framework, how can we address the very real push-pull, give-take problems that disabled people face every day?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: It is a framework, so it can work only if people use it and there is a commitment of the governments that have signed the agreement to use it. It is written in black and white in the framework that we must have information sharing, priority setting. We must not act by surprise. This is a commitment that governments have. If they don't follow this commitment, it is the role of the opposition to criticize them, but they are supposed to do that. It is a commitment in the framework.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm wondering what your expectations are of Pierre Pettigrew as the lead minister in the area of disabilities. The major concern is unemployment. There was a job forum held yesterday in Toronto for persons with disabilities. The rate of unemployment is around 75% for the population of disabled people, so this is a massive problem. What are your expectations for the Minister of Human Resources Development in this respect?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: He will use the social union framework as an additional incentive to work with the provinces about that in order to have information; second, to know what solutions are proposed by every government; and third, to compare the effectiveness of the solutions that are implemented. I don't have any difficulty with Pierre doing that, because it is in his mind to work as a team. Now we know it is the point of view of every government to work like this too.

• 1600

If I may add as well, many times governments are reluctant to work together because they are afraid the other government will duplicate what they are doing. There are commitments in the agreement that duplication will not occur and that we are not there to steal the merit of the other government. We are supposed to work with transparency. The accountability will be to the public more than between governments, junior and senior governments. This is not the spirit of the agreement at all.

I think this will help, because as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, when I speak with my counterparts, the provincial intergovernmental affairs ministers, one of the big difficulties we have is to convince our colleagues to work together. It's not only because they think they have a bigger head than the other guy; it's also because they are always afraid that then they will lose the capacity to reach the public, because they will lose a lot of time discussing with the other governments, at the end of the day, what we will do. The agreement I think will give them more assurance that in working together they will have better results than having this long bureaucratic process.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just have one more small question. I would like to know where you see the consumers fit into this process. Where will disabled people be able to have input in the social union talks? Finally, I would like to know what role you think our subcommittee can have with regard to the outcomes of the social union and disabled people. We certainly are eager to be of help and to have input here.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I understand why you ask the question, because the process by which the agreement has been done has been criticized as being too secretive. It was secretive. It's just that we felt it was not possible to negotiate through the media. Each time something came out, it did not help the negotiations to go ahead. I always had to phone everyone to assure them not to worry, it's not what they read in the Globe and Mail yesterday. It was very difficult to manage. The agreement as such is a commitment to act with transparency and to include the public. In three years from now the review will be done, and the review will obviously include persons with disabilities and stakeholders involved in the field—obviously.

As to the other part of your question, with the In Unison document there is a commitment of all governments to have a process to extensively consult the population. So already In Unison is working with the spirit of the framework.

About this subcommittee, I think that since Andy Scott, this committee is one of the most important ones in the House. It is working very, very well. It's not my role to decide the future, but I'm very proud to have been invited by you.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Deborah.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Thank you, Stéphane, for coming.

The frustration all of us on the committee have is that we appreciate a framework. You know that I think the lower the level of government, the better the service is at the field level, because they are closer to the people. When you look at this framework, I think each of us here hopes that something concrete can be done. I look at your last sentence, which says that the review of the framework we'll undertake in three years' time will confirm this belief. We're looking three years ahead to a review of it. We're looking just a few weeks down the road from when it was signed in February to say we hope something has happened already. I hope something will happen, that we don't just talk about transparency and partnerships.

Wendy just gave you an example of our talking about partnerships. We just fear, and I'm sure disabled people do, that the partnership is that we'll give you something and then they'll rip it away. That's a pretty unhealthy partnership. There's a certain amount of skepticism, and we need to make sure that doesn't happen.

I would like to ask you, in your position, what does your government consider to be the first line of support for people with disabilities? Would it be government and the state, or would it be the family?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The government...?

Miss Deborah Grey: The government or the state, or the family? Who should be helping and looking out? What is your philosophy on that? Who do you think the first line of defence should be for people with disabilities?

• 1605

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Okay, about the fact that the framework should not be only a piece of paper, I think it's first a spirit. It's not a legal text, it's not a law, it's not a constitution. It's a spirit. I think the minister, Pierre Pettigrew, is working with the spirit with his counterparts. I don't have any concern about that in this field. He is an example for many of his colleagues in that.

By the way, the ministerial council met this week to discuss this matter, and we have a very good report of this meeting. I understand it's your role to pressure us to go ahead, and I appreciate that. But let me tell you that I have the same target as you, that in three years from now we will see concrete results. About what is the most important, the governments or the citizens, you see, it's the citizen—

Miss Deborah Grey: No, I said the family.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: And families. There is no way to have good social policies if we don't keep the family in mind, obviously. That's why there are various ways to work in a file as complex as disabilities. I'm sure your party will push for tax relief and solutions like that, and other parties will push for social services, but we need both, because it's a complex issue that cannot be addressed with only one solution.

It's why I was insisting so much about the necessity of information-sharing. I want everyone to know if a policy is working, yes or no. Whether the policy is done in the west or the east or Quebec or Ontario or in the territories, we need to know. And for that we need to have information-sharing, transparency, accountability to the public. All those principles must be more than abstract principles; they must be implemented.

Miss Deborah Grey: You talk about what a complex issue this is, and I'm sure we would all agree with you. Are you saying that if we solve the jurisdictional issues surrounding disabilities, once we've done that then we could solve some of these other social caring situations, like health care, family support?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No, I don't see a jurisdictional problem. I see the necessity to recognize the jurisdiction of the others, and the voluntary solution that we will do it alone is not helpful in a federation. We cannot succeed if we don't recognize the legitimate role of the other governments and their expertise. There is so much expertise we need in order to be effective in this field.

I spoke yesterday with one of our senior civil servants. He was working in foreign policy before, and he told me, “Stéphane, you don't know”—he doesn't call me Stéphane, he calls me Minister—

Miss Deborah Grey: And if he doesn't, heaven help him.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: —“you don't know at all, you don't know how much more complex this field is than foreign affairs.” To me it's the example of where federations may show to a unitary system that we have a better system because we will learn from everyone as long as we are willing to learn.

Miss Deborah Grey: I can appreciate that it's complex, Stéphane. But I can also appreciate that when the justice minister answers me in the House on a question and tells me I'm always looking for a simple solution, surely somewhere for somebody that's disabled in this country there must be a simple solution for some problem. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Complexity is not the same thing as complication, so I agree. Complexities can be solved by a simple solution, but to find a simple solution you need to understand the complexity.

Miss Deborah Grey: I guess this is why I only have two university degrees, but that went straight over my head.

Let me ask one final question about your friend Pierre, who was talking about the young fellow in the school in Burnaby, in British Columbia. I'm sure you know that we don't have to go to Burnaby, Stéphane; there's probably somebody in this building, in this block, in one of these federal buildings, who's in exactly the same position as that young fellow. They would have a complex hearing aid or whatever, and as soon as they leave the employ of the federal government they don't get that aid either. Could we fix that problem before we think about criticizing Burnaby?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Oh, I had very good words about the British Columbia government in my speech.

Miss Deborah Grey: I appreciate that.

• 1610

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm sure they will appreciate that today.

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes. On page 3, though, we talked about the young kid in Burnaby, his chances of attending university.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes.

Miss Deborah Grey: So we can sing the praises of the B.C. government, if we like, but let's look in our own backyard, that somebody somewhere who works for the federal government, as soon as they leave that employ, won't get that aid. Then all of a sudden it's us, not Burnaby.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I take the point. If this is so—and I don't know, I'm not an expert in the field—that the federal government is not exemplary if you compare it with the B.C. government, we need to know in order to push the federal government to go ahead and to have better policies than the B.C. government. This is the social union framework spirit.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks.

The Chair: Deborah's question is around family, but what we're saying is there probably are some employers that are better than others, and that together, regardless of where you work.... If you happen to work for the federal government, that's a good thing. If you then decide to go and be self-employed and can't afford your hearing aid, or your whatever, we need together, with all levels of government, to find a solution for that one Canadian who should still be able to earn a living without it resting on the benevolence of their employer or the health care....

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes. The spirit of the framework is to say that ignorance is the race to the bottom, and information-sharing will be an incentive for a race to the top.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Minister, Mr. Ventura, I'm familiar with this subject because a grew up with a person who has a disability, my twin brother who suffers from cerebral palsy.

I greatly appreciated my colleagues' questions, because they brought us back to down to earth where we can address the following question: what do we need to do to ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to participate fully in daily work, leisure, sporting and other activities?

I'm a little baffled by your reference to the Quebec government which seems somewhat misplaced. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that last week, the Quebec government signed an agreement respecting people with disabilities with Mr. Pettigrew. As you well know, Quebec has been very much in the forefront in initiating action in this area and as such, I find regrettable your inference that the Quebec government does not have the interests of people with disabilities at heart. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments. You state in your submission, and I quote:

To deny their existence, as the government of my province does, is certainly not in the interest of people with disabilities.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Deny the existence of what? What does the preceding sentence say?

Mr. Réal Ménard: You stated the following:

The constitutional foundations of the federal government's legitimate and necessary action are therefore solidly established. To deny their existence, as the government of my province does, it certainly not in the interests of people with disabilities.

These are two sentences divided by a period. One is inclined to link the two. The Quebec government maintains, and rightly so, that the integration of persons with disabilities must be part of a comprehensive health and social services policy. As a constitutional expert, surely you have to know that if we were to look closely at the Constitution today, we would discover no solid foundations for the federal government's intervention in the health field. I admit that historically your government has pursued a strategy for dealing with people with disabilities and that over time, agreements in this area have been signed by the two levels of government and renewed. That's why the Quebec government, as a responsible government, signed an agreement last week with Mr. Pettigrew to fund action on this front.

We understand the general objective pursued, namely to make available to the provinces and to the federal government funds to be used to bring about the integration of persons with disabilities. Specifically, what is your department's involvement?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Before I answer your question, I'd like to comment on the remarks with which you prefaced it.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Be nice to me.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Of course. It will be a friendly exchange, as always.

In my opinion, if the Government of Quebec boycotts the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council on Social Policy Renewal, it will be depriving Canada of Quebec's exceptional expertise. It has not signed on to the In Unison exercise, because of constitutional concerns, I would imagine. I maintain that there are no constitutional problems and that by failing to come on board and to share with all of Canada the extensive expertise of its public service, the Quebec government is not serving the interests of persons with disabilities in Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada.

• 1615

You contend that the Constitution does not recognize the role of the federal government in the health field. Anyone who reads the Constitution would disagree. There are references to hospitals and homes for the elderly. While there may be no direct reference to the federal government's health policy, it spells out federal responsibilities in many areas, including aboriginal health and criminal law. It is unlawful to endanger another person's health. Whether it be international agreements to which we are a party, policies associated with the pharmaceuticals industry, for example—

Mr. Réal Ménard: The military.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, the military. We're not about to ask the pharmaceuticals industry to submit to ten different drug licensing processes, only one. What about the tracking of epidemics? Germs don't care about interprovincial or international borders. Basically, the two levels of government must acknowledge each other legitimate roles and responsibilities and cooperate.

The courts have recognized the federal spending power which exists in all federations, although it is invoked less frequently in Canada than elsewhere. I've stated this on numerous occasions and no one has ever challenged me. Moreover, your new advisor—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Your colleague Mr. Orban did during his years spent at the University of Montreal.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: That's not true. The federal spending power is legal.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I didn't say it wasn't.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The courts recognize it and it exists in all federations in the world, although to a lesser extent in Canada and with fewer conditions attached to it. True or false?

Mr. Réal Ménard: False, if you want to argue your point that way. But getting back to the federal spending power, I'll admit that the federal government does have a certain responsibility to intervene in some areas where health is an issue, housing and the military, for example.

You take every opportunity to say, even when no one asks you to, that the federal government is the most decentralized of all governments. The Government of Quebec was justified in not signing the Social Union Framework. Mr. Bouchard's predecessors wouldn't have signed it either. If you and I were to go down tomorrow morning to the Intergovernmental Affairs Office and review the list of Quebec's traditional demands, taking into account the partisanship we are capable of, we would see that every government, from Taschereau on down through his successors, condemned the federal government's direct intervention in the health field. The social union strengthens Ottawa's role in health care and that's unacceptable to us.

That, as you well know, was the position taken by Mr. Bouchard, just as you well know that this is not the kind of agreement a government can sign strictly on the basis of the people's interests. That's the first thing I wanted to say and you can respond later.

Secondly, you pointed to the need to share information. That's a given. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Certainly the Quebec government wouldn't refuse to share its expertise, but it objects to having to work within the inflexible parameters that you have set out. Therefore, we urge you to show some flexibility in your assessment of the Quebec government and its position, because it is one of the best ever to grace the National Assembly. I'd appreciate your acknowledging this fact. You have praised the efforts of British Columbia. I would hope you would do the same for Quebec.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Some provinces have worked harder than others to bring in policies respecting persons with disabilities and Quebec is one such province.

However, I think you should proceed carefully when you speak of the dead. I don't know what Jean Lesage or Robert Bourassa would have done had they been alive today. I do know that the greatest living architect of our social policies, from the Quiet Revolution through to the current drug insurance program, is Claude Castonguay. He has said that the Social Union Framework is a major step forward and that it should be signed.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That shouldn't surprise anyone.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I prefer to listen to the living, instead of professing to speak for the dead.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You're not being honest. People leave a legacy and their words do live on. We could go down to the offices of the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat in Quebec City, where, as you well know, records are kept. Among other things, I'm a historian and I know for a fact that every single government has been very critical of the federal government's intervention in the health field. If you deny that, there's no way we can agree on anything.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm familiar with the document you're referring to, but in my opinion, it is very selective. It quotes selectively from some texts and ignores others. Meech Lake is reduced to a single paragraph. Imagine! Reducing any reference to Meech Lake to a single paragraph! So much for that particular document!

• 1620

Mr. Réal Ménard: The document has been updated, Mr. Dion.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I've seen it, and it contains only one paragraph about Meech. In the Accord, limitations on the federal spending power clearly applied only to cost-sharing programs and did not take into account any majority level. By no means did this accord go as far as today's Social Union Framework. It's true that governments—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Who rejected Meech, Mr. Dion?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: We seem to have strayed quite a bit from the topic on our agenda.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Indeed.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: As I see it, the Quebec government, given its erroneous understanding of the Constitution, is depriving Canada of the full support and cooperation of the government and of Quebec's expertise. That's a shame. It cooperates when it comes to persons with disabilities and in many other areas as well.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you say that our government was completely enlightened when its signed an agreement with your colleague, Mr. Pettigrew? Our government, one of the best ever, one that, when the interests of—

The Chair: Mr. Ménard—

Mr. Réal Ménard: This will be my last question, Madam Chair. Am I out of order? It's my final question.

[English]

The Chair: I have a small question on top of this animated discussion. What do we do, Minister Dion, when Quebec has great ideas and won't participate in a process like the In Unison process? If they only will send an observer and won't share their good ideas, that actually diminishes the race to the top, when they have great ideas that they are not prepared—

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The more we may participate and cooperate, despite this disagreement, the better it is. So the fact that the Government of Quebec has signed the 50-50 program is great. It's great news. The more we have this kind of cooperation, the better it will be. And it's certainly the aim of this government to work as much as possible with all the governments in this country, including the Government of Quebec, despite the fact that the Government of Quebec has constitutional views that are not supported.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I guess at the risk of getting back on topic, I was somebody who really had reservations about the social union. I think I saw it as a devolution. But I'm becoming more comfortable with it, and I'm happy with the document here.

I'm going to ask a very technical question of Mr. Ventura. Was the text of the agreement made available in Braille? Was it made available in audiotape? I think people who are high users of social programs would have a high level of concern about the implications and ramifications of it. And if people with disabilities are concerned about it, I think, as a matter of policy, we should make sure it's available in a format they can access.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: It is available in Braille.

Mr. Phil Ventura: As well as in large print and in audio. So I understand that over—

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I don't know if there is some...[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Phil Ventura: We're told that over at the human resources department the document is available in different formats.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I guess maybe it's a time lag thing.

Mr. Phil Ventura: It takes a little more work and a little more effort.

Mr. Joe Jordan: No, but I'm glad to see that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): It's a pleasure to welcome you here. By the way, we'd like to thank you for the tremendous efforts you are making in Canada and in Quebec. We appreciate the work you're doing.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm sure everyone shares your sentiments.

Some hon. member: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I listened earlier to my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He failed to mention that his government had fired the head of the Quebec association representing persons with disabilities because of the colour of her skin, but enough said about that. I just wanted to mention that particular episode.

Would you care to comment on the Inuit of Nunavik and the James Bay Cree and how disabled persons in these communities will be affected by the Social Union Framework? How do you feel about Nunavik's stated intention of breaking away and joining the rest of Canada should Quebec ever vote to separate? I'm talking about Nunavik, not the territory of Nunavut.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm sorry, but I don't think this is the appropriate time to discuss this issue.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: But we are talking about persons with disabilities.

• 1625

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I don't see how this relates to separation. All governments have committed themselves, under the Social Union Framework, to working with the country's aboriginal peoples with a view to addressing all of their needs, including of course the needs of persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, as I stated in my opening remarks, the proportion of aboriginal peoples with disabilities is significantly above the Canadian average. This is something we need to look at closely with aboriginal peoples and their representatives.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jordan had a supplementary question, I think.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I just want to make a bit of a statement, and maybe if there's a point in here somewhere, I'll see if I get to it.

I talked to the HRDC people in my riding and to the provincial people who are going to be receiving the transfer of the labour market stuff. I think the point is broader than that. There seems to be this general impression that given all this rejigging that's going on, the federal government is going to retain authority and responsibility for aboriginal people with disabilities. It just seems to be a statement that everybody accepts. I'm concerned, because I don't really think that's what's being done. The opportunities fund is certainly a good program, but it's not going to be the be-all and end-all. When we do transfer program responsibilities, we have to be careful that these programs are not outcome-based in the area of employment, because an employment plan for someone with disabilities is going to be labour-intensive and it's going to cost more. We have to make sure that's recognized when we transfer programs.

I realize this may not be directly under your purview, but I'm concerned about the notion that we're going to retain responsibility for those things. I think there's a myth developing that there's enough money there and everything is well and good. Upon closer examination, you'll see there is this situation in which we're transferring programs that should be available and should be used to help people with disabilities. But everyone thinks we're retaining that part, and that the numbers-driven, outcome-based direction we're going in is going to cause provinces to cherry-pick and use these programs on the people who are easy to employ, resulting in an even further entrenching of the barriers to employment for people with disabilities.

It's more a statement that we have to be cognizant of this notion out there that we're somehow retaining that regardless of what's going on in other areas, that we're going to keep and take care of that. I really don't see the money behind that statement. I think we have to make sure that when we do devolve or enter into shared responsibility agreements, we understand it's a situation where we have to be a little bit more specific in those areas in terms of what outcomes we expect. It can't just be quantity driven.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: If I understand it well, Joe, you have a question on whether the federal government will lose some of its responsibilities to the provinces under the social union framework regarding disabilities, especially for aboriginal people.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Well, it's more about the disabilities.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The document as such does not address distribution of powers between levels of government. It does not say that aboriginal issues, whatever they are, off reserve are now under federal jurisdiction. To the contrary, it is an incentive to work together—a framework to improve the social union of Canadians, working in partnership for Canadians, informing Canadians. With regard to aboriginal peoples, governments will work with aboriginal peoples of Canada to find practical solutions to address their pressing needs—“governments”, not “government”.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: There is no way to say that because of this framework, the provinces may now say it is the federal responsibility.

Mr. Joe Jordan: My point—just as a heads-up—was that there's this feeling out there that regardless of what happens, it's an area that's our responsibility and we're going to retain that responsibility. What I'm saying is I know this is a framework, but as we get into—and I use the labour market transfer as an example—the program level, I think we have to be careful that we deal with that misconception. I have experienced it personally when I talked to them about labour markets. I know that's not yours, but I'm saying that same problem might crop up in other areas.

• 1630

Mr. Stéphane Dion: There has been a devolution regarding manpower training; this is true. But the federal government has kept, as you know, responsibilities about information, for instance. If you are looking for a job, and there is a job in British Columbia, the federal government must have a network to give the information. But this is not the social union framework.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I know, but I'm saying I think the problems we've experienced in the labour market transfers we might experience as well when we get down to the nuts and bolts of this. It was just a heads-up that the provinces may feel that regardless of what happens, we're still in charge of this and responsible for that and have to pay for it.

I think that if we're going to integrate services and social services we have to make sure we don't do it simply on a numbers game, or we don't do it with a program that when left to its own devices will cause them to direct the services to where they're most effective and easy to administer, because that's what I see with the labour market transfer. We're trying to address it, but that was just something that was out there.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: There are two points. About manpower training, it is a challenge. The challenge is the following. We think that manpower training is close to education. Education is something the provinces know; it is their responsibility. So we will give to the provinces more responsibility to our manpower training. It's what Canada will try. And if a province is not fulfilling its duties solidly, another may. It's there we need the social union framework to say we need information sharing, we need to compare, we need to know.

It is said that the more government is local, the better it is. This is not necessarily true. I would say that the federal government, because we have a big country and we are not sure to know everything, gives a lot of responsibilities to our local officials and employees on the ground. A provincial government many times thinks it knows the province and centralizes everything in the capital of the province. I think that's a mistake. I see it in my province today, and I think it's a mistake.

It's not because you give something to a province that it is necessarily more decentralized at the end. So we need to compare with what other provinces are doing in order to see the good things, and there is no religion about that. The Swiss, who have a decentralized federation, will have a new constitution—I think the referendum is today or tomorrow—if they agree by referendum. In the constitution they said that now manpower training will be a federal responsibility. They do exactly the reverse from us. We'll see who is right, but there is no religion about that. It's just that we need to know how to deal with this important file.

About the disability issue now, the employability assistance for people with disabilities is a cost-shared program signed by everyone. It's a very good achievement. I don't think you have the problem in regard to this file yet—I hope you will not have it—of government saying okay, now it's not my responsibility, it's the responsibility of the other. And the social union framework is there exactly to prevent this kind of situation where you have an empty chair or you play badminton in double because you think the other guy will take it, or duplication, and the two racquets taking it at the same time.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's rarely two racquets at the same time. It's more that someone thinks someone else is going to do it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

One of the things we would hope you take from this meeting is given the In Unison document on persons with disabilities—and we think they got their homework done with this document—if you can help us to ensure that it will move quickly to implmentation as the agenda for phase two of the social union framework is being decided. How do we make sure that it moves quickly to implementation in the social union? Because as you've said so often, talking won't work; we have to drive it.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The social union framework is a commitment to act with more transparency. This will give more power to the parliamentarians facing governments. You will have more information, not only from the federal government but from the provincial governments too. And then a committee like yours will be more powerful, because you will not wait to hear Minister Pettigrew saying what is happening. You will have more ways of having the information on your own, and the stakeholders too, and the Canadians with disabilities too.

• 1635

So this is, I would say, a way to reinforce the power of parliamentarians facing the executive. Despite the fact that the social union has been negotiated behind closed doors, the result is more power for MPs and MPPs.

The Chair: I think what we are wondering is are there competing issues? Is there one secretariat for the social union and we have to line up with children and the homeless and all of those and we have to make sure we're the first one through the social union machine, or will those happen in a parallel fashion so we don't have to worry whether we got picked number one?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: There is no extensive bureaucracy or machinery that will be created because of this framework, thank God. But there is a role recognized for the ministerial council. The ministerial council will support sectoral ministers by collecting information on effective ways of implementing the agreement and avoiding disputes and receiving reports from jurisdictions on progress on commitments under the social union framework agreement.

So you will have sectoral work by sectoral ministers, but the ministerial council will have this role and ensure that when the first ministers meet they will have the report of the ministerial council to discuss.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

We will be having on May 6 a round table with some of the stakeholders in personal disabilities, and we are assured that the social union will be part of the theme of that day. I hope we will stay in touch and that whatever we need in order to prepare for that you would help us with. I know you will.

Thank you so much for coming.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chair, I've one last, important question for the minister.

Still with respect to the Social Union Framework, what are the federal government's plans in terms of implementing a sports program with the provinces for persons with disabilities and ensuring their participation in national and provincial games?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I can't answer that question. You would have to ask the minister—

Mr. Guy St-Julien: It's important to know that there are games for disabled athletes. I know, because my brother has a disability and that's why I'm asking the question. Disabled athletes participate in national as well as provincial games. I don't want to put you on the spot, but—

An hon. member: You can raise the matter in the House tomorrow.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, but I'll leave that to my colleague who is more familiar with the specifics of these programs—

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I'm really not trying to put you on the spot, but—

Mr. Stéphane Dion: We have here with us someone from Mr. Manley's department.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: —I really think too much emphasis is placed on athletes who are not disabled. Competing at national and provincial games is equally important to disabled athletes.

Ms. Karen Junke (Director, Office of Disability Issues, Department of Human Resources Development): My name is Karen Junke and I'm from Human Resources Development Canada. International and Olympic games are the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage which provides support to athletes wishing to compete at both the national and international levels. Is that what you're asking?

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Is support available for those competing at the provincial level as well?

Ms. Karen Junke: Yes, it is.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I see.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to suspend for a minute as we prepare to move in camera.

• 1640

As to what we want to do in terms of future plans, I first want to ask Bill to walk us through what that day round table might look like, to see if the committee had some ideas as to how it could be improved, how long it should, and what the theme should be, if you had some ideas for that.

I would remind you that next week it's Allan Rock and Herb Dhaliwal, and the week after that Paul Martin and Anne McLellan. So those are our next witnesses.

I assume the planning for the special show-and-tell....

The Clerk of the Committee: The show-and-tell is well on its way, and we're being helped—more than helped—by Industry Canada to do so.

I thought there might be more discussion on the witnesses you want at your round table, perhaps, on May 6.

The Chair: Okay.

Bill, if you would walk us through what you've been thinking of....

Mr. Bill Young (Committee Researcher): Okay.

The Chair: As all of you know, Bill knows all of the players extraordinarily well, and we are looking for your guidance as to how we can make this day worth while.

I have a question first. Did we think this would be a full day or a half day? Maybe Bill can sort of speak to that. If we're bringing these people in, do we want them all day with a working lunch, or three hours?

Go to it.

Mr. Bill Young: I tried to put this together with your comments in mind from previous meetings. I called it a strategy session, and I suggested that possibly what would be most useful would be looking at strategies for disability policy and looking specifically at disability in the social union.

I ran it by several of the members of the disability community, bearing in mind the fact that some members of the committee had raised the question of whether or not the community felt it had been consulted to death. They thought this would be a constructive way for them to participate in the debate, which they will be engaged in at some point in the near future.

So with that in mind, I looked at the nature of the issues and I thought that however long this meeting might be, it would be best divided into three sections. These are issues you could discuss and tell me how you'd like them refined. I'm certainly going to discuss them again with some of the people from the community, so you should treat this as a sort of running draft.

The Chair: A work in progress.

Mr. Bill Young: A work in progress.

For session one, we thought it might be what is the social union, and what are its implications for outcomes for people with disabilities? That would be looking more at the issue of outcomes than necessarily at processes. In order to do that, I would suggest that the subcommittee look at bringing in someone who has been involved in the social union negotiations or has studied those social union negotiations.

Session two would be does In Unison fit within the social union framework? Does it form the basis for a sectoral federal-provincial agreement on disability? At that point, I would suggest looking for a provincial official to speak, who would be someone who was involved in the In Unison negotiations at the provincial level.

Session three would be which outcomes could be the focus of any federal-provincial discussion? What I would suggest is that In Unison has identified three areas: disability-related supports and services; labour market strategy; and income. After discussion with some of the people in the community, to try to deal with all three in one session would probably be rather difficult and confusing for everyone, so it would be best to focus on one of these three. The consensus was that supports and services might be the most appropriate, particularly because that's going to be some of the stuff you're going to see on May 5 as well—assistive devices, that kind of thing.

• 1645

So those were the three basic sessions or the three divisions of the day. What I was suggesting is that it be a forum with invited witnesses but also open to the public and that members of the subcommittee participate in discussion with the other participants, rather than necessarily asking questions as the session goes along.

In terms of the people to come, I suggest that invited guests could fall into four categories. One would be presenters, who would be individuals who would sort of set the theme or tone of each individual session. They would speak for up to 15 minutes. In advance of each session, I can suggest commentators who would be notified in advance that they would be asked to speak. They would be given two to three minutes each, and that might take up another 15 minutes or so.

Again, I was presuming that each one of these sessions would last for an hour. It could be an hour and a half. These are decisions you can make. The times can be adjusted appropriately.

The third group of witnesses would be what I call discussants. These would be invited guests and members of the subcommittee, who would then be invited to participate in a general discussion following the presentations by the commentators.

In order that each session and also the whole day be usefully summed up, I would suggest that I could identify a rapporteur for each session who would sum up the major points of discussion and possibly present a consensus reached at the meeting on the various issues. This could be performed by the members of the subcommittee, if you would like to take on this job. We did this once with a committee, and it was quite well done and it was quite useful. So members could do this function, research staff could do it, or we could have some of the participants.

That's really where I've gotten to. I have a suggested list of possible participants here, but since these individuals haven't been notified I think it would be inappropriate for me to give their names right now. I would suggest that they come from certain departments and agencies that could be usefully involved: as I mentioned, some of the provincial people; a list of people from the disability community, including francophones; provincial representatives from the premiers' advisory councils; and certain other interested groups. I think it would be quite useful, in terms of the nature of the dialogue, to include business groups and some unions and certain other mainstream groups, for example, from the children's area and possibly seniors, especially if you're focusing on the issue of supports and services. That's sort of where I am.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Would there be any merit in—I'm going to use your term here—the discussors getting the commentators' notes ahead of time, or are we expecting to just react?

Mr. Bill Young: I think you're going to find that most people, if they come prepared.... What I would think would be most useful would be distributing the relevant documentation and certain specific questions in advance of the meeting; that might help focus the discussion.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

• 1650

The Chair: So what you're saying is the In Unison document, the social union framework, and these three questions.

Mr. Bill Young: A series of questions and other background information. I haven't really sat down and figured out exactly.

At one point your chair threatened to suggest that people wouldn't be allowed to open their mouths if they hadn't shown evidence that they had read the stuff or come prepared.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: A pre-test.

Deborah.

Miss Deborah Grey: I think that sounds good. I like the framework of that. It does seem like a huge elephant to chew. Number one, the social union outcomes, I think is good, and then the supports and services I think would be plenty.

I just don't know if each of us could dedicate a whole day to this. I know I can't.

Mr. Bill Young: That was the question. You have to decide.

The Chair: We do have a televised room for the day, if we want.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I can understand that it might be difficult to set aside a full day. However, I don't see how we can give this matter serious consideration in only half a day. We've met with half of the ministers. We would be offending representatives of various disabled associations if we were to ask them to share their views, exchange opinions and ask questions, all within this very narrow time frame. We need to schedule more time. If this is truly important, we could even meet during a week when the House is not sitting.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. There is the evening before, and I suppose there would be....

The Clerk: You're talking about the Wednesday evening, and the full committee sits. You cannot sit when the full committee is sitting.

The Chair: No, no, I'm saying that on the evening with the assisted devices, there's the show-and-tell.

The Clerk: From 4.30 to 7.30.

The Chair: Yes. So there might be an informal thing we could do with all of the invitees at 7.30. No? That would ruin it? It's just that everybody's here.

I feel that if we're bringing all these people to Ottawa, we should get as much as we can for it. To bring them all for an equivalent of three hours or something seems even more frustrating. But if we see it from 4.30 on Wednesday through....

My experience with these things is that when you put people together, good things happen and good ideas come. So as long as we have the show-and-tell on the Wednesday evening and then give an opportunity for people to sort of conspire to make sure something good happens on the Thursday and that they come with their homework done and some really concrete suggestions and strategies.... That's what all of us here are concerned about—that just rearticulating the problem isn't going to work. We want to feel that we've actually been able to move forward some real strategies for moving the agenda.

Miss Deborah Grey: I guess the other thing is that you could have it all day, from nine to five, or whatever, and then just have us come and go as our schedules dictate.

The Chair: I think that's what John Godfrey wanted. No? It was just the morning, wasn't it.

The Clerk: It was 9.30 to 1.30.

The Chair: Do you think that's enough?

Miss Deborah Grey: Get them for four days in July.

The Chair: The compromise is the evening before, and then maybe we could give them someplace to congregate or something after.

The Clerk: Congregate there.

The Chair: Yes, we'll just stay.

Miss Deborah Grey: Just hang out.

• 1655

The Clerk: We could ask the minister if he would provide us with just cheese, because we don't have money to actually....

The Chair: So then the formal part would be the following day, 9.30 to one. Is that what you're suggesting?

The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. Bill Young: Or nine to one.

The Chair: Okay. Well, it's four hours.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thursday, May 6, nine to one.

The Chair: Yes.

The Clerk: And Wednesday, May 5, 4.30 to 7.30.

Miss Deborah Grey: Where is this room again, this room it's going to be in?

The Clerk: Well, it would be in Room 200 for the show-and-tell, and for the televised portion it would be in 253-D.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay.

The Clerk: And perhaps it would be a good idea to have the agreement of the committee that it is being televised.

The Chair: Okay. Is that okay with the committee?

The Clerk: It should be moved by someone.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: When our proceedings are televised, the tone is always more serious. I'm thinking about the witnesses. This is an important issue and I agree that if possible, the proceedings should be televised.

The Clerk: Yes, it's possible.

[English]

It's just that it's better when we have a motion; then nobody can kick us out of the room.

The Chair: If we have a motion, then it's harder for people to kick us out of the room who would prefer to be televised. So is that okay?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Sure.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, I can move a motion to that effect.

[English]

Miss Deborah Grey: I second it.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do we have the budget for that, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Chair: We do. We got all our money, $28,500.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I was expecting you to say that.

[English]

The Chair: We got $28,500, and our job is to not spend it all.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: And I didn't object. Someone can say it.

[English]

The Chair: But it allows the flexibility to invite the witnesses.

The Clerk: And actually there's a cost in televising, because it's a round table. You need special infrared cameras to make sure you get the whole thing. We're talking of $1,600 that we'll have to take from our budget to pay for the televised portion of it.

The Chair: Good.

Miss Deborah Grey: And are we going to be able to get in touch with these people as quickly as possible so we can book seat sales for them? Is that how that works?

The Clerk: I'm waiting for the names. As soon as I have the names, I'll start calling.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay. What is this, then, three weeks today?

The Clerk: Three weeks today.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay, good.

The Chair: Anything else?

As a new chair, with some of the correspondence it seems pretty straightforward when you're basically agreeing and sending a letter to the appropriate minister or ministers. Is it okay that I go ahead and do it and just circulate the letter to you, or would you rather I brought the letters here first?

A voice: No, no.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Invite them here.

The Chair: It's okay, I can just answer the letters? Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Chair, if it's not to our liking, we can pass a censure motion.

[English]

The Chair: Exactly, and I can send another letter.

Thank you all so much. We're adjourned.