[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 2, 1995
.1134 
[English]
The Chair: We are now public. Go ahead.
Mrs. Catterall (Ottawa West): The other question I had was on householder material. I love to use this kind of thing, because it happens that my riding has developed a very strong core of support services for people with disabilities and I certainly like to support them in their awareness work. But the problem is if I don't have householder material now, I can't use it. I need it at least two months before the event for it to be relevant and timely.
Is anything being done about that for next year, so we can know two or three months ahead of time so we can plan to include it in our householders and even to make a point of taking that time to go out and visit these programs in my riding, perhaps to set up special events that would bring them publicity? I like to plan these things, but I need to know at least three months ahead when they're coming up.
.1135
Mr. Skip Charles Brooks (Senior Policy Adviser, Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, Department of Human Resources Development): Did Deborah mention that at the end of her workshops there will be an evaluation? I think that would be a very good point to raise in that evaluation, because this isn't just a once-in-a-lifetime activity.
Mrs. Catterall: I've already raised it. I expect you to take it from there.
Mr. Brooks: You've got it. We'll make sure it's there.
Kits are also being prepared that contain information that isn't relevant just to National Access Awareness Week; it's relevant to disability 365 days of the year. We'll make sure that you have it and that it's in camera-ready form and it suits a householder.
Ms Deborah O'Neil (D.R. Dunlop & Associates): Speech elements will be provided in the action kits, as well. They could be used in various ways.
Mrs. Catterall: Yes. I find that these things are more helpful when there are things that are reinforcing each other. If there's a lot of attention in the media, then it builds the message from a number of different directions.
What attention is the House of Commons paying to how training is being provided to make employment and promotion, advancement, more accessible to people with disabilities?
Mr. Brooks: First you have to ask the House of Commons. However, we can give you some observations from a distance.
I think there was an attempt and interest in certainly paying attention to the training concerns.
One program in particular, which will be highlighted on May 31, is the buddies program. From my distance, the buddies program at one point included about 20 people with mental disabilities, students working on the Hill buddied with Hill employees. So there was a kind of training-on-the-job activity, but without the promise of a job.
I think the problem has faltered over the past couple of years. There are only three or four buddies.
The Speaker has indicated his interest in building that program back up. He has also indicated, both to Mr. Marleau and some of his staff, the importance he assigns to disability.
So training would be a very good issue to raise should you have another occasion to speak either with the Speaker as a witness or with Mr. Marleau or any of that staff.
It's an extremely important issue, and it's something we will try to really promote again.
This first time around we're really trying to say, ``Look, we're all on the same team. There are a lot of things we can do.'' Afterwards let's identify where we failed and where the deficiencies are and focus on those for the coming year too, and year after year.
Mrs. Catterall: You mentioned that you are working with a number of different organizations. I'd be interested in knowing who they are in terms of the workshops and so on.
Ms O'Neil: We're now in the process of putting together a proposal that would provide the individuals in the community who could be present or be panelists for the workshops. The people have not yet been determined.
Mr. Brooks: We're working with the Disabled Persons Resource Centre locally, for example. We're working with a number of national organizations, as well, because of course they all are attracted. It's Parliament - why aren't we involved?
What we're trying to do is say that National Access Awareness Week is a community venture; therefore the community in this instance is Ottawa-Carleton, Hull, and the geographic area. We certainly aren't ignoring them. As soon as they say that they want to wave the flag and be involved, we'll find ways to get them involved.
Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): Basically my questions have been answered, so I won't take time. Thank you very much.
The Chair: In terms of evaluation, is the design of the questionnaire such that you will be able to ascertain, still in a confidential fashion, but by way of categories, who says what? In other words, it may be one way to know - to me, it would be important to know - that the members of the disabled community have a particular look at the issue. Members of Parliament, staff of members of Parliament, and perhaps even staff from the secretariat if they're participating in the evaluation.... If you put them all together, you may have a different view. With a segmentation, now sometimes this is difficult if you have only a couple of them from that group.
Be that as it may, it may be useful in the initial stage to design the questionnaire, if I could suggest this, so you will have the knowledge of who's telling what. It will then give you an action plan in the future.
.1140
Mr. Brooks: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, or at least invite, the collaboration and participation of your own staff in doing that. I think that's a great exercise for this committee to actually lead, and I know you have the expertise from some of the researchers I've worked with from this committee before. We would be very much prepared to do that and to give as much support as possible.
If we could even highlight the committee's leadership just on doing the assessment and then giving us some information to work with in the future - and we could do that collaboratively - I think it's a great idea.
The Chair: I'll take the challenge personally. I would not like to speak for the staff, who are now very busy completing our document on employment equity law, but of course I'm sure any other member of the committee would find the time to the extent that they could.
Since your staff has already started the process, the initial draft, I personally would like to see any other interested member of the committee give their comments on it. I'm sure with our knowledge of experimental design we may be able to contribute in some little way.
Mr. Brooks: We would welcome the contribution.
The Chair: The other thing is concerning this workshop and the timeframe of that during the day. What times are you looking at?
Ms O'Neil: For presentation of the workshops, they will be 60 minutes to a maximum of 90 minutes long.
The Chair: On what day of the week? Wednesday?
Ms O'Neil: We're still looking at what's available at this time.
The Chair: The reason I'm asking that is that if you do it on a Wednesday, it being a caucus day, then Wednesday morning and noon until 1 p.m. is gone.
Ms O'Neil: We take that into consideration.
The Chair: Okay.
Who decides on the theme? Is it the secretariat in consultation with the committee or the committee in consultation with the secretariat? How is the theme chosen?
Mr. Brooks: For National Access Awareness Week itself? That's actually chosen by the community. The secretariat is only one of twelve or thirteen different players that form a national board. In fact, we have had very little to say on what the theme would be. It's the community of Canadians with disabilities that makes that determination.
I would even hasten to add that we haven't agreed every time with what they've chosen, but we've been very supportive because ultimately it's their life, the community life, that we're trying to really build.
The participation by the speaker and the committee have always been a support to that and I want to make sure that this is clear. While National Access Awareness Week is going on, what I'm talking about in terms of Parliament's response is Parliament's activity. This is only the occasion, the National Access Awareness Week. It could be your own theme. You could pick anything you wanted, such as constituency offices this year or something like that. You could do anything you wanted. The field is open.
The Chair: You talked about the participation of the Speaker. In the proposed participation of the Speaker's office, vis-à-vis the committee, what timeframe are you allocating for the Speaker in terms of his appearance before the committee?
Mr. Brooks: In the past the Speaker would appear for 15 or 20 minutes to publicly table his Access Today report with this committee. He also does it afterwards in the House.
Following that appearance, which is a very short 20 minutes and no longer than half an hour, we went to a reception where the Buddy awards were given out, the Centennial Flame Award was given out, and there were a few speeches. But it was basically a celebration. There's a display that's put up and those who have been involved throughout the year are usually getting some kind of acknowledgement from the Speaker. These are staffers on the Hill as well as members of the public who make contributions on a voluntary basis.
That's how it was done in the past. It remains to be seen how it will be done in the future. There's a proposal, and the Speaker may in fact be asking for the collaboration and the cooperation of this committee for some kind of work together on May 31.
We had discussed a number of different dates. May 31 was picked because it is a caucus day and most of the members are here. Secondly, it's when space is available and the Speaker's schedule will allow - But at this point he is looking at having a reception on that date, probably no longer than an hour to an hour and ten minutes, where these kinds of things might occur. I suspect you will probably receive an invitation for some kind of participation.
By the way, I should point out that it was previously co-hosted by the Speaker of the House, the Speaker of the Senate as his guest, and the standing committee. They co-hosted that activity.
.1145
The Chair: I'd like to suggest something on behalf of the committee, and I hope I have the concurrence of the committee.
Although caucus members are almost guaranteed to be here on Wednesday, they are guaranteed for one particular purpose, and that is caucus meeting. Your own steering committee shall have known that the regular meeting of our standing committee falls on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Because members of the committee have planned their schedules a long time in advance, I would suggest that the presentation by the Speaker happen on the Tuesday preceding that Wednesday, that it happen between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., and that it be more than just fifteen minutes, because then it becomes ceremonial. The committee is serious about posing questions to every witness, as you have seen today.
I would suggest that our meeting, if it can still be changed, be moved to a Tuesday, and that we hear the Speaker for a minimum of an hour. If we exhaust all the questions, then we shall adjourn earlier. I hope I have the concurrence of the committee on that point.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): I think Mrs. Catterall already brought this up, but the whole idea of the buddy system, or the face-to-face idea, is a good initiative. I'm not a long-time parliamentarian and this is all new to me as far as the initiatives go, since I wasn't here for the last Parliament. I'm cautiously enthusiastic, if there's such a thing, because this is just so short a time - three or four weeks - and I have lots of things scheduled.
I don't want to be a cop-out, but I can't use this in my householder information, and I do like to use it. I can't promote it and I don't even know if I can be here, because I can't plan around it. I'd love to be and I hope to be part of it, but it's just really short notice. If this is a national plan, to give three or four weeks of notice is pretty tight for most of us, I think. Next year, if we had two or three months, it wouldn't take any more work, simply more notice.
Mr. Brooks: Sure; I think it's a great idea. Next year we'll be knocking on your door two or three months in advance.
The Chair: I think the sentiment of the committee is that we will invite the Speaker to present the Access Today report on Tuesday, May 30 at 11 o'clock. It will be a real focus. It is not a ceremonial presentation; it's a real, substantive presentation. If we can have the report in advance, which we shall have read the day before the meeting at least, then it will be more meaningful.
If you could convey that to your committee and the Speaker, Mr. Brooks, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Brooks: I'm sure the Speaker's staff will do that too, but certainly, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Are there any other questions from the committee?
I think there is interest for us to adjourn earlier.
I would like to thank you all on behalf of the committee. It has been an excellent briefing and we look forward to working more closely with your group.
Mr. Brooks: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Let's proceed quickly to the next item of the agenda. Again, on the issue of disabled persons, a very significant component of our committee's mandate, I have here on the agenda the suggestion for the creation of a subcommittee precisely to look at the issue of disability.
The reason it has come about is becoming increasingly clear. We have been given one very large piece of legislation, the Employment Equity Act, which has consumed most of our time. Who knows? We may anticipate still another act. While in the past we have felt we should not be creating subcommittees, I would like us to revisit the issue regarding the creation of a subcommittee on disabled persons.
Would you alternatively consider the idea of setting aside a special meeting date or dates on a regular basis to handle issues about disabled persons even as we study a piece of legislation? In that case we are giving equal focus to the two major issues, as we see them, in the mandate of our committee.
.1150
On that note, I would like to open the subject-matter of our second agenda item. Who would like to speak to it?
Mr. Maloney (Erie): As I understand it, the committee dealt quite intensely with disability issues during the previous Parliament. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I'd like to examine what in fact they did do, with a view to the report that they prepared. I'm more interested in knowing what has become of that report, what initiatives have commenced because of that, if any.
Perhaps there is where we should concentrate. We should not necessarily study the issue again, but we could ensure that their recommendations, if we agree with them - it would be unlikely that we didn't - have been implemented. If they haven't been implemented, why not?
The Chair: We should review them first before we proceed in even establishing a subcommittee?
Mr. Maloney: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): I agree with the proposal to review the recommendations of the previous committee. Instead of setting up a special committee, we should base our decision on what study to undertake on the information we already have on disabled people. Therefore I fully support my colleague's suggestion.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: I concur with that. I think time is a rare commodity for all of us. Certainly, if we can use what's been established, decided, or found in the past, then that would be the way to go. I would agree.
Mr. Strahl: I have just a general comment. The name of the committee, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, would leave me reluctant to make a subcommittee. The perception, at least, is that there are some very important issues, and then some issues that are less important. I know that's not the intent, but I really think that if it is a high priority, then the committee should just make time for it.
We spent a lot of time on this employment equity thing, but I don't know if it would be that way for every piece of legislation or every issue. I think we should get back and start to look at some of the issues surrounding disabled persons.
As for the comment about looking at what's already been done, I don't want to go through the whole process if we're just merely going to rehash it. I think it's a good suggestion, but the committee should stick together, if possible.
The Chair: Are there other comments from the committee? Can I have consensus on that?
Mrs. Catterall: I don't know. I like the idea of finding out where we're coming from before we figure out where we're going, especially concerning what responses there have been to previous reports of the committee.
From what I hear, certainly income and employment are the prime targets for a lot of disability groups. Once you have your own income, you can take care of a lot of your other inequalities yourself. I think the work we've done on the employment equity bill is important.
However, being one for self-examination before one goes out to blame the rest of the world, I would like to suggest that once we've seen what has been done and how it was received, we look at how the government of Canada effects opportunities for the disabled.
We could look at training programs and how they're financed, how many disabled people participate, and what the results are. We could also look at our role as an employer and how well we are doing in accommodating people with disabilities. Just generally, we should examine how well our policies are assessed from the point of view of their impact on people with disabilities.
The Chair: Okay. I hear the consensus. I was thinking that a subcommittee could do this drafting of the agenda in consultation with the secretariat and the research staff. It would be presented to the committee so we could discuss it.
I heard the consensus. Therefore, as your chair, I will undertake the responsibility of doing precisely that - it will not be in a subcommittee - and then present it to the committee to see how to proceed. In other words, I will draft an agenda to address the issue of disabled persons for the consideration by the whole committee. I thank you for your mandate.
Mr. Wood (Nipissing): That's whether I want it or not.
.1155
The Chair: Now we will go to the last item on the agenda, Bill C-64. Nancy, could you quickly go over the C-64 timetable, because you're very much involved in it. First, tell us about the reports.
Ms Nancy Holmes (Committee Researcher): Initially what we had discussed was a meeting on Thursday to consider the draft of the report. I understand two chapters have already been circulated for your consideration. What we had proposed in our schedule was to consider the report on Thursday as well as the following Tuesday. Then it was suggested that perhaps we would move into clause-by-clause thereafter. I guess it's all very dependent on how the draft report is received in terms of rework and what not. The proposal was to go into clause-by-clause and hopefully table the report on May 16 or 18.
The Chair: I hope the proposed schedule as circulated would meet with your approval. Of course days become shortened as we move with speed through each one, not sacrificing at any moment the quality of our debate.
Are the proposals agreed to? Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I haven't had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with my colleague Mr. Ménard, who will represent next week our party at this Committee. I suppose you received the document some time ago.
The Clerk of the Committee: It had been distributed only yesterday.
Mr. Bernier: I haven't had a chance to discuss it with him, but I'm seeing him this afternoon. I will be out of town next week and he will replace me on this Committee. I suppose it can be worked out, but I'll have to talk to his this afternoon and he'll let you know if there's any hindrance.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: If we finish with the report on.... What's the date of the last report?
The Chair: Tuesday, May 9.
Mr. Strahl: That would be enough time for translation and so on, by May 16. That's a week.
Ms Holmes: It would depend on -
Mr. Strahl: How many changes there were. It might be okay and it might not be. I don't think we'll know until we get into it. We'll just have to adjust our hours to know whether we're on track.
The first two or three chapters I've had a brief look at this morning. I don't know how controversial or how much debate it's going to take to do the whole thing. I don't think we can know.
But certainly the initial schedule looks fine.
The Chair: Any other comments? Is it okay for me to ask if we anticipate any minority report?
Mr. Strahl: That's a good question.
Mr. Wood: Let's have a good answer.
Mr. Strahl: If someone were to have some concerns about the majority report - which I don't think...since I've talked pretty well everyone into my position, but say they did and the report came through and we did have some points to bring out in a minority report. I guess I'd need a little direction from the committee on what is considered appropriate length and so on. It looks as if the report will be fairly lengthy and it will cover a lot of issues. If we're going to do the same and we are going to have similar concerns, we may end up with a few pages.
The Chair: It is still our hope and prayer that there will be a unanimous report. Should it not come to pass, my suggestion would be that you consider the areas you will agree with as a given. A sentence could indicate that, particularly if we have numbers or letters referenced to those items. Then of course with the dissenting views you could indicate in the best possible and most succinct way what your caucus would like to do. Since we are all concerned about cost, may I suggest this in a non-partisan way.
Mr. Strahl: I realize the cost. But it looks to me as if the report may end up being sixty, eighty, or a hundred pages long. I don't know.
.1200
The Chair: I do not know.
Mr. Strahl: The first two chapters are twenty-some pages. Say the report ends up being sixty or eighty pages long. We're not anticipating anything like that, but it's still a very significant report. If we disagreed with some things, then, costs notwithstanding, it takes a few pages to write down your concerns if you have some.
We don't know yet what we're going to agree or disagree with, because we haven't seen the report yet; but, assuming there may be some things, we need a similar amount of time in order to make sure that we can get our translation work done and so on.
The Chair: Sure. Fair enough. Okay, we will come to that point again later.
Mrs. Catterall: We've got two days, really, to work on the report. It's really important that we should move fairly quickly into clause-by-clause consideration and wrap up the whole thing in a concentrated period of time so we're not dragging it out too much. When we start going through the report, perhaps on Thursday, if we're having too much difficulty with certain things, could we consider leaving them for a subsequent report?
I think we're going to want to do a further report, separate from the legislation, on what things besides the legislation need to be done to move towards more equitable employment. If we want to say we're going to spend two days on the report, then we might just keep in mind that there might be some things we could leave aside for a subsequent report in order to accomplish that.
The Chair: That is a very good suggestion. In other words, it would be to give equal priority to the clause-by-clause study. Yes, I think that has been heard.
Mr. Strahl: I forgot from my earlier glance at this that the consideration of the draft report on May 9 is the last time we will have. However, after whatever suggestions we throw out, are we not going to need another meeting to look at the final report and approve it?
The Chair: I put the same question to our research staff - depending, again, on the extent of what we suggest, because consider that we have already, in a sense, gone over the first draft and the initial interactions we had. That will have been put into this new one, and we will see. We will not rush, but we would also not like to have it drag on unduly.
Mr. Strahl: To take Marlene's comments, if there are things of contention or things that we think should be put into the subsequent report, possibly you're going to alter the report substantially. I think we're going to need some time, even if it's one hour, before it goes to print. I would think somebody is going to want to approve it.
The Chair: Definitely, that will happen.
Mr. Strahl: There is no space to do that on this schedule.
The Chair: Not at this point, but we will create one if need be. After our meeting on May 9, we will create the time required for that slot.
Mr. Strahl: Okay.
The Chair: It's a given.
Mr. Strahl: I think we'll have to.
The Chair: That's a good reminder.
Mr. Strahl: Sure. We can decide then.
The Chair: Are there any other questions? No?
This meeting stands adjourned.