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, May 9, 2001

• 1536

[English]

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

We have to do a bit of housekeeping first, one item of which is to see whether we can go to the Inclusion by Design conference in Montreal.

I need three motions, one to invite the Centennial Flame research award recipient to come here to give her report this fall. She couldn't come last week. We then need another motion. Because she didn't come to our big round table on disabilities, we now have to pay for the reception because the Speaker didn't. We need that money.

Then we need a motion to travel to Montreal on June 1 to attend the Inclusion by Design conference.

Who would like to give me those three motions? Could we vote on the first?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On the second motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On the third motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much.

We need the budget.

Do you have the budget in front of you?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Could I have a motion to approve the budget?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Excellent. Thank you all very much.

What a fabulous group of people we have here this afternoon. All of my favourites are here again. We have been blessed in terms of how everybody is determined to help this tiny, perfect committee move this agenda forward.

We were explaining to Robert that these files are a bit complicated but that there are people who have been working on these issues forever. Today we have with us Sherri Torjman from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, who has been writing on these issues forever, it seems, since the Obstacles report; Connie Laurin-Bowie, from the Canadian Association for Community Living, who is hugely knowledgeable; our friend Angelo, from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, with Myriam Renaud; from HRDC, Deborah Tunis, the director of social policy development and the expert on all the tools around this; and bienvenue à Serge Nadeau, the director of the personal income tax division of the Department of Finance. We have always been blessed to have benevolent friends in the Department of Finance and we welcome you to our committee, Mr. Nadeau.

• 1540

Sherri.

Ms. Sherri Torjman (Vice-President, Caledon Institute of Social Policy): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the reference to your favourite witnesses, because this is our favourite committee, so we feel the same way.

I appreciate so much the opportunity to come here today to the committee and talk about a proposal that we at the Caledon Institute have put forward. It's a proposal for a national personal supports fund. I wanted to talk about the issue of disability supports.

Before talking about this proposal or other work that's underway in the country, I want to briefly put it in context by saying that we've been talking for many years in this country about the concepts of full citizenship, of inclusion, of full participation. When I say “we”, I mean all of us together: all-party parliamentary committees, the federal, provincial and territorial working groups, and the disability community.

I think Canadians more generally have been speaking about citizenship and about participating in all aspects of Canadian society, of work and play and recreation, just every aspect that you can imagine. I guess the challenge we face is how to find practical and practicable policy options and solutions to translate this concept of citizenship and inclusion into practice. How do we actually do this?

I think actually there are a number of ways to take that concept and make it real for Canadians. Part of the work underway in the country right now has to do with a set of initiatives to examine the possibility of making some changes to the tax system. There's work underway at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels to look at how we can effectively offset some of the costs related to disability supports. That work is underway, with a framework being developed. I have the privilege of working with that federal-provincial-territorial group. I think it's a very important process. Certainly we'd be prepared to answer questions about it, if you do have questions with respect to that work.

I was asked today to focus on another dimension of how we meet the need for personal supports, or disability supports, and that is through an investment in the supply of these supports. Why do I say that? I say it because over the years we've documented the problem with respect to the availability.

When I say disability supports, I'm referring to a range of goods and services, a whole range of pieces of equipment, assistive devices, and technical aids. You could pull out lists and there would be pages of lists, but I'm using a general umbrella concept to include all those individual lists.

Disability supports also include services. It includes things like: attendant care; homemaker services for people who require some assistance at home; interpreter services for those who have communication difficulties and who may require the assistance of an interpreter; and, very important, respite care for the caregivers of people who have children with disabilities and who are doing an amazing job of caring for people but who really have very little support, either in the way of services or through the tax system.

When I talk about disability-related goods and services, I really intend it to apply to an entire range of supports that are important to help people integrate into this society and live independently, out of institutions.

The proposal that's put forward here calls for a joint federal-provincial-territorial investment. It says that this is something we think is important in the country and that we want to do it together and invest in it together.

It calls for a certain amount of federal money that would be designated in respect of a fund for disability supports. The purpose of designating a fund is to encourage provincial and territorial investment in the area so that the federal investment is not offset by provinces and territories but instead levers an additional investment in these areas, ideally equal, if not more. It could be through a whole range of sources that you would get your financing, but the purpose is to really make a significant investment in the supply.

Why do we need that? There's a problem with respect to availability. There are simply not enough supports relative to the need for these supports. That's shown by the data we have, even though it's somewhat out of date. We know that even though it is out of date it shows a really significant need for these supports, particularly in certain parts of the country, especially in rural and northern areas of the country. We find that what we have available right now is not adequate in the sense that it's not portable. Even though you may have a support in a community, you may have to be associated with a particular program to continue receiving that support.

• 1545

For example, if you're a person on welfare you may have access to a given piece of equipment or a certain service, but if you try to move off welfare into the community you will find that you lose access to that support. This doesn't make any sense, but it's the case for the way in which we deliver supports in general. We attach them to programs, we attach them to training programs, or we attach them to group homes or institutions. You basically have to stay in those areas in order to get the supports you need.

Part of the purpose of this is to see how we can create a supply that is portable and attached not to a program or an institution but to a person, so that the person can move in and out of any number of life circumstances according to need and can take these supports along.

Another aspect that I think is important with respect to portability is movement across the country throughout regions. Part of portability means being able to move supports across sectors, but it also means being able to move throughout the country. Certainly mobility is a right that is protected by our Constitution. It's reflected in the social union framework agreement with respect to being an important right that has to be respected. The concept of portability really respects that right and tries to find ways to promote it.

Finally, we find that even though supports may be available in some communities, they're not responsive in some cases. They may be available between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday to Friday, but they're not responsive to the ways in which individuals and families might require them.

What we're really looking for is an investment in supply and an investment that is attached to people so that it makes sense in their life circumstances, allows them to move freely in areas that are relevant to them, and allows them to live in any part of the country. This investment would go toward a range of supports. The idea is to put forward the key streams in which investment could be made by provinces, territories, and the federal government. Provinces and territories would be free to invest in the streams that they feel would be important in their jurisdictions.

Ideally they would be investing somewhat in all the streams, just like the agreement worked out with respect to early childhood development and signed by all provinces and territories except Quebec in September 2000. Four major streams were set out. Provinces and territories can invest in any one of those streams but are encouraged to invest in all of them.

In this case, I would really encourage investment in respite care, because it's so important across the board. It's important to members of all communities and the entire disability community, and it's something that we typically forget. It's so often overlooked. If there were any area that we would want to emphasize, I would point that out.

This proposal puts forward a series of principles on which the fund would be based. I'm not talking about stringent conditions in the sense that in the SUFA world, the social union framework agreement world, it's very difficult to set out conditions upon which funding would be based, but we can certainly set out principles that would be guiding principles.

They would help, too, in terms of accountability, so that when we build an accountability framework into something like this, we would have a set of principles against which we're looking and checking to see whether we're in fact consistent with the set of principles.

I want to make just one reference to the amount of money proposed here. The proposal calls for a billion dollars a year of federal investment over a five-year period, for a $5-billion federal fund. I think what's important in this case is not just the money; it's ensuring that we have in place the architecture to be able to do something.

I think we could debate the money. I think we could say that in relative terms it's probably too little but in realistic political terms it's way too much. I recognize that, but I think what's really important about the money amount is what it says, the message it is intended to convey. The message it is intended to convey is not that this is a policy area intended simply for the 16% of the population that we identify as disabled. This is a policy area that is important for all Canadians. We have a rapidly aging population in Canada. We have the OECD that has identified us as one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world. We also have international organizations calling for ways to promote active aging and independent living in society, and we have to begin to look at how we're going to put in place social infrastructure to do that.

• 1550

The amount of money was really intended to imply that this is an important area, generally speaking, for all Canadians. That's the message inherent in there. We're fully prepared to be practical in negotiating funds, but I think it's really important that the message come through very clearly and that we talk about the architecture and what this is intended to achieve.

I want to close by saying I feel that it's a feasible proposal. I think it's something that can be done in the short term. If we respect the principles of self-determination, portability, and inclusion, we would really be achieving a great deal in a very practical way.

Thanks very much.

The Chair: Thanks, Sherri.

Connie.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie (Director, Policy and Programs, Canadian Association for Community Living): I apologize, because I have a couple of overheads I'd like to distribute, but I don't have them in French. Shall I hang on to them or shall I distribute them? Do you want me to just give them to the clerk and you can have them translated?

The Chair: You can ask Robert if he minds. I can ask. You can distribute them, the clerk can't.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: I wasn't sure at what point to begin talking, because as Dr. Bennett has pointed out, we've been at this for a long time and there are lots and lots of pieces to the puzzle. So what I thought I could do is walk through the way our thinking has evolved in regard to the components of building towards a national disability support strategy. It is not a proposal like that Sherri has articulated, but rather considers what the elements of it would be, including some of the discussions we've already had about tax, which I hope we will return to in more detail.

The Canadian Association for Community Living, as most of you who have participated in the committee before know, is the national association that represents families who have a member with a disability and adults who have an intellectual disability. The association has 12 provincial and territorial associations. Many of you will know of our local associations in your ridings.

I should start by thanking the committee, those who have been members of the committee in the past, and those who have chosen to be members of the committee this time around. Our membership, and particularly those of us who are favourite witnesses, truly appreciate the commitment each of you has made as an MP to this issue, because we know you have many competing demands for your time. This is the only place the issues of disability can come to the table and be brought forward and heard in the House of Commons. Each of your contributions and time in this area is very much appreciated by both your constituents and our membership across the country.

I think the evidence of the importance of the work is seen in the last federal budget and in the last mini-budget, which was October of last year. There were a number of provisions in both budgets that specifically addressed some of the needs of individuals who have disabilities, as well as some of the needs of families with a member with a disability.

We think of disability supports very specifically in terms of individuals, and particularly working-age individuals, who have a disability. The impact of disability is much broader and has a huge impact on families and on their lives in meeting the needs of their children and/or adult family members and in their own contributions to the economy, working in the community, or whatever other contributions that family might choose to make. These are really important issues that go beyond individuals.

I think that if not for the committee's work last year, the disability community's proposals and all the various work we have done would have been for nought. The real reason those mechanisms ended up actually making it into the budget was that this committee came together and said, there is a consensus, Parliament supports that consensus, and members of this committee support that consensus. That was the reason those provisions were there. So again I want to express, on behalf of our membership, thanks to the committee members who were here and thanks to those of you who have decided to spend time on this issue now.

• 1555

I will just pass these out. They are notes, though not as concisely put as we would like, some thoughts on a number of issues in the way we've been thinking.

I think it's important to talk, very quickly, about the need. We estimate at least 10 years ago there were 3.9 million people in the country who had a disability. The impact of that, I would suggest, is quite a bit larger than the number represents, because, as I mentioned, the impact on families is quite significant.

A recent study by the Roeher Institute, of which I have only some copies, examines the unmet needs of people with a disability, which was a real issue for us. We could never actually identify or quantify what the unmet needs were. We could always say there were needs, but it was important for us to be able to say what they were and how many people had them. We estimate from this work the Roeher Institute has done that there are about 1.9 million people of that 3.9 million who are expressing needs that are not being met, because they don't have access to the particular supports they need, enough of the particular supports they need, or the particular form in which they need them.

When it comes to a national role in disability supports, we need to think about the disability-specific supports being embedded in a system based in accessible generic systems and a citizenship approach, which Sherri has already articulated and which is in the In Unison document as a fundamental piece.

What I mean when we talk about a citizenship approach is that disability supports alone, without generic systems being accessible, will not create inclusion. While I won't talk a lot about that today, I want to make the point right up front that we need to talk about the unmet need and the disability-specific supports, but we need to understand that those alone will not create inclusion. Fundamentally, our association and families we work with are about making sure that people who have a disability can live, participate, and work in their communities and be with their families. So that means accessible education systems, health systems, recreation, labour market, child care—and I will add to the list I started with a family support system in this country, which we currently don't have and which I'll also come back to.

I think about disability supports in terms of the individual, in terms of children's needs and in terms of families' needs. I think there are disability-specific supports in each of those categories.

I know the immediate question that comes forward when we talk about disability supports, which in most senses we think of as services, is that they are a provincial responsibility. That, in fact, we agree with. We think it's appropriate and should continue to be true. However, we think the federal government has a responsibility to support that provincial role, and very specifically, to ensure that the provinces have the capacity to supply those services and supports. In that light, the kind of proposal Sherri is putting forward speaks to the very critical need for a federal investment in disability supports through the provinces and in agreement with the provinces.

I think the federal government has a secondary responsibility, which is direct assistance to families and individuals, which we have talked about mostly in respect of the tax system, but I think there are some other potential mechanisms we could explore.

I think, finally, the federal government has a responsibility in assuring accountability for the public supply and use of those services across the country. That responsibility is obviously shared with provincial governments. I don't think that's a responsibility the federal government would hold uniquely.

• 1600

But just on this note in terms of those responsibilities, I think it's really important to note at this stage that during the social union framework discussions, there were two areas identified as priorities: children and disability. We know that the children's agenda has moved significantly forward both in terms of tax mechanisms in direct transfers and in terms of a significant investment in a capacity at the provincial level to support kids.

There has been no corresponding advancement on the disability file, I would respectfully submit. I think we can attribute that to two things: one is that the federal government has provided no significant investment to the provinces. In Unison exists, it's there, and people agree to it. A deputy minister in one province said to me quite directly, it's a very nice policy document and it will continue to be a very nice policy document unless there's some investment in it. I think that really summed it up for me. The lights went on and I thought, in addition to significant direct transfers to individuals, there needs to be a significant transfer to the provinces to support and supply services.

One of the things that our association thinks is very important is a corresponding strategy under the children's initiative to support inclusive approaches to children. Again, all the mechanisms don't have to reside in one place. There's a nice agreement there. There's money flowing. We're doing the best we can to work with all levels of government, and we'll continue to do so in order to make sure that some of those address inclusive approaches to child development.

Having said that, there is still an enormous gap in the area of children, particularly school-age children, because the ECD, obviously, is focused on early childhood. There are significant, unmet needs for those children that are quite specifically disability related. There are the generic issues about inclusive education, which is clearly not within the purview of this group to examine, but there are some specific ways in which we could help those things along by creating some disability-specific supports for kids. I think about the tax measures as the demand side. If we put some money into the hands of families and individuals, they have what they need to purchase some things. That alone—as Sherri has said and I'm sure others will say today—is not enough. The supply side is the transfer side, which I've already spoken about.

I'm whipping through my document, because I want to make some specific points about tax. For about the last eight years we have been working on particular reforms to the tax system. I have to say that in the last budget we collectively, including this committee, the Caledon Institute, and others, managed to secure significant change to the child tax credit. We heard from our members and families across the country. There has never been a single issue upon which people have called us and said, this made a difference in our lives. That was the place where we had the most response.

I had to think carefully about what that meant. I realized that we need to continue to look outside of the traditional disability mechanisms in the tax system to find ways to support people. We hadn't actually looked at that credit. We looked only at the DTC and the METC. They're useful and we can do more with them, but we need to think creatively about some of the other mechanisms, including the caregiver mechanism. One family, for example, said, it's interesting to me that all I need to get this child care amount is a receipt. If I use the METC or the DTC, I have huge issues in terms of eligibility, who I use, and what their credentials are. Yet all I need—in this person's case and it's not always true—is to have actually spent the money, and then I get it back.

In terms of our work, I realized that we had done a lot of work in terms of people who do pay tax, those in the middle-income bracket, and that we needed to spend some time focusing really clearly on those who aren't getting any benefits out of the tax system. For that reason our priority going into this budget—and I hope we'll have a more formal proposal for this committee and for the finance committee when the prebudget consultations take place—will be to examine the DTC and to look at ways to make it refundable.

• 1605

We're working with Williams Research. They're going to do some costing on this. I expect that others are doing similar work, so we'll have to put our heads together on this. We'd like to look at revisions to the eligibility criteria of the DTC and at increasing the value of it. That's a key area for us.

All of these tax priority areas, which I'll now list very quickly, require a federal-provincial discussion about ensuring that any benefits under the tax system will not be pulled back at the provincial level. I'll just say that's a given for all of the following. We'd like to look at the child tax benefit supplement and increasing the benefit to families with one or more children with a disability. We've talked about this in the past. We'd like to come back to it and look at what the costing would be and whether there would be any opportunity in future negotiations to do that kind of thing.

We'd like again to look at the area of respite care. We had suggested that it be included under the METC. I think all of these things need to be taken in concert. If a proposal such as the one the Caledon Institute is putting forward were to advance a national investment in respite, then that might change how it was done, whether you included it at all, but if you did, whether it would be only for a top-up or the amount that was... There would always be people who would need more, so the METC could cover the difference, that kind of thing.

This is a longer-term priority for us but one that we're quite serious about, and that is the development of a caregiver allowance. We've done a bit of international research in this area, and at least one jurisdiction, Australia, has a caregiver allowance. It uses their tax system only as an income test. In order to get into the system, you have to be eligible through the tax system. It allows for a caregiver allowance for families with a member who's under the age of 18, and it provides a different allowance for those who are over 18. We're looking at that, and I think that's a longer-term proposal.

Having looked at this on the plane, I realized that I'd left out two significant things. One is that I think we need to do more on child care enhancement. The little bit we achieved made us realize how hungry people are for support around child care for children who have a disability. The child care needs for those family members with an intellectual disability continue throughout life. We don't call it child care after a certain age, but the level of care families need continues throughout the lives of their adult children. We need to find some mechanisms to address that, either through the tax system or through a direct transfer and, I would suggest, in terms of the supply of those supports.

Finally, we've been asked not to leave off our running list mechanisms in the tax system that would support savings vehicles for those families who have the capacity to do so. Many families who have a family member with a disability, an intellectual disability in particular, try to make provisions to support that member after they're gone, because the needs will be ongoing. They have suggested in a number of different forums savings vehicles that would allow them to plan for the future of their family member. There are a number of those proposals. I know some of them have been brought directly to the Department of Finance, and a number have come to this committee in the past. We'd like to reinvestigate the possibility of doing something for those families.

I think that's about it.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Connie.

Next are Angelo and Myriam.

Mr. Angelo Nikias (National Director, Government Relations, International Liaison, Canadian National Institute for the Blind): Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed, this committee is my favourite, too, and I'm very happy to hear that I'm one of your favourite witnesses.

I am here today in my capacity as director of government relations for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Also, I have agreed to help out the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. I serve as a member of the social policy working group. The chair was unable to be here today, so the comments I will make reflect the positions really of both organizations.

• 1610

I say this because I think politically it's quite significant that a number of national disability organizations, for the last couple of years, have been converging on the importance of addressing the issue of disability supports. Therefore, I'm very glad you have decided to enter into this dialogue with us today.

In fact, approximately a year ago, we made another presentation to this committee. We basically spoke about the same issues. At the time, the issue of using the tax system was under consideration and we expressed support for it.

We also called for a sectoral agreement on disability supports between the federal and provincial governments. My colleagues have already spoken in different ways about this issue. The only thing I'm going to do is say this issue remains very relevant and is perhaps one of the most useful mechanisms whereby we can make some progress in disability supports.

The other issue we raised last year, and I wanted to reiterate today, is that collaboration between the government sector and the community sector has proven very fruitful in the past in disability policy in Canada. It can continue to be very fruitful and very helpful to you and to society. It depends on the ability of the community to do the kind of work and research you have been hearing about today. In order for us to continue to do so, we need your support and the government's support.

Frankly, with our capacity to help you and in addressing the issues we have been talking about, it really comes down to the allocation of new and significant resources. We can talk about these issues. I'm happy to come back next year, again, to be your favourite witness. You will still be my favourite committee.

If we haven't made some decisions about resource allocation, I think the rhetoric of inclusion, all the principles we spell out and put in documents, will remain irrelevant to Canadians with disabilities and therefore to Canada.

I suppose some of you probably are tired of hearing references to a report I distributed today, called Toward Implementing in Unison. It's a report the CNIB did a couple of years ago, in which we examined the public availability of assistive devices useful to blind, visually impaired, and deaf-blind people across the country. If some of you are tired of listening to me talk about it, either in committees or in private, I suppose I'm entitled to do so as long as the problem continues to exist.

We found in the study that, although we like to think we have a national coherent system of providing assistive devices to disabled people in Canada, in fact we don't. What we do have is a patchwork of provincial services—provincial only in the places where programs exist. In fact, we only have four provinces in the country with programs, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Quebec. The rest of the provinces really don't have any publicly funded programs to provide assistive devices to blind people.

I talk about blind people because that of course is the focus of the work of the CNIB. I believe, with variations, our findings apply to people with other disabilities.

• 1615

My colleagues have spoken about a range of disability supports that I subscribe to. I use assistive devices only as an example. It's a very concrete example. In the case of blind people, it does make a difference in our quality of life and our ability to participate in society, be included, work, earn our living, and go to school.

I don't want to speak at length about this. I do want to bring to your attention my favourite example, a striking example, of how we don't have a coherent system in the country. My favourite example is in Lloydminster, at the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The west part of the city belongs to Alberta and the east to Saskatchewan.

Alberta has a high-tech program for blind people and Saskatchewan has a low-tech one. If you are a resident of Lloydminster and live on the west side of Main Street, you are entitled to some financial assistance from the province of Alberta, through the CNIB, if you're a blind person. However, you're not entitled to assistance for the white cane, which is probably my most important disability support. With this white cane, I have negotiated Toronto, Athens, which was a real problem, and even London, a worse problem than Athens in some ways.

It's really my independence. If I live in Alberta, I cannot have assistance to buy a white cane. I usually need one every year, because I use it a lot.

If I live on the east side of Main Street in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan will help with a white cane, but will not help me with a talking computer. I cannot use a talking computer for educational or other purposes.

There is a real problem. The report we have distributed documents in some detail the disparities across the country. Sherri has already spoken about the constitutional problems it creates. In addition to the constitutional problems, and perhaps more importantly, it creates problems for real people in their everyday lives.

I will never forget when I was in New Brunswick talking to a blind person about writing me a letter. He said he didn't have anything with which to write. For the first time, perhaps from having been in Ontario all my adult life, I thought I had some privileges, rights, or whatever you want to call them, that my fellow Canadians in other parts of the country didn't enjoy. In fact, it was what made me seek the assistance of the HRDC department to do the study, Toward Implementing in Unison.

I honestly think we need to implement In Unison. Connie said the deputy minister stated it will remain a very nice policy paper. I guess the challenge is to all of us, the federal government and the provincial governments. In this context, are we going to let In Unison stay at that level or are we going to do something about it?

My appeal to you is, even if we cannot do everything, let's do something. Let's start somewhere. Let's make some progress in Canada.

From time to time, the United Nations says we are the best country in the world in which to live. I think that shouldn't be a reason for complacency. I think it should be a reason for us to try to do better. We have the mechanisms. People have spoken about the tax system, a federal fund to stimulate provincial interest, being a good possibility.

I thought for some time I was a big dreamer. I think Sherri is an even bigger dreamer than me. However, I'm very happy to dream with you.

The point is we have to start somewhere. If that means we have to start with addressing some issues through the tax system, as Connie has indicated, let's do it.

• 1620

The community will support this initiative politically and technically, but I also don't think that excludes some action of the type Sherri referred to. Even if we cannot put a full-blown funding system in place at this point, I don't think there is anything preventing us—and I call on you to do that—from starting with some meaningful pilot projects. We can thereby provide concrete disability supports for disabled Canadians, especially in areas where the supports are dramatically lacking at this point.

We have a serious problem. There is a study made public yesterday that indicates that in the area of publicly funded home care systems there is a dramatic variation across the country. We have a problem, and I think we need to do something to address it.

I will come back next year, and I will again be your favourite witness, though perhaps with some better background information to go on.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Myriam, did you have anything to say?

Deborah?

Ms. Deborah Tunis (Director, Social Policy Development, Department of Human Resources Development): I'm Deborah Tunis from HRDC, Social Policy.

I'm delighted to be here again this week to talk about support.

As Angelo and Connie mentioned, In Unison 2000 did make commitments to joint work in two areas. One was a feasibility study for using the tax system to offset the costs of disability supports. Last June, ministers of social services tasked officials to begin this work. There were meetings in the fall with a select group of experts around us, and I think the sense in those meetings was that looking only at the tax system was too limited. We needed to be looking more broadly at the needs for disability supports and at developing an analytical framework as to priorities and the target groups we want to be dealing with.

Since that time, as Sherri mentioned, the Caledon Institute has developed an outline for an analytical framework. We met with representatives of disability organizations and with aboriginal leaders on April 23 in Toronto to talk about first of all validating the gaps and unmet needs the Roeher Institute had identified. We talked about the analytical framework in terms of whether the issues of access, availability, and portability were the key ones and in terms of what policy objectives we wanted to be serving. According to whether you decided to target investing in future generations, you wanted to tackle the question of inclusion, or you wanted to take the human capital perspective, you would be targeting different people.

Ministers of social services will meet next week in Halifax. We're hopeful that they will task officials to develop concrete policy options over the summer, that we would then have those options to discuss federally and provincially, and that Minister Stewart could talk to her colleague, the Minister of Finance.

I do want to mention that in terms of the consultations we've held, using the tax system to address the needs of aboriginal people with respect to disability supports is problematic. The aboriginal leaders from the five national organizations that participated in our meetings in Toronto said they would really like to develop a culturally appropriate initiative to address their needs for disability supports, one that might not rely so exclusively on the tax system.

We want to look broadly at those initiatives, and we hope we'll be able to come back next year to celebrate having made some progress in this area.

• 1625

There's interesting work going on at the provincial level. Prince Edward Island—I know it's a small province—is actually piloting a program to separate out disability supports from income in quite a concrete way. Manitoba just issued a white paper on disability issues, and there's an action plan. It reads very much like In Unison but has specific actions at the end of the section on supports and employment.

We're very hopeful that the joint work that has been done over the past couple of years to develop the In Unison document and then to have further consultations around the key priorities is going to build FPT support so they actually move forward on this.

With that, I'll defer to Serge Nadeau.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Nadeau.

Mr. Serge Nadeau (Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance): Thank you. I assure you I will do my best so this committee will remain benevolent toward the Department of Finance.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today before this committee. On behalf of the Department of Finance, let me first thank the subcommittee members for the work and suggestions you have made over the years. As was mentioned earlier, the subcommittee has helped the department to better understand the needs and concerns of people with disabilities. Your contribution has been invaluable in helping us provide advice to our minister and the government on how the tax system can best direct available resources to where they will be of greatest benefit for people with disabilities.

My opening statement has three parts. First, I will discuss the tax measures that are currently available to persons with disabilities. Then I will talk about recent enhancement in tax assistance. Finally, I'll conclude with the next steps.

[Translation]

What are the present tax measures? I would like to start my remarks by describing the tax measures that are presently available for persons with disabilities. As you can see from the table which has been circulated, I believe, a number of tax measures are presently available for people with disabilities. Together, those measures cover the various needs of people with disabilities.

There are tax credits for people with disabilities themselves, such as the Disability Tax Credit and the Medical Expense Tax Credit. Other tax credits are available for people who support people with disabilities. Finally, there are tax measures to reduce barriers to the labour force participation.

Altogether, those tax measures amount to about $1 billion per year in tax assistance. Some people could argue that those measures are not generous enough. However, I think we can agree that they cover the overall needs of people with disabilities. They may not be generous enough, but we could say that, on the whole, they meet the needs of people who need assistance.

[English]

Now, what has the government done recently? The actions taken in federal budgets demonstrate that assistance to persons with disabilities has been a priority for the government even before balancing the budget. When the government could only provide tax assistance in a few priority areas, tax assistance for persons with disabilities was enhanced. In fact, there have been new tax assistance measures for persons with disabilities or enhancement to existing measures in every budget since 1996.

Furthermore, once the government was in a surplus position, it took even more significant steps to enrich tax measures for persons with disabilities. Together, the 2000 budget and the fall economic statement and budget update increased tax assistance to persons with disabilities by $150 million a year. Virtually all disability tax assistance measures were enhanced last year, some of them very significantly. You're talking here about an increase in the order of 42% in some cases.

In designing these enhancements, we have relied very heavily on suggestions from organizations representing persons with disabilities and on the recommendations of your subcommittee. In particular, your recommendations are reflected in many of the new measures in the 2000 budget and the fall economic statement and budget update.

I'll give you just a few examples. First, the full indexation of the personal income tax system was restored, as was recommended to ensure that the real value of the benefits would not be eroded over time.

• 1630

Secondly, eligibility for the disability tax credit was extended to individuals with severe and prolonged disabilities requiring extensive therapy essential to sustain their vital functions. In addition, the amount on which this credit is based was significantly enhanced by about 40%, from $4,200 to $6,000. Tax assistance for caregivers was also enriched.

One measure that has been mentioned here today and that has been proposed very often but has not been implemented is to make the disability tax credit refundable.

As you may recall, my predecessor, Mr. Louis Lévesque, outlined in a previous appearance in front of this committee the policy concerns raised by such a proposal. These concerns remain today. In addition to potentially having a very significant fiscal cost—and here we're talking in the order of possibly $1 billion per year—a refundable disability tax credit would represent a significant policy change. It would go beyond providing tax assistance, towards providing income support. Given the provincial responsibility for basic income support systems, a refundable credit would require an approach coordinated with provinces within the social union framework. In particular, the federal government, as was mentioned before, would have to ensure that new federal expenditures would not displace provincial expenditures in the area.

In terms of next steps, I think we can all agree that the Minister of Finance has demonstrated a keen interest in the problems facing persons with disabilities and is open to hearing views and new ideas to improve tax support measures. The department works on ways to improve assistance to persons with disabilities, and our work is ongoing in this area.

In that regard, it is always important for us to know more about the unmet needs of persons with disabilities so that available resources can be directed at priority areas. Here, one of the types of things we need to know is, for example, what are the main gaps in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities? What resources are inadequate? Those are the types of questions being addressed as well in the research in the various groups. Are additional resources needed to purchase necessary supports and services? What are the difficulties that people with disabilities face when integrating into the labour force? As well, and very importantly, what should be the role of the federal government, the provinces, and groups representing persons with disabilities?

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Department of Finance appreciates all the information and proposals it receives. In our work to improve tax assistance, persons with disabilities benefit tremendously.

[Translation]

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Thank you all very much.

Reed, do you have a question.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, CA): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm the foster father of a permanent foster child who is quite physically challenged. She's in a wheelchair. We've had her since she was a month old. She is now going on eleven years of age.

During the course of our caring for her, most of the resources we've had as parents have come to us through provincial jurisdiction. However, I suspect that as she grows older and we start to care for her in other ways and try to give her as good a life as she possibly can have, we'll be looking for other resources, maybe outside of the provincial jurisdiction, from community groups like the one Connie represents and others.

One of my questions would be to Connie. From a federal perspective, those of us who are on this committee and what we can do, are there any areas other than the areas of taxation and federal transfer that we, as federal members of Parliament, can have significant input in to help supplement what is done through the provinces?

My second question I would perhaps put to Angelo. He talked about the uneven standards of care that we have across the country, particularly on the whole question of visually impaired Canadians.

• 1635

Why is it so hard to achieve national standards across the country—and I suppose it's not just in areas of visual impairment—so that when one person moves from one province to another, or whatever, they can expect to have uniform care and access to devices that will help them?

So those are my two questions, perhaps first to Connie and then to Angelo.

The Chair: I would just say that I think particularly the first question is such a good one that I'm sure everybody probably has a little idea as to what we could be doing.

Mr. Reed Elley: Yes, sure.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: Perhaps before I answer your question, I'd comment on one of the things you raised in your question that's an issue for me and for our members, which is that there is a hugely disproportionate number of children with disabilities in the child welfare system across the country. We know the numbers in Alberta, and we have some inkling of them in other provinces, but we don't have the full data across the country.

The reason that is true, at least to some extent, is that disability-related supports are available in the foster system that are not available to families who care for their own children. I think that's a really important issue.

The federal role in addressing that issue is a very difficult question. If we look at it In Unison as a basis for investing—and first of all, In Unison doesn't talk about kids—we need a corresponding strategy to invest in the issues affecting kids with a disability. I've said that already.

I think, though, that has to be embedded in a family support system not only for families who have a child with a disability, but one that has a significant recognition of the issues affecting families who have a child with a disability.

To answer your more specific question about what the other measures are, there are a number of ways in which we work nationally, and particularly at the federal government level. One is around developing family-friendly workplaces. When you talk about the issues of kids, a huge issue for families who have a child with a disability—and older family members with disabilities, because this goes right into families who are caring for senior members of their family who have a disability—is the implications for your work and whether you even can work. Usually it means there's a lost income in the home.

There are lots of things we can do at the national level to create even just public awareness, and then public policies that support families in their role as caregivers, whether the person is a child or a family member who is aging, or somewhere in between. I think that's a huge thing.

As well, in terms of specific measures, we really struggle with the issue of creating value. We did a consultation recently with families across the country, and even though as an organization we have representation from families across the country, every once in a while we need to do a litmus test and go and talk to people and ask, what's really important in your life?

The single most important thing that people told us was that if other people valued their family member the way they do, and other systems valued their family member the way they do, they would not have the kinds of struggles they do. It's not the child's disability or the family member's disability that creates the largest struggle for people; it's the fact that they have to fight in every generic system they come into contact with to get in the door. The services are necessary and the specific supports are required, but it's that larger issue of getting in the door.

At a federal level, in terms of addressing those issues, don't let Latimer come out of prison. For our membership, I think the fundamental issue is about value and how you create value through a policy mechanism. Don't re-create laws so that people like Latimer can walk free.

Mr. Reed Elley: I understand clearly what you're saying.

• 1640

Mr. Angelo Nikias: You asked why. That's a good question.

I think it probably has to do with the different fiscal capacities of various jurisdictions in the country in the first place. It has to do with history, and, frankly, it has to do with the fact that the political pressure, both in terms of large “p” politics and also community politics, has not been as strong as in the past. So there are these differences.

But I think that brings us to the issue of the role of the federal government and of the country. Providing reasonably comparable public services across the country is a constitutional principle in Canada. I think it's for a very good reason. Section 36 of the charter addresses this matter, and I think what we need to do is make that a reality. Without federal leadership, I don't think we can do it.

What federal leadership means, whether we are talking about the type of investment Sherri mentioned or whether we are talking about a refundable benefit in the tax context... we are talking about the allocation of significant new resources.

Let me conclude by saying that in the CNIB—and the CNIB was established by the Parliament of Canada about 80 years ago to provide services to blind Canadians—we have found a similar problem. The way we are addressing it is by institutionalizing a transfer policy, whereby we transfer funds from areas of the country where we can raise more money to areas of the country where we cannot raise as much money. We do that in order to equalize, as much as possible—after all it's Canada—the level of services.

That brings me back to my original point. The role of the federal government, if we are going to have a cohesive country, is to act as an equalizer. It's a constitutional principle. We often talk about it; let's do it. I think I can contribute towards the accomplishment of that goal, but frankly, you can do much more than I can, and I hope you will do it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Sherri.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Thank you for the question. It's a very important question.

In addition to tax measures, as you've identified yourself, I think there are a number of roles the federal government can play. My colleagues have referred to several of these roles.

We used to have in this country an agreement called the Canada Assistance Plan, in which the federal government matched the funding of provinces and territories in social services and welfare on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis. We don't have that in the country any more. It was dismantled through the 1995 federal budget.

There is an important role for the federal government to play in terms of investment. Maybe we have to look for some new mechanisms. The cost-sharing mechanism is not an easy one to do in the current political climate, but certainly we can invest in funds in the way in which we've done through early childhood development, which is a more flexible kind of arrangement, but nonetheless we can do it in order to lever other investments.

I think that's one area, and we can also add to what we have in place. For example, through early childhood development perhaps we can have an additional amount in respect of disability-related services for children. That's one aspect. We have the tax aspect. We have the investment in supports. There's also direct investment in areas around which the federal government has direct jurisdiction.

Deborah mentioned the aboriginal communities, and certainly the federal government can make some really important investments directly in those areas. I think those would be very crucial.

The federal government can also use a disability lens in terms of all its decisions. That's been talked about in this committee before, but in terms of any policy decisions that are made, in any areas, whether they be transportation, communications, human rights, or any of the areas, we should be looking at what would be the impact upon people with disabilities so that we're not just looking at one particular component, the service component, but at how we can think this through more systemically.

Finally, I think there's some precedent in recent budgets with respect to direct grants to municipalities. The federal government used to be involved directly with municipalities and had moved away from that, primarily because of constitutional problems. But in the last budget it was involved more recently in direct grants to municipalities for infrastructure and green communities. And certainly there may be something to be said for that model with respect to accessible communities and municipalities.

• 1645

I think there are a number of instruments and a number of ways in which the federal government can work, and it has in fact taken action in a number of areas.

The Chair: Deborah.

Ms. Deborah Tunis: I wanted to mention a couple of other items.

One of my colleagues in the back, Mary Frances Laughton from Industry Canada, for some time has been pushing the notion of research and development for assistive devices. This is something that's very clearly in the federal jurisdiction, where Industry Canada can provide funding to firms to develop new technologies around assistive devices. It's a very promising area.

More broadly, I think we can be doing more in terms of our knowledge and research functions around disability. This committee pushed hard for the participation in an activity limitations survey, a post-census survey, and that's going to provide a good basis, but we need to be funding researchers to start mining that in a way that the Roeher Institute has done.

Finally, there are some terrific programs that are housed at CMHC in terms of providing disability supports for modifications of homes and vans and things like that. Veterans Affairs is doing some really good work around disability supports. So there are some things. They're not as widespread as the kind of scope the tax system gives you, but there are some areas where we think we can make some more progress within the federal family.

The Chair: Serge.

Mr. Serge Nadeau: I don't have any comments. I think I'm maxed out. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on areas outside taxes. So thank you for the question.

The Chair: Robert.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Oh boy! Do I feel lonely today. Last week, I felt I was getting a little more support. Based on what I have been hearing today, since I come from Quebec, you clearly know more or less where I stand. I come from a land where we want to have sovereignty, but I am not here to talk about politics, and I have made that clear right from the beginning. However, I cannot ignore your suggestions today. I understand you. You come from other jurisdictions and I respect you. You have a right to design those standards. However, I have great difficulty with the kind of national standards Mr. Elley was suggesting. It is a big concern for me.

This is what worries me: we are not at the same level, in the same place, when we are in Alberta or in Quebec. As I said, I have come here to work for people with disabilities. I have a child with a disability; I know what it is. I want to work for them.

There are ways of doing things, but we are dealing with resources. We are dealing with insufficient funding. I do not want to start again the argument I had with other witnesses during another meeting because it appears I would be having that discussion forever till the end of the 37th Parliament. I do not want to do that, but I want you to know.

I would like to outcome of this report to be increased funding, increased resources. If we are talking about some place or some province where the program is not well established, funding should be made available to create a new system or a new program which will work. But when we have efficient programs, as in Quebec, and the problem is a lack of appropriate funding, let us make the necessary funding available. Let us set aside the nice rhetoric about people with disabilities—and I'm sorry I'm repeating what I was saying last week—and let us deal with the vital issue, the issue of people with disabilities, not policy issues.

We have a policy. We make policies and we will make more policies on different occasions and in different places. We are bound to do so because if we can say here today that what matters is people with disabilities, we know that we will agree because you will make funds available for us in Quebec.

• 1650

Earlier today, Ms. Torjman, you mentioned a fund, I believe. That fund would be available, and, instead of having a program, funds would be made available to the province. This would help us in Quebec deal with those issues.

So if we do not want to be partisan—and I do not want to be partisan—let us leave that aside here. I think we are moving in the right direction. I am getting to know Ms. Bennett better and better. I'm repeating myself, but I am not doing so for you, I just have to say this because we have other people listening to us today, and this is a vital issue for me.

I do agree that there are programs, that there are tax measures, but those tax measures, when I look at the figures, do not mean that money is available. We talk about credits, but they are not refundable credits. We talk about credits, but there is not enough support for families. I come back to Ms. Bowie. We need funds, we need resources. Those funds will help us have resources and even equipment. I spoke last week with the lady from the Department of Industry who sits in the back. All in all, we can understand each other, and this is why I said right from the start that we should do things differently. Let us not start with a program from the Department of Revenue and another program from HRDC. Let us please leave those aside, even if you have been drafting those reports for seven, eight or even 20 years. I believe In Unison 2000 is the seventh or eighth or ninth. We know what the needs are. We know where we are going. We need resources. If we agree on that, I believe we will get along fine. Anyway, I will be here to have this voice be heard in the Sub-Committee.

Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Sherri Torjman: I agree with you entirely. I agree with absolutely everything you're saying in terms of having resources available to allow investments, and investments that will go to individuals and to families to support them in their circumstances. I think we're saying exactly the same thing. In fact, what's particularly interesting about Quebec is that it serves as a model for what the country should be doing with respect to disabilities support. There's a lot to learn, and what we need to do is make available advancements that allow supports to be delivered in that way.

[Translation]

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: We agree also. For us, I think the most important issue is the lack of resources for families and for the provinces to help them provide services for people with disabilities. The environment is completely different from what it was 10 years ago. As far as we are concerned, we are not calling for a new direction or a new method to have things done by the provinces. It is only...

Excuse me. As I am learning Spanish, I have lost some of my French.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's OK. We have interpreters. I do it myself.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: My mother tongue is French.

[English]

I think we are no longer in an environment of trying to create a top-down approach to disability. Every province has a different set of needs. The gaps are different. The needs are different. We want to start from where people are and fill in those gaps, and we think the federal government's role is to provide the supports to provinces to do what they need to do.

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Well, thank you so much for coming, with all this great talk about us being your favourite committee and all of that. We love to hear it, but we really do hope that when you're here next year, we're looking at a different world, and that we certainly have some exciting pilot projects, some new tax incentives, or whatever.

I know I just heard that we do not want another Canada Assistance Plan. I've heard a lot of “used to's”. We used to have the CAP. We used to be involved in direct grants to municipalities. Because of relationships with the provinces, we can no longer do things exactly the same way.

• 1655

I have certainly met with the mayor of my community of Dartmouth-Halifax, and I've met with the premier of the province, and there's no way they're turning down any federal money. They are dying to have federal money to come in to help them with education, with roads, with infrastructure. It's in the air, we need it so badly, so it doesn't seem to me that this is an enormous hurdle.

So are we not talking money, then? It's as you said, Deborah. It will remain a fine document until there is serious federal money put in, and the project you've been mentioning, this national personal supports fund, is certainly one you're working out right now in the federal, provincial, and territorial settings.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: I should clarify that, because the work I'm doing with the federal-provincial-territorial working group is around the tax-related measures. This proposal was put forward by the Caledon Institute because it was an area around which we hadn't done significant work in the country with respect to the investment in the supply of personal supports. This is not an area around which there currently is federal-provincial-territorial work that is underway right now. Although I know the provinces have read the document and have looked at it with interest—and so have federal officials—the actual work that is underway has to do with tax-related measures.

That's just to clarify that.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay, thank you.

You mentioned the ministers of social services are meeting in Halifax this week. Can we have any sense of what their agenda is? Is it around taxes or is it around a more inclusive national personal support fund?

Ms. Deborah Tunis: At the current time, what they've asked officials to do is to look at the feasibility of a tax measure. When we go back to them, I think what we're going to say is that we are doing the work on tax, but we also think we want to explore other ways to respond to this and would like to come to them with a range of options. We're going back saying we should look at things slightly more broadly in terms of whether or not there are models. There's the national child benefit model. There's the ECD model. There are different models out there. Which ones do they want us to be pursuing over the summer?

The Chair: Sorry, Deborah, but is the homelessness model one of those?

Ms. Deborah Tunis: The homelessness model is certainly near and dear to my heart. In the federal-provincial context, though, it's not one of the models currently being looked at.

The Chair: Wendy's saying it was a way the federal government put money on the table where communities could directly apply.

Ms. Deborah Tunis: That community model isn't currently on the table in the federal-provincial outlook.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I get really excited about this national personal support fund, because the idea is that what we have to do is to actually work on the supply of those supports. We are really literally talking about creating thousands of jobs in terms of home care, in terms of educational supports, in terms of job coaches. It's a very exciting employment project, for one thing.

I think I've asked before about trying to get ahold of some real figures showing how disparate the services are across this country. They don't seem to be there to the extent that we want to see them. In fact, maybe that's why they're not there: because they are too appalling. But I would like to know exactly what the reality would be for somebody with an equal disability in each province and each part of a province. I'd like to see that. It would probably be a horror show. Is anybody doing that research?

Angelo, I appreciate the work you have done in trying to look at what it would look like for persons who are sight-impaired, but what about that whole patchwork that we talk about all time? Have we got any grasp on how bad it really is?

• 1700

Ms. Sherri Torjman: There is some work underway to develop inventories of services in different areas—family support, for example, or home care. The Department of Health has undertaken some of that work as well.

But right now, we probably couldn't tell a family with a certain set of circumstances, living in a certain area, how it would compare across jurisdictions. We just don't have the whole picture in place, unfortunately; it's simply not there right now.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: Can I just comment on that? Sherri said that we can get information from the provinces about what they do provide, but we can't get information about who's not getting it.

On a national level, the institute has been able to look at HALS data—which is 10 years old—and say that this is the unmet need across the country. We could take the information on what's provided and what's the unmet need, and do some kind of an analysis. But the provincial data on who's not getting support is just not there, and won't be there.

The Chair: Not even with the new HALS?

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: Maybe. I don't know that.

Mr. Angelo Nikias: It's in development.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: I'm not sure it will even be available, the way you're asking the question. If you were to look at the needs of a family in Nova Scotia, Alberta, or Saskatchewan, would their needs be adequately met? I'm not even sure the data would answer that, because it's an aggregate set of statistics on the needs for assistive devices: what percentage would need this, or whether you and your family would have access to something. That's very difficult, because so much depends on circumstances—on what the disability is, for example. Eligibility for these supports and services is determined by so many factors that some criteria actually close the door rather than open it.

If you're paralyzed, for example, in Saskatchewan you may have access to certain resources, whereas in another province you would not. So the kinds of questions you're asking, about the circumstances of individual families, may be somewhat difficult to answer—even from an updated HALS survey.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: Even from anecdotal information from the families themselves, of which we have quite an amount, there's a significant variation between provinces. And the urban-rural divide is huge too, even in the best of provinces—the ones that work hard on disability supports. If you live outside a certain area, there's nothing.

The Chair: Are there questions on the new HALS that ask about unmet needs?

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Oh, absolutely.

The Chair: Is there a way of mapping that?

Ms. Sherri Torjman: I think you would have to work with that data and apply it to provincial service data, because you wouldn't get detailed provincial service data from that. You would have the aggregate: what percentage of individuals in this province require assistive devices. You could say that x percent would need them. But whether in fact that need is met through the different services, or whether it's better in Nova Scotia than in Alberta—I don't think you would get that kind of answer.

The Chair: In your experience, Sherri, is the service level from province to province also determined by how a person acquires a problem? Some Workers' Compensation programs are better than others, for instance.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Absolutely. I think you've identified the core of the problem. It's the nature of your disability and how you acquired it—whether through birth or accident or injury—that determines the supports available to you.

That's the whole point about trying to detach those supports from a program or from a condition. They should be available from an independent pool that would go with you wherever you need them, regardless of the nature of your disability. That's really the purpose of trying to establish such a pool, so it would be portable by individuals across sectors and regions.

The Chair: Is it also divided out between private insurance companies, then, in terms of what supports you'd be eligible for?

• 1705

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Oh, for sure. If you've paid into certain private plans, then you would have access to certain supports through those plans. There's a lot of variability.

The Chair: In terms of creating jobs, is there any interest from the finance committee? I think I know the answer. There aren't too many other jobs you can create in this country where you don't get taxed, you just deduct it as an expense. How much do we give for personal attendants—$500 or something? Isn't that right?

Mr. Serge Nadeau: People can deduct all the cost of personal attendants, if they need them for the purpose of earning income.

The Chair: Okay, fine.

Tony.

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

I too would like to thank the individuals for showing up here today. I find this very interesting.

Maybe I'm fortunate: in the Niagara community I come from, we have an Ontario March of Dimes office. I've been invited there on two or three occasions, as planning chair with the municipality. First, we had to go through a para-transit exercise to figure out how to get people to this facility from both urban and rural areas.

This facility is not just an administrative office. It has rooms with all the latest assistive devices—a washroom, a bedroom, and a kitchen. They bring in people with disabilities to let them know exactly what's available, how to get it, and how to use it.

More recently, I was invited back because they had set up a computer room. People with disabilities, perhaps with restricted use of their hands, can use certain oral implements to touch the computer screens—that sort of thing.

They've also gone outside and assisted with setting up homes. I went to the home of one woman whose house was totally set up: she had a chairlift, a stairway, a tub lift, and so on.

My question is, is this the vehicle you traditionally use, or am I just fortunate that I happen to have a March of Dimes office in my community that anybody with a disability can call on? They hold your hand right through the process, from start to finish. Is that the way to go? Are you looking for that kind of source to deliver programs?

I also have a chapter of the Canadian Association for Community Living. Are there any gaps? You have the availability, and I may be fortunate in my area. How do you make sure there's accessibility?

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Well, to your two questions, I would answer yes and yes. You are fortunate in your community to have that kind of resource, absolutely. And yes, I think you can deliver supports through the voluntary sector. Certainly that's what we do in this country, in a very big way. Those volunteer organizations provide tremendous support to individuals and families.

Unfortunately, they're under-resourced; many of them operate on shoestrings. Not all, and perhaps not in your community, but many of them do. Angelo, you must be familiar with your branches that have a great deal of difficulty. So one of the possibilities of having a support fund in place would be for provinces to channel money through the voluntary sector.

We're not necessarily talking about provincial delivery. I think you can have a whole range of delivery mechanisms, as we do right now. What we're really trying to do is ensure that there are enough resources to support those various delivery mechanisms. It's not as though we want to stop people who are doing terrific work; it's just really to ensure that they have the resources to continue—that communities that aren't adequately resourced, unlike your own, would have the ability to do that as well.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: If a viable organization maybe was not traditionally in this line of service but was proven proficient in other areas—is there any opportunity for a new organization to address this particular area?

• 1710

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: I think that's a follow-up to your first question, and there are two parts to my answer: yes and maybe.

Yes, you're fortunate. Different provinces have different delivery mechanisms for organizations that deliver services and supports. In one community you might have a March of Dimes and in another our local association might provide a certain kind of support—but not others.

But a lot depends on the support these organizations receive from their provincial government. Most of our local service associations are funded by provincial government delivery systems.

I would not want the federal government to say, for example, that we should enhance the delivery mechanism of services through community organizations only. I think a number of organizations play a number of roles, and that's important. But disability organizations also play another role, which we haven't talked about very much here, and that's an advocacy role.

You can turn organizations into service delivery organizations if you choose to invest in a particular way. With all due respect to the HRDC representatives, they're struggling right now to find ways to support disability organizations that don't deliver services. We need to be very careful about what the federal government says about that.

The voluntary sector is a very different kind of sector. There are lots of pieces of it. One component is good service delivery, and that's a useful, valuable role that certain organizations play in communities. But there are a whole lot of other roles. I wouldn't want the federal government to say, “This is the answer: invest more in those organizations to provide more service.” I can't even imagine what mechanism would do that, because it's the provinces that really fund it.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: The decision would certainly be a provincial one. What you're really trying to do is ensure adequate resourcing of organizations that deliver services, whether they're public, private, non-profit, or whatever. You're looking for adequate resourcing and human resources capacity in those organizations.

That's really the thrust: how could the services best be delivered? That would be decided at the provincial and local levels.

The Chair: Tony, do you know how much money the March of Dimes in your riding gets from HRDC or the provincial government?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I don't have that information with me, but I'm certain it's come out.

The Chair: I think sometimes it's through the Opportunities Fund and sometimes it's through all these others.

Mr. Angelo Nikias: Madam Chair, I think what you have referred to are things we have done well in Canada. There are strong organizations that have been supported by society to provide services. Really, improving the lives of disabled Canadians is the business of everyone. It's really a shared responsibility. By that, we mean shared between governments and also shared between governments and society as a whole. Organizations like the CNIB have worked for decades to establish good services. But without government support and collaboration, I don't think we can take this to the next level we have talked about today.

This is an area in which we can build on our strengths, and we can innovate. The federal government should be concerned about ensuring that, ultimately, all disabled Canadians receive what they need. But the mechanisms will vary according to circumstances. In some areas there are strong organizations, and they can play that role. In other areas, perhaps we need to innovate.

The Chair: Angelo, are you talking about the assistance devices or actual supports and services? I think all the different organizations do different things.

• 1715

Mr. Angelo Nikias: The federal government has, as I understand it, taken a policy initiative on corporations with a voluntary sector. So the policy framework is there. The federal government wants to work with the voluntary sector to improve services to Canadians generally, including disabled Canadians.

So for example, in the area of assisted devices—that's the example we can talk about—if you were to ask blind Canadians in Alberta whether they are happy with the delivery mechanism, I think they would say they're happy. The difficulty in Alberta is that the allocated resources run out before the end of the fiscal year, so you have to go on a waiting list for the next year. But the specific mechanism doesn't seem to be the problem.

So I'm not sure why we would want to reinvent the wheel if we have something that works. It seems to me the major difficulty, at least to my knowledge, is that the publicly allocated resources are at this point inadequate for the task we have at hand.

The Chair: Also, Tony, you might find home care, respite care, those things may not be there, because they're not something March of Dimes can do. That comes down to provincial choices.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Right.

The Chair: Did you have a question, Reed?

Mr. Reed Elley: No.

The Chair: Robert.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I just have one question for Mr. Nadeau. I believe that presently, when we talk about donations, those donations may come from the private sector. I am also involved in amateur sport activities, and with respect to donors, we try to get those direct donations to be deductible.

I wonder if it is a possible avenue. I am not talking about donations to an organization. There has been funding for organizations and there are programs, and this is all very well. But I am wondering if there may be other options? Let me give you an example. An employer could purchase a computer, but only for his employee. It could also be at home. The grandfather, if he can afford it, might want to give his child something. He would like the person he knows to be able to get this directly, and he would like to be able to deduct that amount. Why should we have restrictions when we want people with disabilities to benefit? They are the ones that will benefit. And we would not be restricting things and people. It could be little people, little companies. It could also be large companies, and this is fine, but it could also be simply an individual, not an organization, not a company, not a multinational company, but someone who knows a person with a disability and would like to offer that person something that would benefit the community and the donor too as the amount would be tax deductible. It would be an avenue across the country, both in Quebec and here.

Mr. Serge Nadeau: This is an interesting suggestion. However, there are the tax credits. The tax credit for dependents with disabilities may compensate to a certain extent for that kind of expenses.

Are you talking about specific donations?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: An amount of money, a donation.

An hon. member: Is this a suggestion we will examine?

[English]

The Chair: Connie.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: One of the suggestions a number of our members have made on the same topic is that we could create an investment mechanism similar to the RESPs, so that other people could actually contribute for the person with the disability, family members, grandparents, anyone, but the money would be used for disability support. You could use the very specific model the RESPs use, in which case the government actually gives a percentage of matching amount to the fund, or you could do something more along the lines of some of the registered home ownership savings plans.

• 1720

Ms. Sherri Torjman: I wanted to point out that the Province of Ontario, for example, provides a non-refundable tax credit—actually it may be refundable for certain small employers. It provides a tax incentive for workplace accommodation, so that an individual employer who purchases a piece of equipment, as you've mentioned, or who makes a workplace modification is able to claim those costs. There's a very long list of costs that can be claimed. Unfortunately, it's just for workplace accommodation and jobs, so it couldn't be claimed by a family in the case to which you're referring. But I think that as a model for the country, it's an important area of change we should be looking at seriously, and we are looking at it as part of the federal-provincial-territorial tax changes. That is on the table. It's one of the areas that are being examined.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: From what I understand, the problem with an RRSP or an RESP is the following: if you have plans like that, I think there is a problem. Let me give you the example of two professionals and a grandfather who wants to give the child something. If we talk about an RRSP or something like that, who is going to be taxed? The parents. Yet we want to help parents with a disabled child. Indeed there are people who do not have much money, others who have no money at all and others who have plenty, but they all share the same difficulty living with a child who has a disability.

So, those programs are not helpful, once again, for the people you represent. A donation is a donation. There are all kinds of ways of making a donation, and I believe there are people who are much more competent than I am to deal with those. If you set up a program like the one you are suggesting, you are going to stop what I am trying to promote. We are already overtaxed, and this would increase the income and therefore mean that people would end up paying even more taxes. In the end, the parent is not in a better situation, and neither is the child since the parent will have to give that money back in another way.

Mr. Serge Nadeau: With respect to your last question, in the context of businesses and of course in the federal context, all the workplace improvements, workplace accommodations for people with disabilities are tax deductible. I am not a business tax expert. I am not aware of any special deductions, but those kinds of costs can be claimed.

[English]

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Connie, I wonder if you said what I think you said. You mentioned that there's a much higher number of children with disabilities in the social services system than there is in the general population.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: There's a disproportionate number of children with disabilities in child welfare. Around 30% of kids in care are children with disabilities.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Is that because families are driven into giving up their kids because they don't have the resources to deal with their disabilities?

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: I'd say there are a couple of contributing factors. One is that there are services and supports available to foster families and through the child welfare system that aren't available outside those systems. If your child has a disability and you need particular supports as the birth family, those aren't available in many provinces. The other contributing factor is that we have no generic systems of family support, as we mentioned earlier in regard to workplace support. Families just break apart, and literally, the pressure of support is so enormous. I have some more anecdotal kinds of information directly from families about what those kinds of pressures are and how they're experiencing that.

Ms. Wendy Lill: While we're on that one, are you doing any work or sharing with anybody concerning the federal government as an exemplary workplace on these issues? If we're going to ask other workplaces to do it, is there pressure on the federal government to be walking the talk within our public service? We had Madame Bradshaw to women's caucus and asked her these questions, because whether it's children, children with disabilities, elders, we should be putting things in place here. Then, when there's a competitive number of jobs available, the private sector has to match what we're doing in order to get anybody to work there.

• 1725

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Absolutely. It's so important that you're raising the issue of the federal government as exemplary employer and what the federal government itself could do as an employer. What is interesting is that the Speech from the Throne before the last, I think, talked about the federal government as an exemplary employer with respect to family-friendly workplace policy. I'm not sure how far it has come in that regard, but it really would be nice if the federal government could take positions with respect to employment, hiring people, doing workplace modification, and also being respectful of need for family leave, leave for family responsibility, and looking at the time that it holds meetings. I'm saying that on behalf of—

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: All of us are trying to get home to our kids.

The Chair: Wendy, did you have a last question?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I wanted to make one last point. You raised the Latimer situation. I have heard from many people on this issue, and so has everyone on this committee. The Latimer case is a very significant one. The idea of giving leniency to Latimer at the federal cabinet level would be sending a message very clearly. The disability community feels it would send a very definite message that if you murder somebody with a disability, you will get a more lenient sentence, and that is a terrifying precedent and one we hear from every advocacy group. It's a major concern, and we hear you on that.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: I have further information concerning our work. I think the association's been having a difficult time getting our message across on this issue. There is a running joke in the office that we're going to become the Canadian Association to Crucify Latimer. It's really difficult in the public domain for us to win this battle, and any support that we could have from... We are those families. It's not us saying, we're just idealists, and this is really a tough life poor Mr. Latimer lived. We know the struggles families have. Many of our members live them daily. We know about issues of pain and pain management, and it's still not okay to kill your kids.

So this is a really critical thing, and very specifically on this topic, our Ontario association will be meeting at the end of the month here in Ottawa. We will have a march from the conference to the Hill, and we welcome any MPs who would like to participate in that.

Mr. Reed Elley: Can I just say something on that, Madam Chair? I am one of those parents of a child who has a severe disability, and you, I'm sure, must appreciate the difficult position that puts me in as a member of Parliament when I have constituents who come to me and say, Mr. Elley, will you sign our petition for leniency for Robert Latimer? I have to say to them, I respect your democratic right to do this and I think you should take every advantage of the system to push this, but as a parent of a child with a disability, I do not have the right to say, at the end of the day, that this child's quality of life is such that I have the right to terminate it. I do not have that right, I'm sorry, and Mr. Latimer knew that.

Ms. Connie Laurin-Bowie: His lawyer and he have been very successful in creating the impression that he was such a loving father that he did this, and if you were really, truly, a loving parent, you would do it too. I think that's really difficult for families who are already struggling to hear... It's really hard to stomach.

The Chair: We've done, sometimes, quite well on this committee by sending the ministers letters, and maybe on Latimer, if we could develop a consensus on this committee, we would be prepared to send Minister McLellan a letter. On behalf of the committee, I would be happy to do that.

Mr. Reed Elley: Good idea.

The Chair: I also think Madame Bradshaw and Madame Robillard could hear from us on the family-friendly workplaces and exemplary places of employment.

• 1730

So out of this meeting alone we've got a little bit of activity, which we love—things we can actually act upon.

Then, of course, as we come to our work on great ideas for the finance department in the upcoming budget, we will continue to try to emphasize, as we've found now with the green budget coalition and some other things, that if groups of people will come together with some specific ideas, it works much better than just reiterating problems. So we will see what we can do to make sure there are at the finance committee a group of people or a panel that could come with a specific group of suggestions. That would be great.

Thank you, all.

Yes.

Mr. Angelo Nikias: Also, on the issue of building supports, when the social services ministers meet, the way Deborah addressed it, I think it would be useful for this committee to reinforce the point that in addition to examining the tax system, they should examine other aspects. At this point we would meet with community support, and it would also be a practical measure that I think they should take.

The Chair: And maybe they can examine the homelessness model. Anyway, we will see.

Ms. Deborah Tunis: That would be a good job for me.

The Chair: Thank you. Robert has the final word, un dernier mot.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: On this issue of whether there can be a consensus on letter to the Minister, I feel this is somewhat risky. I agree that some people may think... It is such a personal thing. I know groups of parents of people with disabilities who have a completely opposite view. We should be careful here. The panel or the witnesses here today may think this way, but let us not talk about a consensus among members or committees. I think it is risky because you put everybody together and we have to respect the different opinions of different people and organizations. We should be careful to do that.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. We will wait and put it before the committee. But these are just ideas we can contemplate.

Anyway, thanks to everybody for coming, and à bientôt.

Ms. Sherri Torjman: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.