SPER 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 DISABILITES

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 4, 2001

• 1546

[English]

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

Wendy doesn't need the updates that new members want.

Bienvenue. I'm Carolyn Bennett, and I've had the honour of chairing this subcommittee since December 1998.

We wait for Wendy Lill because it was Wendy's idea that this subcommittee be struck, in that after almost two years on HRDC the disability issue had never got to the top of the file, so it seemed that to have a separate group that would deal with this issue became important. We are a hugely collaborative group, and we have enjoyed our little successes.

The report that you'll find in tab A from our first time, when we called about 12 ministers, seems to have begun a lot of work across departments. Last year—a year ago December—we did the roundtable on the tax system, and we were pretty happy that Minister Martin put a lot of the recommendations in last year's budget. We also were hugely excited that the Auditor General cited our committee as being the only political animal or parliamentary body assisting and managing horizontal issues. So we think that this committee has had an ability to move things forward, particularly something like disabilities, which crosses all departments.

So before Wendy gets here...or shall we wait until Wendy gets here? I think it would be helpful just to go around the table and introduce ourselves and talk of our interest, because this committee quite often has been able to attract people who care about this issue, so it would be important just to know who we all are.

Jim is holding the place here, I think, for Reed. Is that right?

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): That's right.

The Chair: But you can come back as often as you'd like.

Mr. Jim Abbott: My introduction, as we said before the meeting started.... Prior to becoming involved as a member of Parliament, where you have a tremendous opportunity to become acquainted with a wide variety of issues, I had candidly not paid that much attention to disability issues. Going back in my mind, I can even recall about 20 years ago wondering what the whole thing was about putting ramps on street corners and in sidewalks. That's the starting point. This isn't a confessional, but I'm just saying this.

The one individual who created a very high level of consciousness for me without a doubt was Rick Hansen due to his exploits, and just because of the profile I simply started to pay attention. Coincidental with that, my mother, who unfortunately now is deceased, at that time was at a point where if I was going to take her out for a walk, it became me walking and her riding or rolling, so I suddenly discovered what the ramps on the street corners were all about. And the same thing happened with my sister and her husband, who both became dependent on other ways of being able to be mobile.

• 1550

It is from this that I have developed a very small level of sensitivity to the issue. Also, in being a member of Parliament, I don't have a lot of people who are impacted by this, but I have one very, very outspoken person who has taken on Parks Canada in my area. It's an access issue, as far as the administration buildings and that kind of thing, which has really impeded her ability to become employed with Parks Canada.

So I'm very sensitive to it, but I'm very much at the starting point of a learning curve.

The Chair: Welcome.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Good afternoon.

It's obvious that I'm new to this subcommittee and as a new member, it's equally clear that this subcommittee is very dear to my heart. I asked to be a member, not only because I have always been interested in this subject matter, but also because my two- and-a half year old son is disabled. He has a brain tumor that affects his optic nerves. I've been very involved, both with his treatment in and out of hospital. Although there have been changes in my little boy's condition, he will probably be disabled for the rest of his life.

As parents, we too experience a great deal. In situations like these, the child is not the only one affected. Having been born with a disability, the child will have to contend with it all of his life. We are fully aware of the problems that will arise, not only for the child, but for the parents as well.

My wife is also a professional. She is a chartered accountant. My background is in law and mediation. As you know, I am in Ottawa several days a week and my spouse also holds down a very challenging and demanding job.

Therefore, I will be very interested in the future work of this committee. Mention has been made of support, but I hope this support will be extended as well to parents and to those who care for persons with disabilities. My son doesn't sleep through the night. I've come to realize, after two years of visits to the oncology wing of Hôpital Sainte-Justine, that the parents who are there with their children are often forced to quit their jobs. Often both parents are forced to stop working and I know that for many, their professional lives and careers are thrown into turmoil. Their lives profoundly change.

We chose to continue working. Fortunately, my son, who was supposed to die over a year ago, is doing well without medication, thanks to our presence and to our love. However, we need some support. We've been lucky, of course, and we are managing, but I've seen many people in desperate need of support.

Therefore, you can count on my complete cooperation. In me, you'll have someone who has first hand knowledge of this situation. I will certainly enjoy speaking on behalf of groups, but I will also be able to contribute on a personal level, given my experience with my son, who is only two and a half years old. I see support as something that is needed, both for the long term and the short term.

The Chair: How old did you say your son was?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: He is two and a half years old. He's just a little boy.

The Chair: How old was he when his tumor was first diagnosed?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Four months old. We've been dealing with this situation almost from the day he was born. Of course, I'm sensitive to the needs of others who suffer from other forms of disabilities. However, when you deal with the situation up close, you become even more sensitive. But you can't stop living. It would be easy for my wife to quit her job, but she is a professional and good at her job, while I'm fairly well known in legal circles. I guess my son was the one who inspired me to enter politics to show that people can overcome difficult challenges and hopefully get the support they need.

• 1555

[English]

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm very sorry that I'm late. I actually was at the event for the children that are going to Florida, the Marathon of Hope kids, and I was looking at my clock, saying “Oh, I've got another ten minutes”, thinking it was four o'clock. I'm sorry I was late.

I want to say that, just from what I heard from Monsieur Lanctôt, it more or less sums up what needs to be done with this committee and with this government. We have to, in fact, all have that same kind of experience that he's talking about. Suddenly your eyes are opened in a different way to persons with disability—very vulnerable children such as your son, very vulnerable seniors, and everyone in between who is in the process of becoming disabled, as we all know.

I think it's really hopeful that you're going to be on this subcommittee. I think that the people who have been on the subcommittee have very close ties with people with disabilities and are living with them and are growing up and older with them. That's a really important touchstone for this group. I'm excited that we've gotten back together again. There are many issues that we can work on here, and we can work very collectively. We have been successful and have some solidarity around the cause of persons with disabilities in this subcommittee. So it's great to be back.

The Chair: Thanks, Wendy.

Janko.

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): I'm fortunate enough not to have anybody disabled in my immediate family, but as a legislator I think that I can contribute to this committee to improve things for those that are disabled. They are a minority but a minority that really deserves attention from the government. I'll try my best to contribute to this committee on their behalf.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

As a family doctor I supported lots of people. I think that the people who have it every day in their lives...I don't think we've done enough to explain what that's like. As Wendy and I have discussed, things like Latimer bring lots of empathy but maybe the wrong answers. It's a very complicated problem.

As Mr. Lanctôt knows, supports and services tend to be a provincial issue, and yet we are very clear here that the treatment of persons with disabilities is a human rights issue, and we are carefully trying to stickhandle our way through those two realities. I think we have been successful in being able to explain that a children's agenda is not a children's agenda unless it includes children with disabilities. A disabilities agenda is not a disabilities agenda unless it includes children and families of children with disabilities.

So we now have lots to do, and I think that everyone needs to know that we are blessed in this committee by having Bill Young as the researcher from the Library of Parliament, who's written just about everything that's ever been written on this issue. I think he therefore tries to empower us to remember that telephone books full of reports aren't actually what we're here to do, and that we need to be able to focus on the kinds of things that actually have real action and real outcomes where we can actually see that we've made a difference. One of the successes we've had is the ability to call ministers on the issues we care about.

• 1600

In our little reference document here, the order of reference for the subcommittee, when it was literally struck as part of the HRDC committee on Tuesday, March 1, they really did all of the stuff that we need to do in the founding of this committee, so I think we can get on.

Part of the deal has been that at some point we need to almost appear at the parent committee saying what we've been up to, but also we are hopeful that, early in our mandate, we will have the minister here for her to explain her view of this file and what she thinks we could help with.

Those are two things that would probably take up a meeting. We also have a series of roundtables we're been doing on societal indicators with the Library of Parliament, Treasury Board, Statistics Canada, and the Auditor General's office. At the April 30 meeting the issue of disabilities will be given as an example of places where there have been outcomes and measures designed, and I think that we will have Deborah Tunis from HRD and hopefully Alberta or one of the provinces that's developed some good indicators in terms of how people are supported.

These are a series of round tables that John Williams, as chair of public accounts, and myself have chaired. This would be the third of three, and I think that it would be good if any of the members of this subcommittee could come.

The only other thing that I think that we did have an inkling about and hoped that we could attend would be in this document. I don't think Wendy's got one, but Wendy knew about Une société inclusive—C'est le monde sans obstacles. It's a five-day conference in Montreal June 1 to 5, and Bill has been negotiating with Joan Westland from the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work to see what kind of a hearing or at least some sort of presence the subcommittee could have, hopefully on the first day of that meeting. So we will just keep you up to date as long as there is consensus here for Bill to see what could—

A voice: She's going to be writing you a letter.

The Chair: So Joan will write all of us a letter proposing what it is.

In the work plan there were a number of options that had been discussed before, and Wendy and I had an informal conversation about them. This is in tab 2. There were a couple of things that we feel are just our ongoing monitoring activities. We still don't seem to have had letters from some of the ministers that we wrote to in June. We're going to have to keep following up with the minister with the leadership on this file.

We're not quite sure what to do about what I think the Council of Canadians with Disabilities has written to most of us about, which is that VIA Rail has just purchased a whole bunch of rolling stock that is not accessible, and the other issues like the National Library of Canada.

• 1605

It was interesting that in Minister Martin's presentation to the e-government conference last week one of the slides he had about one of the possibilities of e-government is having things in multiple formats, which is something we've heard about a great deal.

So in respect of possible studies there are four main choices. Bill has always been very creative, whether it's a weekly study or there's a one-day intensive onslaught on something. There is no question that at the top of the list from lots of our colleagues as members of Parliament.... And on the upcoming W5 or Fifth Estate—I can't remember which one—there is going to be a big exposé, I believe, on CPP disability and the difficulty people have. There's been a lot of interest in whether this could be better for Canadians, whether the people who need it are getting it, and whether people are getting it who shouldn't be getting it. That obviously would be an interesting study, as would, again, this ongoing talk about partial disability and whether that should be done during the EI system or whether there's another way of doing that.

Supports and services is the second one.

Maybe, Bill, since you wrote this, you could take us through the four options.

Mr. Bill Young (Committee Researcher): These were a series of suggestions that came out of the committee's earlier work.

As to CPP disability, Dr. Bennett explained. Supports and services have always been an issue for people with disabilities. The subcommittee held a round table last year with members of the community to discuss various options in the area of supports and services. Since then two proposals have been put forward. One was from Sherri Torjman of the Caledon Institute for a national fund for supports and services, and I thought you might be interested in hearing what she put forward.

In addition, there is one on supports and services for employment, called “Ticket To Work”, and one of the professors at Carleton University's School of Social Work, Roy Hanes, has put together a short paper. This is a U.S. program that provides supports and services for people entering the labour force. They get to pick, basically, the supports they need, and these are provided for a certain period of time. It's a program that's brought together the state governments, the federal government, and in addition the community and some of the advocacy organizations. It struck me as being a potential model you might like to explore for the way various partners can put together that type of program.

With outcome measures and accountability, this would build on the committee's report, but also concern in the community that a lot of the report cards that are being developed, particularly for children and the national children's agenda, don't necessarily build in outcome measures or indicators for kids with disabilities. So in fact programs that could be accessible for children with disabilities aren't going to be looked at. That may not in fact be included in the reports that are going to be prepared and tabled. The Roeher Institute, for example, is sponsoring a meeting next week in Toronto, a round table, just to look at this issue, because people are becoming somewhat concerned about this.

The issue of an accountability mechanism, which flows out of the outcome measures, has been a question that's come up through the Scott task force, and it has been brought forward again recently by the March of Dimes people. The issue there basically has been the gap between the commitment to do something and the action that might come out, and the need to see whether a mechanism could be put in place that would potentially eliminate the gap or make it a little bit less wide.

• 1610

So proposals have been put forward. One has been for a disability commissioner, the most recent one the March of Dimes people are interested in. The second would be a Canadians with disabilities act, an issue that came up a lot during Andy Scott's task force on disability. There was a third one that actually came up during the hearings of this subcommittee last year, when the human rights commissioner came forward, and she was asked about whether the Human Rights Commission could serve as a kind of vehicle, at least to monitor what was going on. So that would link, potentially, back into the whole issue of outcomes of programs and indicators.

These were suggestions. Obviously, they don't cover every issue, by any stretch of the imagination. It was just intended to give you folks a starting point for any discussion you might like to have.

The Chair: Last year we had one hearing on the Eldridge decision out of the Supreme Court. What was clear was that the Supreme Court makes a ruling, but then there's not really any heft with which to follow it up. We heard from Jamie MacDougall, who, for Health Canada, was going from province to province seeing what was going on. In some provinces some things were happening, in others they weren't. The most common complaint to the Human Rights Commission is about a disability issue, whether it's at Parks Canada or whatever. Is there a way for the back office of the Human Rights Commission to have more audit capabilities, or more ability to follow things through to make sure they happen?

So that would be one. If we decided that some sort of accountability or outcome measures would be important, then it would be up to the committee to make a recommendation of one of these three, or two out of three, or something like that. That was certainly something the Council of Canadians with Disabilities was asking in the meeting we had with them.

Jim.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Because I'm completely without any information on the concept of a disability commissioner or a Canadians with disabilities act, I'd be very interested in exploring that.

Expansion of the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission I just don't think is the route to go. I want to be as charitable as possible, so let's just say that their workload is so heavy right now, I don't see why we would be adding more. Let's leave it at that.

However, going to number one here, the Canada Pension Plan disability, I dare say there isn't one of our offices that doesn't handle this issue, perhaps on a daily basis. It's just monumental. We all know that when a person makes an application for CPP disability, their first application will be returned. It doesn't make any difference if it's good, bad, indifferent, complete, or not—it will be returned. That's just their form. And it's something that is extremely time-consuming, not only for our offices, which is fine, but for the bureaucracy of the CPP.

It strikes me that when one prioritizes, there's always the problem that the lesser priorities are important—and I don't mean to say that they're not—but in terms of an issue, this is one that comes to our constituency offices constantly, which is an indicator that it's a major concern to an awful lot of Canadians, in my judgment.

The Chair: Maybe we could just go around and have people sort of.... Jim, when I was first on the HRDC committee, as a physician filling out these CPP forms, I asked the then deputy minister Mel Cappe if they turned down 100% or it just seemed like that, and his answer to me was that he didn't know and he would get back to me. I think some of that did spur on a fair bit of work. The answer is that 63%, or something like that, are turned down immediately. And with all of the appeals process, it gets to about 49%. We did have a brief update on it, which apparently meant that the department did look at this.

• 1615

What we've been hearing from some of the specific disease organizations, like MS, is that if the bureaucrats could work with a specific disease to develop a set of indicators.... The MS people say to us, “100% of our people get this eventually. We can tell you which ones will get it and which ones won't. Let us help you with a set of indicators the bureaucrats could use.”

It's the reason it does interest me, if we could actually look at making what happens within the bureaucracy more effective. The necessity of appealing and the cost of appealing, I think, is disenfranchising to a lot of people who should be getting it. But it is something the committee looked at briefly, probably two years ago—right, Wendy?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Yes.

The Chair: Or a year and a half ago? Yes.

Robert, do you have some thoughts?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'm listening and I sense that certain things have been pre-determined. I hope there is room for other items, because I feel rather restricted.

[English]

The Chair: Sure.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I get here and I see that the process has already been decided. I realize that you have already worked on certain issues, but as I was saying earlier, I hope there is room for some flexibility. I see many items listed here, among others, disability under the Canada Pension Plan and under the Régime des rentes du Québec.

I see a problem with this because the definitions and decisions handed down are different. As I was saying, as a former lawyer, I've dealt with problems of this nature. It's not at all the same thing. Therefore, I have a problem with this because for the time being, Quebec is also part of Canada and I have to wonder where we are going to be able to discuss this subject in this manner.

It's all well and good to hear from Quebeckers who are experiencing this problem, but even if we call them to testify, we're going to have problems. As I indicated to you at the outset, if there is one area where we need to work in partnership, surely it's in our dealings with persons with disabilities. I find myself facing somewhat of a dilemma. This is my first meeting and I get the sense that some issues are perhaps more global in nature. How should we be organized? I think the subcommittee needs to address this question. Perhaps it should consider forging ties with the provinces and with Quebec through these meetings so that we can get an overall picture of the situation. If we proceed in the manner now being proposed, I fear that we will be taking a regional approach and in my opinion, this won't resolve anything. As you know, I work for Quebeckers and I think there will be a problem.

I'm not really sure how to resolve this dilemma. I'm suggesting that we take a global or comprehensive approach, one that will work as well for Western Canadians as it does for residents of Newfoundland. This subcommittee, however, as a very unique mandate. As you know, we work very hard in Quebec to address the concerns of persons with disabilities. We can't forget the efforts of the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec. Before we focus on specific issues, we need to adopt a constructive approach to disability issues.

Moreover, when we talk about inclusive, it's equally important to talk about support and that applies to children at school as well. Let me give you a few examples. Some children require some follow up and need to attend an institution. Far be it for me to preach politics, but as everyone knows, education funding has been cut repeatedly and transfer payments and services are not what they used to be. And where are the first cuts made? The first area affected are services for persons with disabilities. Not only are these persons disabled, they must travel further to obtain services.

• 1620

I fully realize that this is a complex issue, but we could initiate a debate right away, instead of putting the cart before the horse. The process might be slower, but perhaps we could succeed in resolving these problems once and for all if we heard from all stakeholders. If we deal with specific issues like this one, not only will I have a problem with this approach, but I may not even be able to help those in need in Quebec. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: At the present time there are these federal-provincial working groups, and the one on disabilities has been pretty successful. They released a book called In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues / À l'unisson: Une approche canadienne concernant les personnes handicapées. Quebec has been very cooperative—they haven't signed it, but it's a pretty functional working group.

In our first report we were trying to deal with this federal-provincial stuff and the new social union framework agreement in regard to best practices, programs of comparable quality, those kinds of things. There's been an interest in sharing best practices from province to province, finding out what some are trying and what works well somewhere. So in supports and services there's clearly a need to hear what's happening from province to province. I think sometimes we don't know.

In this report Bill has just shown me it says they've asked the officials to work jointly on examining labour market needs of persons with disabilities, assessing the feasibility of a new disability tax benefit to assist with the cost of disability supports, and the officials will report back on the progress.

To be totally personal, I've been very interested and I think—was it Paul Crête who sat on the disability committee?—when you look at this country and the.... As opposed to clawing back provinces that don't meet certain standards, there was an interest expressed in exploring rewards to provinces that do things well, whether that's daycare in Quebec or.... There would be almost a carrot way of encouraging provinces to be creative and innovative, by means of a cash prize that included, maybe, going out to other provinces to explain how it worked, speaking to bureaucrats, and those sorts of things.

I don't think we as a committee really know well what's working and not working in all the provinces. Maybe that's what you're saying. We have to know what's going on in this supports and services piece and what the gaps are. Some of us have tried to go and speak to our local people. When I was at the CMA meeting last summer, I met with the minister responsible in Saskatoon. It would be interesting to see what's possible.

I guess that's what Sherri Torjman talked about, how you could kind of....

Mr. Bill Young: That's one proposal. There's a whole series of different proposals in and around how to organize supports and services. The federal government could put together some kind of fund. That's Sherri's proposal.

The other issue obviously is whether the tax system can be used. And how could the tax system be used to deal with some of these issues? That would have an impact on people with disabilities in every province. That's where the subcommittee focussed some of its work before. They had a round table on the tax system and the disability tax credit and how it worked. They found there was quite a high level of consensus among the experts in the community about using the tax system. That's another possibility. Then the third possibility is this employment strategy, which may or may not link both.

• 1625

In terms of disability supports, I think it's been identified to the subcommittee in its previous meetings as being one of the highest priorities of the community itself. But obviously the committee just got organized before the election. You had a meeting, and then the election was called.

You're talking about looking at supports for children with disabilities. There was a joint meeting with the children's subcommittee, which actually did result in some changes to the federal early childhood development agreement. That agreement was subsequently signed with the provinces, and it included children with disabilities in a way that hadn't necessarily been on the table before.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I see. It's a very complex issue, somewhat like the status of women. It touches every level in every department.

I can use my own personal experience as an example. If you need to hire someone to watch your child at night, then the issue of tax credits comes into play. However, there's more to it than that. It could be the number of times a parent—and as I was saying, the parents can have important jobs, as is the case with me and my wife, and not be at home—is forced to make excuses to leave for the hospital. A person's employment situation may end up being rather tenuous. And while the parent may be exceptionally qualified, the disabled child has tremendous needs that must be attended to.

We need to think about it and get involved. Legislative measures respecting workers' rights and labour standards could be introduced so that a person could not be fired for having to be absent from work for this reason, regardless of the number of times this occurs. There should be measures in place to prevent employers from taking retaliatory action against persons who have a child with a disability. Labour standards need to be taken into account. I'm speaking from a Quebec perspective and that's why I think this approach is complex. I think we need to reflect upon the process and not take a piecemeal approach. We need to make protecting families that care for children with disabilities a priority, both at the federal and Quebec levels.

The person with the disability may be older, of course, a father for instance. I was talking about a child, but it could be an older person as well. It's often immediate family members who are the primary care givers and they should get some breaks, both from a tax and work standpoint. The parent, whether the father or mother, needs to be protected, as does the adult child caring for a father or mother.

We mustn't ask ourselves whether this is even possible. It should be standard practice and legislation should be amended accordingly to prevent discrimination because it can come to that. A person, whether a professional or not, can risk losing his or her job. Losing a job can have even more dire consequences for a person earning $30,000, especially if the spouse earns even less.

I am speaking in general terms, but I think we should take the reverse approach with a view to protecting persons with disabilities and those who care for them.

[English]

The Chair: Well, we certainly heard that last year. I think it's clear this does cross ministries. Sometimes it's a health issue, and then respite care ends up under a health ministry, as well as supports and services. And then there's the tax in all that too.

• 1630

Maybe it is time to bring some of the ministers back to hear what they're doing with their provincial colleagues on this matter. We should also find out from the federal-provincial working group what's happening on this issue of supports and services. How do we make sure it happens for all Canadians? One of the problems has been that most disabilities have been attached to the labour market in some way, so that children with disabilities....

It's only when we put the pressure on, that it isn't just ramps to get into the workplace, it's supporting the parents and all those kinds of things. I think since the Latimer case, and this more recent one, the real stress on parents of kids with disabilities is in the public eye. What are we doing to support families?

It's interesting. What do you think, Wendy—is it time to bring all the ministers in again?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, I think what you're talking about is how we care for the caregivers. How do we make sure there are programs and supports in place to allow them to look after persons with disabilities? I think that's a very important concern.

I'm greatly concerned about the whole issue of education, respite care, health care—making sure the services are there. That's certainly an important focus for us.

I think it's impossible to focus just on income support. It's very interesting to look at the Quebec Pension Plan, and how it possibly does a better job than the CPP—though I don't know that. We could look at what's available for one third of the population, as opposed to the rest of the population. There are huge problems right now with CPP disability. Are there with the Quebec disability pension plan? I don't know. Maybe we could learn something. We all agree we have a patchwork of services. Maybe there are better practices in Quebec, or maybe there aren't.

I don't want to not look at income supports, because I think that's the number one issue I hear about from people with disabilities in this country. They do not have a sufficient amount of money to survive, or to contribute at any level. Every MP I talk to says the same thing: we've got to do something about persons with disabilities and the amount of money they have to live on—period. So how do we do that? We look at the systems that are supposed to be in place to give people a decent income. Let's see what they are. Let's see how we can improve on them.

I actually think it would be a very exciting kind of focus, because it would certainly bring people in from all over the place who have ideas, who want to say how it can work better, how we can get in there and make recommendations.

The Chair: In terms of income support, I think we could bring in people such as Sherri Torjman. I hear from lots of groups that income support allows them to purchase their own services, as opposed to having to rely on a community. There's sort of a blur, too, between income support and services. You have a more independent view, you're able to get the help you need when you need it.

Janko.

Mr. Janko Peric: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's been very interesting to listen to the comments coming from our colleagues. Probably, as I do, you receive many constituents with applications for long-term CPP disability. What a process. Carolyn, you're more qualified than I am, but when they apply, they have to provide all this evidence, and after the evidence, often they're still rejected. That's very frustrating. Then they have to spend money on lawyers to appeal.

• 1635

I think that system has to be improved. As a medical professional, you probably have better ideas on how we can improve the system. I believe there was something in the last fall budget for caregivers.

Wendy, you're right on: a tax break is useless to those who have no income—it's worthless, it's zero.

Maybe we should invite witnesses and hear from them directly, instead of from some departmental bureaucrats. Let's hear from the people, and then call the ministers to see what's in the kitchen for them—are they preparing anything?

We're not talking about even 5% of our population; we're talking about a very small percentage, but very important. So I fully endorse the idea of bringing in witnesses and dealing with this process. The process is very long and it's very frustrating. And as elected representatives, there's no way we can tolerate this.

The Chair: Robert, is it your impression that the Quebec pension system works better than CPP disability?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Again, it all comes down to decisions made by officials. It's not a matter of choosing which is best, but rather of appreciating what each level of government is doing. This is important, in my estimation.

We need to look at what both levels of government are doing and go with the best approach. Ultimately, what matters most is securing funding and providing support, but genuine support. It could be in the form of tax credits for parents who care for these children. However, when the child reaches 25 years of age and this parents die, the child is left to fend for himself.

It is ludicrous that society cannot provide the proper level of support to persons with disabilities. As a starting point, we need to hear from witnesses. Janko Peric is quite right. We need to assess real needs. There is no doubt that the need is very real. There are programs in place and we need to get an overall picture of the situation. I still come back to this point.

Let's start by looking at the overall picture and overall needs, and the necessary changes will flow from this. We must make people with disabilities a political priority. We need to consider what steps to take to satisfy these needs.

[English]

The Chair: So you're saying it's a matter of what can be learned from the various systems. It's not really that one is better or worse—it's just that some systems seem to support people better.

The other group Wendy and I talked about was children with disabilities who turn 18. Particularly with schizophrenia or some of the mental handicaps, these parents don't really have any support. The fact that the kids are now 18 doesn't mean they don't still have huge dependencies. The parents still have total responsibility.

Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I like the fact that this subcommittee has always seen its mandate as a watchdog. There are systems that supposedly provide services to persons with disabilities. How successful are they?

• 1640

We have heard countless times that the income supports are not in place. People are in desperate situations and are not able to cover the costs of their drugs and wheelchairs. Certainly parents with children with high needs are not able to cover the cost of the care and still be able to bring in an income. Let's look at what supposedly is there and what isn't. We hear over and over again that income supports are not working.

Let's have that watchdog function. Let's say we want to bring people before us who are in desperate situations and are supposedly not able to access the CPP or QPP disability plan. Why can't they? Where's the problem here? Let's fix it. I think we should be aggressive. We're not here just to pass time. We're here to try to make things better.

On that note I'm very concerned about the VIA Rail situation. If we are in fact going backwards in this country in terms of accessible transportation for persons with disabilities, I'm ashamed. This committee should be the place where we bring VIA before us and we say, you have been charged by the advocacy group for persons with disabilities for taking us back to the Dark Ages in terms of transportation. Why can't we have that function? That's important. So I would suggest that as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Such services are also available in Quebec. As I was saying earlier, because certain transportation services are not available in a particular region, a severely disabled child may be forced to integrate into a conventional school. Some follow up may be required in such instances. I understand that integration is very important and that increasingly, this is the route that must be taken, but some needs are quite unique.

Getting back to the subject of funds transfers, I agree that funds should be transferred to areas where the need is greatest. All the better if there are programs in Canada. However, we must stop playing around.

I read what happened last year in connection with accountability and the social legislation that was not endorsed by Quebec. I think we need to move beyond this and think of the people who have pressing needs. The issue mustn't be politicized. A partnership needs to be established. People need to come here and if necessary, funding should be transferred to Quebec. That's important.

[English]

The Chair: The other group that falls is aboriginal children. We hear from the family that has a premature baby with huge special needs that they can no longer live on the reserve because the reserve doesn't have the necessary supports, and they now have to move to the city. It becomes a problem we all must share.

There are some really good spokespeople from some of the disability organizations in Quebec. There's also the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Maybe we should have one hearing in which we ask them if they have some ideas as to what we could do in terms of this gap analysis and how they could help us design a program where we could sort out the gaps and the needs and, hopefully, come up with some solutions. Would that be important?

What Bill is suggesting is that we hear from the people whose job it is to spend their time thinking about these things and who have important stories brought to them everyday. If they appeared before us in a meeting just before we reported back to the parent committee, it might be a good beginning in this incredibly short time we have between now and the end of June. Does that make sense?

• 1645

Bill can get the disability groups in to tell us what they've been thinking about and what gaps they see. They're obviously hugely worried about Latimer.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We mustn't view this as a step backward. On the contrary, we're going to the source. Thinkers, theorists, studies and data are all well and good, but figures can be interpreted to suit any purpose. I think if we invite this group to come and express their views, we will see that a consensus does exist. This will give further emphasis to the principle of thinking globally and that's what persons with disabilities need.

How do things currently stand? Tax credits make certain things possible, but others impossible. We should focus instead on meeting people. Obviously, we mustn't fool ourselves into thinking that we can accomplish everything. Everyone seated here at this table knows this to be true. Nevertheless, even though these individuals may not all be in the same situation, we can manage to achieve a consensus of some sort and to agree on an overall game plan.

It's sad to say, but will the final report and the recommendations it contains be endorsed by the political powers that be? One can only hope so. The report will call for a global solution and all departments will have to adapt to the political choice that has been made, that is they will have to make persons with needs a priority. Therefore, it's important that we meet people.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think it's important to meet with the groups as well. I would like us to get our teeth into something.

We have had these groups before us. Bill has a stock of documents that high, and you'll have a chance to read them. They're all of the reports that have come out every year over the last 15 years. They're all excellent documents. They all say pretty much the same thing. People know what's wrong, but we're short on solutions. So I have a heavy heart about bringing in the advocacy groups one more time and asking them what they want us to do.

However, I think it is timely, because we haven't had anybody appear before us. We haven't been constituted until now. In terms of bringing us all together, I think it's a good idea. I think we should bear in mind that we have a chance here to really sink our teeth into something and to try to make some waves and to make a difference.

The Chair: We are late starting, Wendy. We could invite the advocacy groups to come to a slightly longer meeting after we get back where we could have some supper and spend at least three hours with them. I think it would be hard to get them all in and out in an hour and a half and yet get some real directions or gaps. We could organize a meeting to start at 3:30 and finish at seven, or something like that. What do you think? Do you think we'd need a longer meeting to hear those groups in terms of...?

Mr. Janko Peric: Is it possible, Bill, for you to summarize what has been said by previous groups and to send us a report in the next couple of weeks, which we can then go over? I would hate to waste their time and our time. We're going to look like fools. They'll say, you're inviting us but there are no solutions. There are no results from that. Maybe we could go from there and see if there was any improvement since the last meeting. If not, then let's start attacking.

The Chair: We could take your point, meaning the things that were identified before. My sense is that we're still going to have to hear from these people. But maybe Bill could summarize what they've said before and what we've said before. We could ask them if this is still the order in which they would set their priorities and what's different, presuming they know that we've read the stuff and we know where they're coming from and that we want the value added now in terms of what they think, in 2001, are their big issues. Is it caregivers? Is it the human rights? Is it income support?

• 1650

Does that make sense? I think, Bill, we've got now two weeks, thankfully, so that by our first meeting back after the break, we could get them in. And in some ways maybe it's better that we hear from them before the minister, don't you think? I feel that I'd be better up to date.

Mr. Janko Peric: Let's have an agreement, because I'm new, and Robert is new on the subcommittee. So let us go over this summarized material, and then we can follow after that and invite them right away.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's an excellent idea. Obviously, Ms. Lill's situation is not the same as ours. Perhaps it would be wise to let the new members of the committee know what the status will be following these meetings.

However, I would like us to discuss amongst ourselves how many meetings we should have and how long they should last. Ours is a small group and I do serve on other committees, namely the committees on sport and youth and the joint committee on the scrutiny of regulations. My schedule is already very hectic. However, I am very interested in this particular subcommittee.

If we could sit for a longer period of time rather than schedule more meetings, that would be my personal preference. Furthermore, we wouldn't need to turn away potential witnesses because we were running short on time.

Therefore, we could set aside a block of time to hear from invited witnesses. If everyone has an opportunity to speak, we will get the information we need more quickly.

Perhaps we can agree on one thing. Instead of scheduling meetings at times when witnesses are unable to attend, we could agree to pick a time that is amenable to everyone.

[English]

The Chair: Still, I think it's up for grabs.

Also, Wednesday afternoon is generally the afternoon reserved for subcommittees. The main committees don't meet on Wednesday afternoons.

The only problem is that the children and youth subcommittee is meeting at the same time. Sometimes there have been interesting witnesses that we wanted to go and hear on the other side. I'm not sure whether Tuesday afternoon is possible, but we might be able to flip back and forth a little bit.

Would it be better for you to know that it's every Wednesday afternoon, or every Tuesday afternoon, or can we fool a bit with....?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The best time for me is really Wednesday afternoon, that is late afternoon or early evening. Wednesday is the ideal day.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Wednesday afternoon is good for you? Janko, Wednesday afternoon?

Mr. Janko Peric: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Janko Peric: But in case you're going to bring witnesses from far away, then we have to be available not just for Wednesday afternoon. We have to be available for the rest of the day so that people are not coming here for...

The Chair: So on April 25, then, we would do the roundtable with the disability groups? And then it's possible that we would be asked to go to the standing committee of HRDC on that Thursday morning, April 26. It would be optional for our subcommittee, but it would be the more of us that were there, the better.

And then on the accountability file on societal and social indicators in disability, that's a totally optional meeting, but we would love to have any of you there the morning of April 30.

• 1655

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Are you going to send all of this to us?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: May I say right away that it would be a good idea to ensure the presence of the responsible Quebec government officials when we meet with these witnesses so that they can hear their testimony as well.

The Chair: I agree.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: We would just really have May 2, 9, 16, and 30, so there would be four more meetings. Then if we would do hearings in Montreal on June 1 at the Inclusion by Design Congress.... That's the Friday.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's where we are bound to have a problem. Could you provide us with a schedule of upcoming meetings, instead of merely letting us know today what we're going to be doing. I will be in South Africa from May 30 to June 2. I brought this matter up earlier to avoid someone saying that we have an agenda to follow and that the interested subcommittee member cannot be present. We are open to suggestions, but could you possibly provide us with a schedule? The 30th was mentioned, and I know that I can't be here on that day.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, and Bill will circulate a tentative schedule, and then if on.... The only one we can't change is the conference on June 1, so maybe the alumni of the committee or somebody would replace you for this.

We should probably put a request to Minister Stewart for one of those days, like May 2 or something.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'd like to just—

Mr. Janko Peric: May I just say something?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Janko Peric: When you put the request to the minister, give her more than one date.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm just trying to get my head around this. We're going to bring some groups before us to talk about their list of priorities for our activity. Are we asking them, what do you want this subcommittee to address in the upcoming year? Is that a reasonable question to ask them? We could ask them what are the five biggest problems facing persons with disabilities, but we could also ask them what they think...are we asking them for—

An hon. member: Input.

The Chair: We could ask them whatever. It might be—

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm just wondering, again, how do we focus down and get to work on something effective? I'm thinking that we meet with them, and we may hear three or four different things, and then I guess we keep—

The Chair: Then we decide.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Then we decide. Then I guess the sequence is that we go to the HRD committee and we say okay, this is what we've heard, and these are the deliberations we've gone through, and this is what we'd like to focus on for the next six months or the next year. Does that sound like what we want to do? Because I worry about us just floating along for a long period of time without a game plan. I find that happens too much of the time around here—

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Wendy Lill: —and we have important work to do. So that's what I worry about.

The Chair: What would you suggest, Bill? Is it possible for us to have a round table on May 25 and show up at the HRD committee on May 26 with a plan?

Mr. Bill Young: I think what they're looking for is a discussion of the work of the committee.

The Chair: What we've already done, too.

Mr. Bill Young: So some of it's going to be what you've already done. Even if it were just a set of options for issues that you wanted to look at, I think what they're trying to do is find a way to make sure that your work has the support of the main committee rather than having you work in complete isolation. I really think that was the aim of the exercise. At least that's what the chair of the standing committee was looking at. Ultimately, any report a subcommittee passes has to be passed by the main committee as well. It becomes their report. There are a lot of new members on the main committee as well.

• 1700

Ms. Wendy Lill: It's just this is who we are and these are the things we are considering addressing.

The Chair: Yes. I think there should be an afternoon for their input.

Ms. Wendy Lill: We know what they'll all say. They'll all say “income support”.

The Chair: I think what we were really asked to do, in the fall, when this was proposed, was to go and explain what we thought we'd done in regard to what the work of the committee has been, then to say what we hope to be able to tackle. But it is the job of this committee to decide what the work is. They can have opinions, but we still get to decide what it is we want to go and do.

Mr. Janko Peric: I would agree up to a point with that, but I don't think the purpose should be to hear from them what we want to hear.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Janko Peric: Let's hear the truth. We have to deal with that.

The Chair: But this was from the parent committee.

Mr. Janko Peric: Oh.

The Chair: With the new members on the parent committee, it's a matter of bringing them up to speed, so that we're working in concert with them. I don't think it's possible, but the parent committee may want to do CPP disability. The parent committee could decide they're going to do a big study on CPP disability, which would then be something we wouldn't have to do. So it's just a matter of making sure we're communicating.

Mr. Janko Peric: Is it possible to find out from them what their agenda is?

The Chair: Yes. Bill's here.

Mr. Bill Young: I work on the committee as well with Julie, who's sitting with me.

They're going to be looking at some of the issues concerning employment insurance raised during their hearings on Bill C-2 that they would like to report to the House on. The second issue is going to be post-secondary education, and they're hoping to hold a couple of meetings on that. And then there are the main estimates.

Mr. Janko Peric: So there is room for us.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Getting back to what Ms. Lill was saying, I would like to be more proactive. Before going to the main committee, I would meet with people. The subcommittee seems to be unanimous on that point: we need to meet people, set priorities and arrive at a consensus. Then we can meet with the main committee to let it know that we have agreed on a game plan, met with people and identified five or ten issues for further consideration. We could let the main committee know how we plan to proceed. It could then turn its attention to other matters and we could avoid duplication in the process. We plan to do an in-depth study of this issue. There may be matters that you will want to deal with elsewhere, but we will have developed a game plan, one that will have drawn its inspiration from the views of persons with disabilities who testified before the committee.

The Chair: Fine then. Thank you.

[English]

I think we've got a plan. Good.

We have one other little piece of business. This committee is the operation that deals with the Centennial Flame Research Award and report, which is tab 4 in your briefing book. Last year's winner, Mrs. Ruttan from Edson, Alberta, I don't think we ever met. She's supposed to come and give a report. We just need a consensus today to send out a press communiqué calling for papers for the next year's award and to set a deadline for submissions, which is usually the middle of May, in this case 2001. From those we then pick the next recipient.

• 1705

Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: This is the first time I've heard about it. I knew of the award's existence, but I don't think we have a whole lot of time from now until the middle of May to advertise. We have a two-week break in April. That's doesn't leave us much time. I don't know if this is the way things are always done, but I find this deadline very tight.

[English]

The Chair: Usually the deadline is the end of March. What our clerk suggested was that if we expanded the deadline for submissions to mid-May, you could send out the press release today, giving them six weeks to apply. Then, after the May break or during the May break, we'd have the applications to review, and we could still pick the new recipient before we break for the summer. We could extend it if it looked like people were not able to do it.

Mr. Bill Young: It may have been advertised already. Do you know, Mike?

The Clerk of the Committee: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Bill Young: I'm trying to remember the normal schedule. I think the election might have interfered at one point or another, but normally it's advertised throughout from around November until the end of March, and then the committee makes a selection some time in April or May. I'm not sure. I haven't been involved this year.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I asked, because my concern is that those who are already in the know will apply, whereas those who are not won't. It complicates matters slightly. That's why I find the deadline a little tight, even though things may always have been done this way.

[English]

Mr. Bill Young: The award is given out each year, and the members of the subcommittee make the selection. I have to look, but I think there's a provision that as long as it's done by the end of the year, it's—

The Chair: The end of the calendar year?

Mr. Bill Young: Yes, I think so.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bill Young: So you could extend that time. I'll have to have a look. I'm sorry, I don't remember.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: To whom are you sending this press release? To all organizations in Canada?

[English]

The Chair: It's a full press release, as a communiqué from the government. I think, though, that you're right, most of the organizations expect this every year and they've just been waiting for it with their applications ready, wondering when on earth we were going to ask for them. If you think we might be excluding people, that's certainly not a good feeling.

Mr. Bill Young: In the book you'll see the procedure. Normally, in January the clerk of the committee distributes announcements, and the announcement will contain the amount of money and the conditions. Then, by June 6 or within a reasonable time thereafter, but no later than December 31, members of the standing committee will select a winner. The administrative guidelines that were adopted previously would mean you'd have up until the end of December. This is for last year, so I would assume the same thing just continues from one year to the next.

The Chair: Okay. So we could send it out today.

Mr. Bill Young: It's on page 13 in tab 4.

The Chair: So would you feel more comfortable extending the deadline?

• 1710

Mr. Bill Young: You'd have to see how many applications you get. Was it advertised before? Because according to this, the clerk should have done it already. There was no clerk, because....

The Chair: Would you feel more comfortable extending the deadline until September?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Sure.

The Chair: Do we have to strike this committee again in September?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I don't know the type of project that people might undertake, but they will be required to create projects. I'm talking about those who are not aware of the application process. Those who have already submitted three applications may have a head start on the others. I want to give everyone an equal chance.

[English]

The Chair: We've one in already.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think, because of the election, we are looking at a quite different situation this year, and people would probably accept a three-month extension as a reasonable suggestion.

Mr. Bill Young: If it's originally advertised at the beginning of January and it's until the end of March, that's January, February, March. So if you're going to start at the beginning of April, that's April, May, June. September is obviously the probable time when you would meet.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Good idea.

The Chair: Will Mrs. Ruttan come soon? Have we invited her to come and give a report?

The Clerk: Not yet.

The Chair: Once we've got a tentative schedule, maybe we could invite her for a certain date. The clerk is saying the speakers of both houses tend to have a reception to welcome and thank them.

Okay. We've got a plan. This is good. We'll put Bill back to work. Good.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Why would we have to reconstitute ourselves in September?

The Chair: I was asking the question. We hope not. It would only happen if Parliament is prorogued. Barring that, as soon as we get back in September, we can do the Centennial Flame Award and all that stuff.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have one other question. I see budget written down here. Is there a budget? If we do consider going to the United States to do some research on this “Ticket To Work” project—conceivably we might do that at some point—do we have any funds?

The Clerk: We'll get some.

The Chair: Great. He's going to take us to Montreal, and then....

[Translation]

Thank you very much and until next time.

The meeting is adjourned.