HUMA Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 6, 2001

• 1113

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): I call to order the 38th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Members, our meeting is divided into two sections today. In the first section, the public session, we will be hearing from the chairs of the two subcommittees. They are to discuss their future business.

Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

At the subcommittee, we have taken on the urgent request, from lots of correspondence and communications to me as chair and to other members, to look at the disability tax credit. I think we're going to do an urgent short study this fall to look at the problem.

• 1115

As we understand it, 90,000 letters were sent out to Canadians who were previously entitled to the disability tax credit—including blind people who already have a CNIB number, and who are indeed still blind—asking them to reapply for their tax credit. It is a somewhat ridiculous situation. We are hoping to not only find out what this little bureaucratic melee is but also to respond to what we've been hearing over the last couple of years about the inappropriateness of the form itself. It asks physicians to practically contradict themselves. It is really not very good for people with emotional or mental illness. It's not very good for people with cystic fibrosis. The form itself doesn't seem to consider breathing as an activity of daily living.

So I think we are hoping that we can take on the task this fall and make a report. Obviously, we would hope that we could get a change to the form, or a change to the process, in terms of some real policy around how often you have to reapply or how often you have to show up at the psychologist's and prove that you indeed do still have this or that. Under most of the health care systems across this country, filling out a form is not covered by the medical plan. These people have to pay out of pocket to have this form filled out again. We think we'd like to rectify that.

We see the first meeting being with the national disability organizations and their overview of the tax credit. The second meeting would be a round table with some of the individuals who have communicated with us on this file. Meeting three would be around the medical professionals and practitioners, and meeting four, the departmental positions and community response, which would be Canada Customs and Revenue, the Department of Finance, and other reps.

Madam Chair, that's our plan for the fall.

As your committee had charged us via the motion from Libby Davies, we are coming to say that the committee has agreed, as I think we said last week, to a full study on CPP disabilities in the new year. We are asking for your support to try to do this in a different, modern way. We would like to be able to avail ourselves of some of the technology that's possible to actually talk to Canadians above and over their organizations, particularly the ones who perhaps applied for CPP disability, got turned down, and didn't appeal.

This is a group that we feel the department doesn't deal with well. They tend to assume that applicants don't appeal because they know they don't qualify. As a family physician, however, my experience is that they are either too sick to appeal or don't have the money to hire a lawyer, or else they come from a country where no means no when it comes from the government. We feel there are many reasons to not appeal, and we shouldn't take it as a positive report card that only 40% do.

We would very much like to be able to avail ourselves of the technology that's possible. Stephen Coleman of the Hansard Society at Westminster designed an interesting model where, for instance, on a justice bill he was able to electronically talk to victims of domestic violence and bring their testimony back in.

Obviously, with such a population as persons with disabilities, we think this would be a fantastic small pilot. With whatever support we can have from the clerk's office and from the Library of Parliament's research branch, we would be very interested in trying a new way of going about this rather than the same old usual suspects. It would be exciting, I think.

• 1120

As well, I think John and I will be expecting a response from the government on our joint subcommittee report from June. I guess we need to ask the committee whether you want all three groups together, your committee and the two subcommittees all meeting, when we call the minister and officials to respond to their response—or in our response to their response—or whether you would prefer that we did that individually in our subcommittees.

I think those are our issues.

The Chair: Thank you.

With respect to the minister, we'll deal with that under future business.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Sure.

The Chair: I think you'll find some sympathy that the minister could meet with the main committee in conjunction with the two subcommittees. But we'll deal with that under new business.

Are there any questions for Dr. Bennett?

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I just want to say that I think the issues you've brought forward are really good. I think it's been a very good subcommittee.

In terms of the CPP disability, as I understand it, the subcommittee is suggesting that you would look at it in the new year and look at a way of being more interactive, actually talking to people who have gone through the process, which I think would be really useful. I think that's a great idea.

However, when the subcommittee gets into the issue, I was wondering whether at some point there could be one session with the full committee so that everybody is involved in some way, perhaps through a draft report. I don't know; I just think it would a good idea if the main committee as well had some connection at some point. It is something we're all very interested in, really, from what I recall of our initial discussions around it.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I did a town hall meeting last month with some of the officials from HRD, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, and a lawyer who deals with clients who are fighting both workers' compensation and CPP disability. I found that to be extremely effective.

Maybe we could also find a way of involving all members of Parliament, because a huge volume of issues exist in their own ridings. We could almost develop a template for members of Parliament to go out to their ridings and ask the same questions, and see if they had any input as well.

But I agree, we could come back, even in a very preliminary way, to make sure that you think we've covered everything. And if there are some other things you want us to look at, then we would do so in a collaborative way, absolutely.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Thank you, Dr. Bennett.

Mr. Godfrey, I'd ask you next to take the witness stand, as it were.

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): First off, I'd like to welcome several members of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk to today's meeting, in particular Ms. Guay, Ms. Davies, who seems to follow every committee, Ms. St-Jacques and Ms. Neville.

[English]

As well, I'm glad about the decision to review the response of the government to our joint report of June. I think it is proper that it be discussed here; partly because so many of us overlap, we might as well. Technically, I think, that answer may be due the ninth of this month. So we look forward to that.

You will recall that one of the things that characterized the two subcommittees is a word not everyone likes but we will use—“horizontality”. That is to say, we both deal with issues where more than one department is involved. Unlike the main committee, which deals almost exclusively with HRD, we deal with many departments that affect the lives of children.

As a result of some decisions really taken before we rose in June, the subcommittee decided last Wednesday that the work of the fall would be to focus on aboriginal children and youth at risk. We are no longer focusing mostly, as we were before, on the zero to six population. We are now looking more at prenatal to twelve, roughly.

• 1125

We had originally hoped, before the budget cycle was changed... I think it would have been an interesting exercise this fall to review the whole range of programs that affect aboriginal children, particularly on-reserve, and then to make a budget submission to the department saying, for instance, if you had so much money to look at aboriginal children, based on the effectiveness of the programs to date we would suggest that you allocate in the following way. Of course, now that the budget is coming in December, that's not possible, but we do think this would be a useful way for committees to behave in the future—providing we can get in the right budget cycle. There is an advantage to the February budget date.

I would also point out that we're about to get a document, I think from Treasury Board, that deals with the measuring of results. Again, I think that document is about to come out on November 9. I saw the Auditor General... and you might want to look at those documents as a way of thinking about future work.

In any event, we are going to continue with the plan for the fall to invite various departments in to talk about programs that affect on-reserve aboriginal children. That will include not only the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but also HRD, Justice Canada, and Health Canada, with a view, I think, to making some kind of recommendation. We will draft that over the Christmas break and then I think be ready to present it to you sometime in February.

I think it is the wish of the committee to then extend its work to look at off-reserve aboriginals, particularly in the major cities. I think that is a hugely important piece of work. We have not yet begun to define the project as closely as we have the first one.

[Translation]

The third item is a motion from Ms. Guay and perhaps she could speak directly to the subject. I understand that at the end of the legislative year, a number of federal programs will be analysed to gauge their efficiency and to determine if they are compatible with provincial programs.

[English]

So we have a three-part work plan. We're much clearer on the first part, obviously, the one that will go until Christmas. We are going to begin on Wednesday with a kind of review of the basic status of aboriginal children, both on-reserve and off-reserve—health status, basic data, what we know about these kids—to put us in a better position to see how the programs respond to the problems as revealed in the general statistics.

My final comment loops back to the question of our June report. I guess we're kind of curious to know what your plans are with regard to the SUFA review. It is coming along, and I do think it's important that there be a parliamentary intervention in a timely manner. You can be sure that the provinces are already gearing up. I saw something from Ralph Klein the other day all about dispute settlement mechanisms and so on.

I know I'm not supposed to ask a question, but I'll just put that out there.

That would be my report, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Madam Guay, did you have something to add?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Chair, as noted earlier by John Godfrey, a worthy representative of the interests of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk, I would like the matter of child tax deductions to be examined to determine if in fact we are meeting our stated objectives and if any adjustments are warranted. He clearly listed the issues raised by the sub- committee.

[English]

The Chair: Good. Thank you.

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

• 1130

Certainly a person who's not always sitting around this table now, just because we all find it challenging to do two or three committees at once... Paul, who just left the room, and I... No, Paul's still here. Think of the time involved for those other people here during the debate last night on a different subject—and I recognized Antoine—because some of us have been here on this committee since 1993 or early 1994. The work of these two chairs and the other members of this subcommittee are so important that I feel guilty whenever I see something coming from either one, asking for others to become involved. There's nothing more important than the good work these two people do.

Of course, my good friend John, when he talks about looking at the off-reserve aboriginals, especially in the larger centres, would know that I would have to be completely asleep if I didn't remind him to also consider those in the rural and smalltown areas who are also off-reserve and perhaps have even less services available than those in the larger centres.

This would apply to both of them, but my comment on “horizontality”, or whatever word you used, is that there is some room to go this way. In our rural sector, we feel that we're always challenged by our own government and our own people, who are mainly all from urban Canada. For the first time ever we have a Secretary of State, Andy Mitchell, who is the Secretary of State for Rural Development. Of course, programs and everything with dollars seem to run in these silos, as you've mentioned. Andy's had some luck, and we've had some breakthroughs as we've gone across the section.

So I would just commend you for looking at that. I think we need to move in that direction.

As for the work of these two chairs and their committees, I think our committee of the whole deserves to learn from them. I hope we do have these opportunities when the whole committee can share and learn.

Thank you.

The Chair: Any further comments?

My own comments are that I think this main committee is extremely well served by our two subcommittees. I know that all members of the main committee are certainly very anxious to have reports from time to time. When you feel it's time to bring your work in progress to the main committee, please just get in touch with the clerk. I think you'll find that people around here will be willing to adjust their schedules to fit you in, and in a timely fashion. As I say, I think the work you're doing is extremely valuable.

Mr. John Godfrey: To add one very small note, we should remind you, as I think we did in our previous report, that from time to time we actually have joint committees when the issue is children with disabilities. I anticipate that we'll be doing that again in the future.

The Chair: Excellent. Thank you.

Before we suspend and go in camera, Ms. Bennett, you have a motion on which you're seeking unanimous consent.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I do.

I move that the report entitled “Measuring Quality of Life: The Use of Societal Outcomes by Parliamentarians”, which John Williams and I presented last week, be published as an appendix in the record of the meeting of Thursday, November 1, 2001, as part of the website for this committee so that people can find it in an easier way.

The Chair: Does Ms. Bennett have unanimous consent to put the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Are you now putting the motion?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I am.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: As well, Madam Chair, yesterday I got a note from CPRN that they were sending people to my website and to John Williams' website to get this report. So I will notify CPRN that it is now on your committee website.

The Chair: Wonderful. Thank you.

We are going to go in camera. Everyone other than committee personnel and party researchers will have to leave.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]