SPER Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

¹

1535

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.))

Ms. Deborah Tunis (Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Department of Human Resources Development)

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Ms. Deborah Tunis

¹

1555

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

º

1600

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

º

1605

Ms. Deborah Tunis

º

1610

Ms. Pauline Myre (Director, Policy and Research, Department of Human Resources Development)

Ms. Deborah Tunis

º

1615

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Myre

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Myre

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Myre

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Myre

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Myre

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

º

1620

Ms. Deborah Tunis

º

1625

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Tunis

Ms. Pauline Myre

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

º

1630

Ms. Deborah Tunis

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Georges Grujic (Director, Programs, Department of Human Resources Development)

º

1635

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Deborah Tunis

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Deborah Tunis

º

1640

º

1645

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

º

1650

Ms. Deborah Tunis

Ms. Pauline Myre

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Tunis

º

1655

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Tunis

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Deborah Tunis

»

1700

The Chair

Ms. Deborah Tunis

The Chair

---

CANADA

Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 024

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): We can start. The order of the day is the study of the Canada Pension Plan disability.

    We welcome, from the Department of Human Resources Development, Deborah Tunis, director general, Office for Disability Issues; Pauline Myre, director, policy and research; Georges Grujic, director, programs; Jane Clinckett, special adviser, Office of Disability Issues; and Vangelis Nikias, special adviser.

    Welcome.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis (Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Department of Human Resources Development): I'm very honoured and privileged to be here presenting on the Office for Disability Issues and what we've been doing for the past few months and what we're planning to do in the future.

    We've provided a copy of a deck presentation, which I'll go through very quickly. The purpose of this presentation is really just to make sure everybody has some background information about the Office for Disability Issues. The reason we have a big crowd here is to answer any kinds of questions you have and to talk about how we can work together in the future.

    As part one of this presentation indicates, our current structure is divided up. There's a director general's office, a director for policy and research, a director on the program side, and two special advisers. The latter are Vangelis, who has responsibility for rebuilding some relationships with community groups, and Jane, who is working particularly on relations with regions and administering with provinces the agreements on employability assistance for people with disabilities.

    The current ODI vision and mandate is very much to see Canadians with disabilities participating as full partners and citizens in the workplace and community. The mandate is to advance the disability agenda.

    In terms of the program division, which is our most active area vis-à-vis community groups, we provide funding through operational grants and project funding. The project funding is divided into the community inclusion fund—which is $3 million and went for 27 different grants last year—and project funding, which went to 60 different initiatives, managed by 40 organizations, last year. Both of these programs are aimed at building the capacity of the disability community to identify best practices in terms of service delivery and research and development. Our operational grants go to 18 national disability organizations.

    In terms of the things we've been doing this past year, the Auditor General and community groups have made a number of comments on how we administer the funding and what our rules are. They also commented on the need for greater transparency; for some more consistency; and for some better linkages between policy and program priorities and the kinds of things we're currently funding.

    So we've made a number of changes to the application guide and process this year to really bring some more rigour and consistency into how we make decisions. There's also an evaluation under way being done by Hara Associates, with Goss Gilroy of the social development partnerships program. The results of this should be available this summer.

    Minister Stewart has made a commitment to get back to Treasury Board to renew terms and conditions of all of the grants and contributions programs by next December. So there's a policy renewal exercise under way. I know this subcommittee has heard a number of comments from the community about changes they would like to see, which would modernize how we deliver this, and have a clear recognition of how we regard community organizations and what this partnership means. There's a lot of work going on right now in terms of evaluation, policy renewal, and just modernizing or tightening up the administration of how we currently run the funding programs.

    The policy and research division is the newer one in the Office for Disability Issues. There are four key themes. We need to try to bring about the policy coherence and integration called for in a number of subcommittee reports; strengthen our partnerships and know how we're engaged in the community in a number of different policy initiatives; provide knowledge for good policy and program development; and ensure disability issues are integrated into mainstream policy and programs, both within HRDC and across the Government of Canada.

¹  (1540)  

    So the key activities on that side are support to the ADM steering committee, the development and implementation of the access and inclusion lens, the federal disability report, a study of definitions of disability, and the engagement of the disability community in the skills and learning agenda.

    You'll note that those five items listed on page 9 have all been recommendations that your subcommittee has made, so you're the taskers for this group. You'll see at the back of this presentation, when we go through some of the history of how ODI came to be, that our activities and the work of parliamentarians through the subcommittee have been very linked.

    We're responsible for administering the employability assistance for people with disabilities agreements with provinces. That's $193 million worth of cost-shared agreements with provinces. We're also working on developing a disability profile for what HRDC does on disability. And we've put out a number of publications recently. One is a disability research bulletin, of which we've brought copies. We might want to think of a way of connecting it with the website you develop.

    We provide support to the government online—the disability portal that the Government of Canada is trying to develop. We've put out a number of publications, including a guide on hosting and planning accessible meetings, and we're developing this workshop on the duty to accommodate.

    I'll skip over the achievements on page 11 and we can talk about those more at length if you have questions.

    I wanted to talk about what things I've been doing since I arrived. I was appointed on August 27. Pauline joined on Labour Day last year and Georges joined on April 9.

    When the ADM for human investment programs, Margaret Biggs, decided to elevate the Office for Disability Issues into a directorate and to add a DG position and a director of policy, it was a recognition that the workload for the office and the expectations of what the office could perform weren't matched by the resources the department was investing in that area. I think it's the recognition of the importance of the issues both to Margaret, the deputy, and the minister. They thought this merited beefing up, at least the executive complement and the staff associated with it.

    When I arrived and started to talk to staff there...the people who work in the Office for Disability Issues are incredibly committed to these issues. A number of them have been working on these issues for a number of years, often feeling that they weren't getting as much recognition and support as they needed. We've gone through a fairly comprehensive group of staff focus groups, talking to other government departments, talking to experts and members of the community about what the strengths and limitations were of the office and what we needed to do in terms of revitalizing it for the future and making disability a priority within HRDC and the Government of Canada.

    On page 13, we talk about having found a consensus on ODI's long-term goal. When we first started to talk, both within the staff and to people outside, many people wanted the Office for Disability Issues to fulfil different roles. Some people wanted it to be an internal advocate. Some people wanted it to be a model where disability issues were dealt with in the government, a clearing house, a single point of access.

    Where we did find a consensus on the long-term goal was in the quality of life of people with disabilities and in helping people participate more fully.

    To achieve those goals, it means people working together; it means more collaboration within the Government of Canada and with partners, both provinces and representatives from the disability community; and it means both having targeted initiatives and seeing people with disabilities reflected in our mainstream initiatives.

¹  (1545)  

    So what we've proposed on pages 14 and 15 of this product is that we want to become a focal point within government for partners working together. We want to provide leadership in this area that we all recognize is an area of shared responsibility and jurisdiction. But we feel that right now a lot of the efforts that people are making, both individuals within different departments across government and across the rest of the system, are disconnected. I think it's a comment your subcommittee has made often, that people don't seem to be working together on these issues. So to the extent we can, with our resources and the energy from the people on this side of the table, we're going to try to serve as a catalyst to build those networks and help people work together.

    We've identified four strategic objectives: this policy coherence program integration through horizontal management; investing strategically in the capacity of the voluntary sector; building action-oriented networks; and providing sound knowledge and expertise. We've identified some key priorities on page 16, which include making sure that disability issues are integrated in key federal and HRDC priorities, making sure that the various policy renewal exercises that are under way, either on the Opportunities Fund or EAPD, are linked together, and that we try to bring synergy and energy to the disability file.

    We've talked about some of the next steps we're undertaking in terms of developing a strategic plan, working with government practitioners. At the end of this we've identified two pages that track the history of the Office for Disability Issues from its early roots at Health and Welfare and the Secretary of State through the various organizational models it has had within HRDC. What you'll see is that above the line, throughout the past 20 years, a key impetus for our work has been what parliamentarians have said in the Obstacles report; A Consensus for Action; Andy Scott's report; Reflecting Interdependence; and A Common Vision.

    So that's our introduction, and we'd be happy to answer any questions about policy, programs, how we're situated within HRDC, and what your expectations are for us.

    Thank you.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Wendy.

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I realize that the older I get, a disability I have is being able to absorb the information in a PowerPoint presentation and come up with questions that are penetrating, and all that. It would have been better if I could have looked at it on the plane on the way in.

    Having said that, I'm very excited by your enthusiasm. I can see that you have brought to this very important directorate some focus and commitment, which is probably having a great impact on the morale. It's wonderful that Vangelis is now working with you. I think a lot of good things are going to happen.

    I had a chance to talk to the minister. I just whizzed into a committee meeting where she was reporting on training and learning initiatives. I said, let me tell you what's going on in Nova Scotia right now. We have a teachers' union that has basically voted down the idea of inclusion because they are so starved for resources. It's a toxic environment for young people with disabilities, because the education system has been underfunded for so long. The provincial Minister of Education will say, we need $23 million more, but we don't have it. Inclusion isn't working. We don't have the money to make it work. It's because the federal government has not given us enough. For small provinces like ours, the impact of the reduction in transfer payments is astounding. So inclusion hasn't really been given a chance to work or not work.

    What we have at a very fundamental level is a union--quite frankly, I'm a very union-oriented person--saying that rights are conditional on getting enough money to make this work. This is a big problem. We're talking about citizenship and human rights.

    I just want to lay that out there for you to puzzle over. Where does your office fit into that? Education is a provincial jurisdiction. The minister talks a lot about partnering with the provinces. I'm telling you that the province is not feeling it's being partnered with at all in terms of meeting the needs of young people in the education system. I don't know what I'm expecting from you on this point. That is a fundamental issue I am struggling with everyday at home and also in my province.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: What a challenging first question. I'll kind of respond in a somewhat random way.

    I guess one of the things I've been impressed by in Nova Scotia is that I think it's one of the only provinces that is funding the People First organization of people with intellectual disabilities. We provide funding to People First nationally. A lot of the provincial affiliates don't get funding from their province, but that isn't the case in Nova Scotia. They do. Nova Scotia has been a leader on that front.

    In terms of the broader question you've asked about, inclusion in the school system—and I know when Minister Stewart was before the main HRD committee you were talking about young people graduating from high school and what happens to them in terms of accessing university—when I talk to people like the Canadian Association for Community Living, I do think the integration that students with disabilities have had in the primary and secondary school systems is a huge achievement for Canada. It's a wonderful recognition of the importance and the value that children with disabilities bring into a school system.

    We've started to hear some kind of...not backlash, but certainly when the Learning Disabilities Association comes and talks to us, they say, “We don't believe in inclusion. We don't think that works for people with learning disabilities; it's the wrong kind of model, and we think we need to have a different model.”

    The Canadian Association for Community Living came at the end of April, I think it was, to have a kind of policy forum about the framework they've developed about inclusion and the role of families, communities, the learning system, and the workplace, with the person with disabilities in the middle. We've funded CACL to do some of that preparatory work and they'll be going out and consulting on that.

    I think these are big issues that need to have an active debate. I'm troubled to hear that in terms of specific teachers' unions and the pressure that certain provinces are under, people are questioning some of these programs. But I can't be more helpful than that.

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: I think you've raised an interesting issue, and I wonder about the role of the ODI around this. There are different views out there as to how young people learn, or how people with disabilities, children with learning disabilities, autism, learn. There are different views on whether intensive treatment in small settings is the most appropriate, all of that. It's all really valuable and valid to be looking into that.

    It's so polarizing when you have parents of different children with different disabilities and they're all trying to advocate for their own child but are not finding.... They don't really trust the system to be really looking after their kids as much as only saving money.

    I guess the idea of whose role is it to actually go out, seek out the best practices of teaching for very specific.... I don't like labels, but I meet with parents of young people with autism, and many of them are really frustrated. They can't get the same kinds of training they could get, say, in Pennsylvania. There are some models used in the United States that people swear by, but we don't seem to have a body of knowledge to say in Canada whether we believe in that. So where is the research capacity that can be brought to bear on some very specific learning strategies for different disabilities? It seems to me that this would go a long way to giving everybody the ammunition resources they need to develop an education program that would meet all the needs.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: I think we have funded the Learning Disabilities Association to do a piece around best practices, although I'm not sure if it's focused, in the way you're talking, specifically on the education system or if it's a broader piece. We can certainly get a copy of that and forward it to you, in terms of what their work turned up.

    The Chair: Maybe I'll just follow up on that. Where is the research capacity? The Scott task force said there should be two funds, the grant fund and the research fund. When we set up CIHR, that was for health research. Where does disability research take place in this country in terms of best practices, education, disability management, or return to work? It's such a big area. Where do we get the research on this, and is it just hit and miss? How do we set some priorities and make sure the research is funded?

    Part of the whole accountability thing is that we want to be funding things that work. We need not only policy research, program evaluation, and results stuff, but also just basic research, right?

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: There are a couple of places that are responsible for research. Under the ADM's steering committee there is an interdepartmental working group on research that's co-chaired by SSHRC. There's Daryl Rock, who has moved over to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, where he's their director of research, and there's Satya Brink from the applied research branch at HRDC.

    The big priority for the applied research branch has been working with Statistics Canada on getting the participation and activity limitation survey out in the field and hopefully having the results come back. You've had a whole presentation from Adele Furrie, Doug Norris, and other people about when that's going to come forward.

    When this interdepartmental working group gets together and talks about disability research, there are two different schools of thought. One is that we've done a lot of research and what we need now is a plan of action to implement a lot of the research for the things where we do know what works and where we need more resources. Then there's another school of thought that says we do need to have a research plan, and we need to be moving forward in a coordinated way on research priorities.

    We have this little fund of $3.6 million, which is a research and development fund that is used by organizations. There are nine different priority areas people can receive funding for. A lot of the organizations are using that funding to support their capacity and their work, and whether or not it's an adequate amount of money is something we're hoping the evaluation will tell us. One of the things the people who went around and interviewed the organizations noticed is that in terms of the things we have funded there hasn't been an adequate job done of disseminating what results are being learned.

    Having worked on social policy on the children's file before I started working on disability issues, I can say that now we've had the national longitudinal survey on children and youth in Canada, have had that body of knowledge, and have started funding research, it's taken off. There is wonderful research going on in Canada right now on children. Our hope is that once we have the PALS day and once Statistics Canada puts that out, that is also going to lead to a lot of research happening on the disability file.

    The Chair: Just as to coordinating, how do you make sure that we aren't just having every organization do its equivalent of PALS? How is it going for the people who happen to belong to the organization? Who determines where these research dollars go?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: The way it has been determined to date is that the applied research branch has received the funding that was approved by the government, coming out of the budget—

    The Chair: Is that peer-reviewed research SSHRC is giving out dollars for?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: They are giving out dollars for peer-reviewed research, yes. The applied research branch has had a consultation with disability organizations about what the priorities should be in the disability session, and they held a conference last year called “Ready, Set, Go!”

    The Chair: Okay, I'll shut up because these people all want to question.

    Anita.

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you. I just want to apologize for coming in late. I'm sorry. It seems to be my habit.

    Thank you for the presentation. It's very impressive and very exciting. You have a lot of energy, and I hope the synergy comes with it. Having said that, I read it and I thought, how are they going to do it? How are they going to make it happen?

    I have a whole bunch of questions. They relate, first of all, to how you work within the department of HRDC--I'm going to just throw them at you and let you answer--how you work horizontally. How do you coordinate with the Employment Equity Act? How do you coordinate with the labour market development for persons with disabilities? That's one thing.

    What is your role working horizontally across government? I'm involved in another file and it's extraordinarily difficult in terms of bringing a disability lens to policies, programs, whatever, that are coming into effect.

    I'm interested in knowing what your total budget is and how it's allocated. I'm interested in knowing if you've set yourself guidelines in terms of time--when you hope to be where with what--or if that's even a fair question because you're all relatively new on this file.

    I'm also interested in knowing what your relationship with research organizations is. I'm from Manitoba. I've had a lot to do with the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies, as I'm sure you have. What is your relationship with organizations like that in terms of research? I'll stop there and then let somebody else come back.

º  (1605)  

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: That's a great set of questions. I'll talk a little bit about how we're situated within HRDC. Then I'm going to turn this over to Pauline in terms of talking about some of the horizontal work and how we approach that. That will give me time to search, to give you the exact figures about our budget and some of our timelines in terms of where we're trying to move forward.

    Within HRDC there are a number of program areas and policy areas. We're situated within the human investment programs branch, headed by Margaret Biggs. Human investment programs are a mix of responsibilities for sector councils, learning and literacy, social development partnerships, the office for disability issues, and student loans—financial assistance.

    Those programs are generally the ones that are delivered at the national level rather than being delivered at the regional level. We're a little bit of a hybrid because regions play a very active role in employability assistance for persons with disabilities. We meet on a weekly basis with our minister's office because Minister Stewart is the lead minister on disability and she has a particular interest in this file and how this moves forward.

    In terms of how well we're connected with, say, the policy work, I came from social policy. That was my position before taking on this job, and that's helped in terms of just collaborative relationships and that kind of thing. I created a DG committee, which has the DG of social policy, the DG from income security programs, and the DG of the employment programs branch—responsible for the Opportunities Fund—very shortly after I arrived, because it seemed to me that there wasn't such a mechanism before. We've subsequently added to that group people from the labour component because of their responsibilities for employment equity. So we're well positioned in terms of having an influence on other policy and program agendas.

    Does that answer your question about how we're positioned within HRDC?

    Ms. Anita Neville: Yes.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Pauline, why don't you talk about what you've been trying to do with the rest of the government?

    Pauline came to us from Natural Resources Canada. One of the main reasons I was particularly interested in her joining us was because she had worked on the “State of Canada's Forests 2000-2001” report there. And for people who are familiar with the forestry sector, that's a very complex report that involves a lot of provincial data, working the forestry sector, and reporting on government programs. I thought if she could do trees, she could do people with disabilities and try to get that federal disability report going.

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Pauline Myre (Director, Policy and Research, Department of Human Resources Development): I will try to explain how we're working interdepartmentally. As Deborah mentioned a while ago, we have an ADM steering committee set up to try to coordinate the federal disability agenda. The committee has met over the last two years. In particular, this year we have been working with other departments on an access and inclusion LAN, on developing a federal disability report, and on reviewing the definitions of disability. Those are three key priorities we've been actively working on with other departments.

    With regard to your particular question on the lens, this has been a particularly difficult one to tackle because we're trying to identify the best possible tool or approach or instrument to help the federal government ensure its policies and programs don't discriminate against persons with disabilities.

    What we've been doing is looking at other lenses within other countries, other provinces, to try to identify some models we could emulate. We've also looked at the federal level. There are different types of lenses that have been used—for example, the rural lens—and we're trying to learn from those particular instruments.

    We'll be meeting with Treasury Board and PCO to look at a simple, useful tool we could develop to help ensure our policies and programs do not discriminate. We're going to have those meetings. In fact, I'm meeting with Treasury Board at the end of this week.

    We've met with the various departments involved in looking at definitions, for example, and we're doing some really interesting work there. I'm very pleased with the progress we've had to date. Again, we've done some preliminary work looking at definitions internationally and definitions within various provinces. We have had several meetings with other departments looking at the various programs: what are the definitions, understanding the context for those definitions, eligibility criteria.

    I think at the end of the day we're going to have a really good document that will give us a good overview of the various programs that exist at the federal level and a better understanding of the various definitions that are used--some of the issues and concerns you've heard here at the committee. Hopefully we'll end up with a much better and clearer understanding of why there are different definitions and look at opportunities for some improvements.

    With regard to the federal disability report, again we've met; we have a committee set up. We're trying to gather information on the various programs and services provided by the federal government.

    This first report is very challenging, because, as Deborah indicated, the data isn't there. There is old data from a health and activity limitation survey. The participation and activity limitation survey data, when it comes out, definitely will help to enhance the disability report. We hope to make sure this will become an educational and information tool that will help Canadians to better understand the concerns, the issues, the challenges, and the opportunities for persons with disabilities.

    I'll stop there.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: In terms of our budget, I'm assuming that you mean our salary budget and our operating budget.

    Our budget continues to be linked with the social development partnerships program. It was one unit, and we're now trying to disentangle it. So it's a little hard, because we're still sharing some corporate services between the two areas.

    We have about $2 million in what we call our operating funds, and that would cover off travel, publications.... This year we'll be printing the federal disability report, the EAPD report that we're doing jointly with provinces and territories...additional research things, and those kinds of things.

    Then we have a base amount for salaries of about $1.5 million, and that has been supplemented through priority reallocations within HRDC to bring us up to about $3 million in salaries.

    We have authorization for just under 30 people between the program side and the policy side and the DG's office, but we actually have slightly over 40 people on staff right now, and there is some flexibility in terms of the overall branch. Because this is a group that's in a growth mode, we're allowed to staff over our allocated FTE allotment.

    Is that helpful?

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: How many people are on the ADM subcommittee?

    Ms. Pauline Myre: I think there are 26 or 27 organizations represented, and there are 29 people on the committee.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Is your question how many people we have at ODI who are working on that kind of thing?

    The Chair: No, but in your ADM steering committee, in Anita's question, across the whole government piece, how many ministries show up to that?

    Ms. Pauline Myre: There are 27 different organizations.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Not all of them send ADMs. Some of them send DGs or directors, but generally people do show up.

    The Chair: So you call the meeting, but if we want to know how come the safety demonstration on Air Canada isn't open-captioned—

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Closed-captioning, or Braille, or whatever.

    The Chair: —or whatever, do you do the agenda? How does this work in terms of the whole government piece?

    As you know, when we called all the ministers, half of them didn't even think they had anything to do with disability in their department. So I'm surprised they come to the meeting.

    What we found on everything to do with horizontal issues was that if the minister or the people up above don't think this is important, all of a sudden they think they have work to do in their own ministry and coming to your dumb meeting doesn't become a priority. So what kind of attendance do you get at a meeting where 29 people are supposed to show up?

    Ms. Pauline Myre: I'm looking at my attendance list for October 29, which was our last meeting. We're planning a meeting in the next two and a half weeks or so. Looking at the people who showed up, it was Agriculture, Canada Customs, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, CIDA, the Canadian Transportation Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, Environment Canada, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Health Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs, Industry Canada, Justice, the National Library.... Suffice it to say that out of the—

    The Chair: How long is the meeting?

    Ms. Pauline Myre: They vary, but they've been about three hours.

    The Chair: Twice a year.

    Ms. Pauline Myre: I think they have been about two or three times a year.

    The Chair: Ah, it's my job.

    Ms. Pauline Myre: There is the ADM steering committee, but then there's a whole series of interdepartmental working groups under the ADM steering committee, plus some task groups under the interdepartmental working committee.

    So even if the ADM steering committee only meets a few times a year, the interdepartmental working groups for the various tasks--for example, the federal disability report, the access and inclusion lens task group--will meet on a more regular basis.

    The Chair: Great.

    Tony.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I'd like to thank you for appearing and offer you best wishes. It sounds as if you're heading down quite a path, and I wish you all the luck with it.

    Anita asked some questions. I was just curious, trying to get a feel of the size of your department and how that would accommodate the task you're trying to do. Specifically, I was going to ask how many employees work within the ODI. I understand this is the successor to the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, which was established in the 1980s, so this isn't an entirely new concept.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: That's right.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: And when the Department of Human Resources Development was created in 1992, the secretariat moved into the new department. So we're evolving, right? It seems to be getting higher on the pecking order. The office gained some prominence after the task force on disability issues, which was referred to--the Scott task force--released this report in 1996.

    But the real driving force with regard to disability issues within HRDC was the strategic policy branch that dealt with the overall policy development and so on.

    Approximately a year ago, the Office for Disability Issues was upgraded in terms of its status with HRDC, so we're still continuing.... Do I read this right? We seem to be getting more and more recognition and prominence; we're evolving in the department.

    I guess my question is, as you've evolved, what greater responsibilities have you assumed? This is the type of issue in which the more you give to it the more things become uncovered, the more the needs seem to be out there. I know that because just by my being on this committee, the calls have come in to my constituency office. And that's what we're all there to do.

    So I'm wondering how your role has changed in more recent years, let's say the past three years, and what these changes are. What can we expect to see that really touches the grassroots, like the people in my riding who have disabilities?

    Is that loaded or what?

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Last night at dinner I was telling my kids what I was going to be doing today. They said, they're going to ask you what you do for Canadians with disabilities. I said, we don't deliver a lot of services directly to people with disabilities. They said, they're not going to like that answer very much.

    You've raised a lot of questions. When I talk to people who worked at the Status for Disabled Persons Secretariat--and there are still people like Nancy Lawand and Sue Potter around from that era--I find it was a very different model. They had regional operations; they had funding for National Access Awareness Week; they had funding for doing a lot of things in communities. They were very effective.

    I don't want the language I've used in terms of elevating the office to be perceived as diminishing the work that was done under the secretariat. When HRDC was created, they decided to make the Office for Disability Issues a focal point for policy work, for relations with the parliamentary committee, but the real program delivery was sitting in other parts of the department. About eighteen months ago there was a decision to bring together responsibility for employability assistance for people with disabilities--the funding programs--with the secretariat function for the horizontal management of the disability agenda.

    The decision last summer to beef up the policy capacity of the office and to add a director general was really to start making connections more broadly across HRDC and with other government departments. The model within HRDC is still that a lot of the big programs--EI sickness, CPP disability, the Opportunities Fund--are all delivered in conjunction with the mainstream programs they're associated with. We don't provide a lot of access to individual Canadians.

    The office used to have a kind of access clearing-house function and was located on the ground floor of a building--les Terrasses de La Chaudière--in Hull. That was intentional; people were encouraged to walk in. When the last strategy for the integration of disabled persons ended, there was a decision to transfer that clearing-house function to York University, the Roehr Institute. The office stopped that kind of day-to-day interaction.

    We get a lot of letters and e-mails from people asking us how to find their way to or get benefits for CPPD, or how to get disability tax credit--the kinds of things your constituency office would be dealing with. We are the link with the Canadian Information Office and the disability portal for helping people find their way to programs and services, for making those links. As for providing direct service, we don't do that.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: How do you find that portal?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: How do you?

    The Chair: Can the technology help drive the horizontality? How close are we, I think is what Tony is saying? With one website address you guys could make sure everybody had all the information they needed across all levels of government and all government departments--like the “lost wallet website”: whether it's your SIN, or your OHIP number, or whatever, you could get there. I think what we need to know is, how...?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: How close are we to that?

    The Chair: Whether you're delivering the actual services, how close are we to at least an audit and a one-stop shopping for persons with disabilities in Canada? Do you need more money in your department to be able to do it? It's a pre-budget time, you know.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: HRDC is engaged in this exercise called modernizing service. One of the examples our associate deputy uses when she talks about the need for this is about a person with a disability. She has this kind of story she calls Walter's story. Walter is a guy who gets in an accident. Is there a system by which Workers' Compensation can then notify EI that they're likely to get a claim, and then if he doesn't appear to be getting better there's a linkage with CPPD, and in between we have a way of connecting with the provinces so that the services they offer, funded under EAPD, all get connected up?

    It's a pretty complicated world. The Ontario region of HRDC has been doing some work on the experience of a person with a disability trying to get programs, all the different places they have to go to and the things they've contributed to that determine their eligibility for this and that, as well as the different eligibility rules. Pauline has referred to this as the definitions piece.

    How long are we from really having a seamless, integrated service delivery system for people with disabilities? We're still a long way away from that. Part of the federal-provincial work under way to build some consensus on policy priorities and shared common directions for the future is, hopefully, helping. But it is a complicated world, and I would be misleading if I suggested that we're close to becoming a single point of access for service around these issues.

    Ms. Pauline Myre: Definitely, though, on the technology side of things, with the government online, there is a website, personswithdisabilities.ca, that can provide linkages to all government programs and services, not only federally but also within the provinces. So on the technology side, I think we're very close to helping Canadians with disabilities find their way with one-stop shopping. But as Deborah mentioned, we are definitely further away with regard to the integration of all programs and services.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: And we'd always like resources, to answer your question.

    The Chair: Nancy.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I think you answered some of my questions in your previous answer, but the funding you talked about, pages 5 and 6, how do you allocate that? Or do you? Is that a per capita formula, or is it proposal driven? How does one access that? Another of my questions was, how do you reach out to people who need assistance? But I think you kind of covered that one.

    The other difficulty I had when I was working with the Nunavut Council for People with Disabilities was in accessing some dollars. They kept being told to go to the national organization that had been given that funding. I'm not sure who does the review as to whether the programs are really national or not. I represent Nunavut. To go to CNIB or any other national group, how does one determine how that national organization performs nationally? Who does that type of accountability as to whether the funding is actually national?

    On page 5, “Project Funding to Help Organizations”, where would we see examples of projects that are covered by that? As you say, you don't directly get involved in the government-to-organization type of relationship. We got very excited as we all heard about your office—and I wish you luck also—but then we found out this is not the place to which I can direct my little group of people and say, “Call this office and hopefully you'll get more information on how to run some programs in your communities.” I don't want to mislead people and get their expectations up. However, I am very pleased with the information you have given.

º  (1630)  

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: I'm going to ask Georges Grujic to talk specifically about how the determination of funding decisions is made.

    In terms of Nunavut, we haven't had a lot of projects there. The Opportunities Fund has identified some money for Nunavut.

    Certainly when Secretary of State Blondin-Andrew talks about these issues, she shares some of your frustration that it's great to say we have so much money available, but if the terms and conditions for our programs don't really address the needs in that community....

    Last summer we funded Dr. Rose-Alma MacDonald to go to Nunavut and to consult particularly with the Inuit Tapirisat and look at what needs they were facing. And the report she prepared shows a long list of all of the problems and issues.

    How well our funding instruments are meeting those needs is a challenge. I'll let Georges go through that.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: How do we make the decisions, Georges?

    Mr. Georges Grujic (Director, Programs, Department of Human Resources Development): You raised the issue that the terms and conditions are really focused on national organizations, so in terms of the grants, they are set up for national organizations. And in terms of project funding, it's more that the projects are set up on a national scope...or focusing that can be replicated in other areas. Without knowing specifically the projects you're mentioning on that, and I don't know how they are rejected or not rejected on that aspect of it, a lot of times it's how it's defined and how it can be used.

    So let's say it's an educational component or a module that perhaps could be used in other regions or other provinces. It could be one that could be accepted as a program on that aspect. If it's really focused on an area, let's say, an educational component, that's a school thing, that's really a local area, so it doesn't fit under the terms or conditions of that part of that process.

    There is an internal review process. There are criteria that we evaluate against each of the proposals and they're looked at and reviewed. Now we also set up an external review process that looks at each of those projects to see how they fit nationally in terms of those aspects.

    The other thing we're going to be doing starting next year is posting each of the projects on the website so everybody can see what the projects are, what the deliverables are, so there's more transparency and consistency in terms of how people can look at it.

    The other thing we did just recently is we posted the guide on our site. It's revised, and it's in consultation with external groups. So it gives you an idea of our criteria, our priorities, and this negotiation is part of it. It's there on that aspect. And there's an application form that's consistent for all groups that they can go and look at. Everybody has an equal chance, at least, in applying on that aspect of it. So it gives them an entry point on that.

    Did I answer every part of it?

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: How about the per capita...? You said that some of the funding is given over to the provinces and territories. How does that allocate to the cost?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: In terms of the $193 million, that's allocated for the employability assistance for persons with disabilities initiative. There are no agreements with any of the territories.

    So that $3 million difference between the $193 million and the $189.6 million that went to the provinces in the past has been transferred over to the Opportunities Fund with the sense that the Opportunities Fund has more flexibility to be used for Yukon, NWT, and Nunavut. I don't have with me information on what projects the Opportunities Fund has funded in Nunavut, but we could certainly get that and forward it to you.

    In terms of the employability assistance for persons with disabilities agreement, that's a cost-shared agreement whereby, up to a certain maximum, which is partly based on how many people with disabilities are in the provinces and also on how much eligible programming they have that's targeted towards employability, there's a formula that allocates that money across the provinces.

    Certainly the territories and Nunavut have all raised the issue in the FPT context that when the EAPD agreements expire next March, they want to address this problem and have some kind of success or agreement. The barrier to that so far has been that if they receive money through EAPD, it would diminish their funding formula for financing, and so they have chosen not to apply agreements to date.

    Was that clear or confusing?

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I can work with that.

    The Chair: Do you have another question?

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'm fine, thank you.

    The Chair: Wendy.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Following up on that, I'd like to just ask you about this. We know that in the recent throne speech there was the announcement of a labour force development strategy for persons with disabilities. You may have been talking about that, but I would like to very specifically hear from you on that. The strategy hasn't been put in place yet. To what extent has the ODI been involved in the development of the labour force strategy? To what extent has the ODI been involved in the negotiation of the labour market development agreements with the provinces? And have you been promoting better reporting of participation in—I'm reading this now, but that's fine—as well as programming for persons with disabilities within these agreements?

    The second question I have is if you were going to tell your children, if they asked you, “What is the social union framework agreement, Mom?”, I'd like to know what you'd say to them. I'd like to know what it is, where it is, who it is, how it impacts people with disabilities, whether it exists, whether it has a future. Quite frankly it's something that I'm fuzzy about, and we are always hearing that it's so unaccountable and so out there. Could you clarify what the social union agreement is in your understanding and what impact it has on all of this?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: I may do the labour market development agreements question first, or the labour market strategy.

    There was a commitment in the Speech from the Throne, and that commitment was reiterated in the Knowledge Matters paper—the HRDC contribution to skills and learning. There has been a lot of work with provinces, led largely by strategic policy, to develop a labour market needs analysis and then the elements of a framework for a labour market strategy. Ministers of social services—Minister Stewart and her provincial counterparts—will be meeting this Thursday and Friday in Toronto. They'll be asked to look at the work that officials have done over the course of the past year and to indicate whether or not they feel the work is the basis for negotiating successor agreements to EAPD for taking a more comprehensive approach within all jurisdictions.

    A number of jurisdictions—Alberta recently and British Columbia—have just announced big employability initiatives. The B.C. government, which is reducing a lot of income support, has announced a 40% increase in funding for employability for people with disabilities. They have. They feel that this is a priority for them. So we're encouraged.

    In terms of the Office for Disability Issues, there have been two different working groups—one responsible for the administration of the EAPD agreements and one on benefits and services. A lot of the policy work has been done out of the benefits and services area, rather than the EAPD area. When deputies met on May 6 and 7, they agreed to merge these two groups because they want the policy and program work to be linked and integrated. I had formerly been chair of benefits and services. I'm now chair of the EAPD. We're very much integrated in that work about what should a labour market strategy for people with disabilities be.

    In terms of the question about labour market development agreements, and where is the government in terms of evaluating those, and how well are people with disabilities faring under those agreements, we continue to push for better reporting around how well people with disabilities are served by the labour market development agreements.

    Last January or February, CPRN was asked to host a conference, and Gary Birch from the Neil Squire Foundation spoke about how people with disabilities felt they were being served by the labour market development agreements. We continue to look at those issues and to advocate that people with disabilities should be covered by those agreements and that there should be specific reporting on how people with disabilities fare under those.

    In terms of the social union framework agreement, the best explanation I had was from the previous assistant deputy minister of strategic policy, who said it's like a marriage contract; it's not that it's going to make a great marriage for the country, but it at least sets down some principles and guidelines by which both parties are going to try to govern themselves. Some of those are in terms of us giving ample notice that if we're going to design a new program, as the government occasionally does, for example, a homelessness initiative, we should give three months' notice to provinces that we're going to do something. If we're going to totally change something, we should give them a year's notice. If we wanted to change the funding under EAPD and take that funding away and do something else with it, we should give them ample notice that we're going to change those kinds of things. Some of those factors that are in there are just good principles if you're in an area of shared jurisdiction, shared responsibility.

º  (1640)  

    For some of the more intangible features of the agreement, the principles we're trying to move forward on, and the values Canadians have around social programs, I think people with disabilities have been disappointed the agreements haven't meant more to them in terms of portability, mobility, and comparable access to comparable programs. Whether or not there's going to be an opportunity through the labour market strategy, and the joint work on income and disability support that FPT governments have under way, it is going to be a test of whether or not the agreements are meaningful.

    Certainly, the commitments in the agreements about consultation and engagement do seem to be having an impact. A lot of the federal-provincial processes do seem pretty impervious to groups outside. If the social union framework agreement can help to open up some of the pieces, it would be good.

    Vangelis, when he was in his former capacity at CNIB, wrote extensively about the social union framework agreement.

    You can say what you want, Vangelis. You should feel free to say whatever you want about the social union framework agreement.

    I still believe it's an important document, in terms of governments collectively committing to the fact that the social fabric of this country is a critical thing for holding the country together.

º  (1645)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Does it replace something else? What did we have before we had the social union framework agreement?

    You say it's an important document for holding the country together. What was holding the country together before we had the social union framework agreement? Did we have the Canada social assistance program?

    I'm trying to understand. What is it that held us together before?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Canada has wonderful social programs that have held us together. Some of them are cost-shared, like the Canada social assistance program and EAPD. Some of them are like CPPD and are contributory programs.

    I think for some of the challenges we've had, as a nation and as a federation, there have been views expressed that the important things to connect the country are economic union features. I think the social union framework agreement is an important recognition from governments, with the exception of Quebec, that social policy work and social arrangements are equally important in terms of defining us as a nation.

    It has not replaced anything else. Provincial ministers wanted to come together. Bill Young is going to give us a history lesson on this later, I'm sure. Provincial ministers and premiers came together and wrote a report. They said it's important to identify the things we want to work together on.

    The Chair: The transparent accountability piece of SUFA, obviously, at the moment, is only for things the provinces choose to be transparent and accountable about. It's about specific programs and things. Obviously, we have a view that it would always be a good thing.

    In the labour market, where we know persons with disabilities aren't faring so well, it is probably because of transparency and accountability. In pushing them towards cherry-picking and towards targets, it means the provinces, in order to get good grades, are not doing so great for persons with disabilities, women, or others.

    In terms of measurement by disaggregate data or by insistence, in the next negotiation of the LMDAs, is there a way we would actually be reporting, provincially and territorially, on how they're doing specifically for persons with disabilities? Is it part of negotiating?

    The second part of the question is on gender, in terms of gender-based analysis, Helene Dwyer-Renaud, and the ability to send out a task force or a SWAT team to a ministry that's not doing very well on gender.

    Do you see where eventually the ODI would have the capability to send a SWAT team to a ministry that's not doing so well? Could we have disability experts who go out and are seconded to ministries to help them clean up their act, rather than every so often at meetings?

º  (1650)  

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: On the measurement question, we hope when the ministers meet at the end of this week they will be able to report on the national child benefit and some of the work that's gone on to date. Provinces are all beginning their reporting on early child development and what initiatives they have under way. That's intended for the fall. We're trying to move forward with collective reporting on EAPD agreements and having all provinces report on their activities under that.

    I think you are going to see a continuing and increasing emphasis on having shared frameworks under which governments will agree that we're operating in specific sectors, like national child benefit, early child development, and people with disabilities, and I think you'll see increased reporting.

    The problem with the area of people with disabilities is there just aren't the data sets. Every time we want to do a report, we're still working with data from the 1991 health and activity limitation survey. Until we update that information, it's going to be very hard to show the kinds of results and outcome indicators this committee's been calling for.

    Different people have come to me, like the people working on the rural lens, who've said this initiative is or isn't addressing the needs of rural Canadians, or this initiative is or isn't looking at gender analysis. Having looked at different models and worked in a policy shop, you're absolutely right that the kind of SWAT team approach, with people being very much on top of the leading government initiatives and how they have an impact on them, is a very effective model.

    It's a very good question whether we would ever be able to have a large enough corps of people within the Office for Disability Issues who could have their fingers on the pulse of all the government initiatives and be effective in having an impact on them.

    What do you think, Pauline?

    Ms. Pauline Myre: It is a very good question, and we've been asking ourselves what the best model is. Hopefully, with our discussions with PCO and Treasury Board, and more interdepartmental consultation, we'll come up with an approach. Let's say we do find that model, tool, or instrument that will help us ensure that programs and policies do not discriminate against persons with disabilities. How will we then measure performance or success? That's something we've been grappling with, and it's a very difficult question to answer at this point.

    We're trying to find the right instrument and, through a special group of people, measure, at random, the types of initiatives that are put forward. That's still up in the air. I don't think we'll be able to answer that difficult question today.

    The Chair: Is there someone at PCO in charge of disabilities?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: There is an analyst who's just started this week named Céo Gaudet, who's come from the Department of Finance. Lawrence Hanson was the analyst until he left about six weeks ago. Rick Stewart, the director of operations on the social side, is the person who sits on the ADM steering committee.

    The Chair: How does a decision like cancelling the Treasury Board special adaptation unit, or whatever it is, happen? Do you get consulted about that?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: When they're searching around for some place that could take on some of the responsibilities, they'll often come to talk to us, but it is often after the decision's been made.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Then how does the Government of Canada end up as an exemplary employer on any of these things? I mean, are you helping with that, or is it a PCO thing, or Treasury Board? Who?

    One of the things this committee is a bit obsessed about is that if we aren't actually doing it ourselves...because so often all this stuff comes to this committee. People aren't being given a disability pension, but they aren't being hired either by the federal government. There are even people who are falling between the cracks, who are very clear about how this isn't working. Clearly there has to be some pivotal place within government that looks at all of that. The name of your office sounds perfect for that--the Office for Disability Issues, within the Government of Canada.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Because the government is going through a review right now of the human resource function generally, which is leading to people speculating on what the future role of the Treasury Board will be versus that of the Public Service Commission, those central agencies seem to be very focused on that and looking toward what that future role will be. I'm hopeful that once they sort out those decisions they will seize the flame again in terms of being an exemplary employer.

    There are a lot of good people at Treasury Board who are working closely with us on specific projects, like duty to accommodate, or this guide on hosting and planning accessible meetings, those kinds of things. They're planning a session in June on employees within the federal system who have disabilities. But in terms of truly becoming a leader and an exemplary employer, I think we would all agree there could be more energy there.

    I realized, just looking at my notes, that there were two questions Anita Neville asked that I didn't answer. One was in terms of time, when we'll know if we've made progress, if we're a success.

    In January we did put priorities on all of our work, and we developed work plans and guidelines with timelines around the definitions project, the access and inclusion lens. We have slipped by a few weeks on some of the deadlines, but not by more than that. We had said we wanted to get our new application guide out by April 1, and we got it out early in May instead.

    So we have implemented a work planning process, and we are tracking how we're doing on our commitments. How we'll be judged within our department is on how well we deliver. That's going to be a big factor.

    The other thing I wanted to mention is that one of my greatest pleasures is dealing with the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies. Both Henry Enns and Deborah Stienstra have been so helpful in so many meetings in terms of bringing a real depth and breadth of experience and a constructive attitude. They've certainly helped us as newer members of the Office for Disability Issues to understand the issues and work on them. We continue to have a number of projects with them.

    Ms. Anita Neville: You've taken on a huge task here, to try to conceptualize it by itself. What do you see as your biggest challenge? Is there a role we can help you with?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: I think one of the points Tony Tirabassi made is that when you start to get involved in this area, there's so much you can do. It's not that we want to put fences or boundaries around this, but we don't want to become the only place in government dealing with disability issues.

    Minister Stewart is very convinced the only way we're going to make progress is if all ministers and departments take responsibility for this. That's the area where we need help, in reminding other ministers that this is a priority they need to be paying equal attention to. I don't know what the timing is around this, when it will be most effective. Clearly, it's when they want to be moving forward on initiatives in their own departments.

    You've talked about other horizontal files. It's how you make something a collective priority and give a sense of collective ownership across government.... You've led the way, and we're trying to follow in your footsteps. But I don't know how we make it feel more like others own it as well.

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: Yes. We want this sort of Y2K level of involvement, in which governments decide if there's urgency, they actually can work together.

    Thank you so much. We all feel better knowing you're there. Whatever we can do to help, we will have a go.

    Seeing you mentioned “grabbing the flame”, or did you...?

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Right.

    The Chair: We have to grab the Centennial Flame today.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Great. I hear you're going to choose the next recipient of the award.

    The Chair: We're going to decide whether we can or not. But I think we have to move in camera for our small problem.

    Ms. Deborah Tunis: Thank you for having us.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]