EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 30, 1996

.1529

The Chair: Order, please. Is everyone here who was supposed to be at the table for the second session at 3:30 p.m.?

For this afternoon's session we will go with the first and second tables together.

[Translation]

Some people had to leave. We will continue our discussions with those of you who are still here.

I would like to thank you once again. Because of what was happening in the House, we were unable to finish hearing the other presentations, which were very impressive and eloquent.

[English]

Would you at the table please introduce yourselves so we can start the meeting?

.1530

Mr. Laurie Beachell (Executive Director, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

My name is Laurie Beachell and I am with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. We were unable to complete our presentation, so I might just try to sum up.

Unfortunately, several of our representatives, Francine Arseneault, my chairperson, and Allan Simpson have had to leave, as well as representatives from CACL. I think it is a comment upon what we were discussing that Allan is on the same flight back to Winnipeg as I am tonight, but the only transport he could get to the airport left at 3:30. Our flight is not until 6:40. That gives you a sense of what people with disabilities have to put up with on a daily basis, since there is no other transportation mechanism available to him here in Ottawa. It was booked solid. If he missed his bus at 3:30, he would not get to the airport tonight. So he's at the airport now, three hours in advance of his flight.

That's some of the frustration we put up with and that's some of the frustration we deal with in the relationships and roles between governments. It falls to me to try to give you, Mrs. Finestone, our list of three things, and I would say to you that the list is more than three.

Generally, our organizations continue to call for the establishment of a secretary of state position responsible for the status of persons with disabilities, which was the recommendation of the committee. We also called for the establishment of a cross-departmental coordination mechanism at a senior policy level to address disability issues. Presently, there is no authority within HRDC in regard to disability. It is at a very junior level, and unless it is moved up in the system we frankly feel it will fall off the table.

We agree with the committee's recommendation that the minister report annually to the House on the status of disabled persons and report to this committee as well. We also urge - and this is before the announcement of this morning - that the Government of Canada immediately establish a targeted employment initiative to address labour market training needs of persons with disabilities.

The recent amendments to employment insurance have in fact excluded persons with disabilities from training in this country. With respect to the proposal of this morning to transfer responsibility or to put on the table an offer to the provinces to assume responsibility for labour market training, our desire would be to see strong contract language that would ensure accountability and accessibility for all persons with disabilities. If the federal government is no longer in the business of delivering labour market training, and it is now being devolved to the provinces, there must be some assurance that there will be standards of equity, equality and access for all citizens within those programs.

However, our main concern still remains that the transfer is only related to EI dollars. Again, only a small number of our membership is presently on employment insurance or would be eligible for labour market training. So, frankly, unless there is an exemption in the regulations for eligibility for labour market training for people with disabilities, the majority of Canadians with disabilities will be excluded from labour market training.

That was the presentation we made to the committee of human resources that reviewed Bill C-12. It is still our position, and we would urge the committee to support it.

The Chair: May I ask who you made that presentation to?

Mr. Beachell: The human resources development committee, the committee that reviewed... Am I correct on that - Bill C-12, HRD?

We would also urge that the federal and provincial governments establish a mechanism for review of VRDP, the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons. It presently exists, I would say, somewhat in limbo since it is the only cost-shared program that is in existence today. It is a cost-shared program similar in style to the Canada Assistance Plan, etc. With the transfers that have happened elsewhere regarding social policy in the Canada health and social transfer, as well as the changes now related to labour market, we're fearful of where this is going. We believe a review of the VRDP is required.

.1535

We also believe the federal government has a significant role to look at income support issues and would alert the committee to the fact that the ministerial task force on social policy, whose report is being reviewed at the first ministers conference in June, does recommend a role for the federal government in the area of income support to persons with disabilities. I believe it talks about ``jointly managed but federally delivered'' in the recommendations.

We would urge the establishment of a task force, again federal-provincial-territorial, to look at issues around income support for persons with disabilities in the broad context of social policy. This may also be an avenue to tie it into the review of tax measures the Minister of Finance announced in the budget speech of February.

Again, we were coming today to suggest that there be targeted employment training programs allocating 15% of spaces and 20% of funds for federal government initiatives and labour markets. However, if this is being devolved to the provinces, again we would urge that there be some contract language that ensures equity representation within those programs.

CCD calls for increased support for the implementation of independent living models and principles. We would also urge you to look, as the federal government has in the past, at models of support for de-institutionalization. The federal government has supported some unique strategic initiatives in the past, it continues to support them, and we would hope it will continue to support them beyond the current devolution of responsibilities.

We also would want to see that within the discussions around CHST a standard to ensure denial of service, either services or social assistance, is appealable, and that within the jurisdictions at the provincial level there is a guarantee of an appeal mechanism.

We would urge the committee to support the exploration of the concept of a social audit, a mechanism to track how federal dollars are spent and to look at comparability of service delivery across the country.

In light of the current devolution, we would urge the federal government to expand the mandate of the court challenges program to allow for challenges to provincial legislation. If we are giving greater responsibility to the provincial government, if there is no appeal mechanism, if there are no national standards, then let us sue the bastards.

We would urge continued support and recognition for the value of organizations of persons with disabilities in a consultative role with governments and all levels of government. We believe that requires support. We seem to have been tarred with this brush of ``special interest''. We are tarred with a brush that says somehow we're out to get something better than everybody else for a small select group. That is not the aim or objective of our association. Our association's aim or objective is to be able to ensure the barriers that prohibit our participation in the community are identified, that we work collaboratively to find solutions for their removal, and that ultimately we have full citizenship rights.

We would also urge that the federal government look at a mandate broader than employability. It appears to us at this point the social policy mandate of the federal government is diminishing significantly. The federal government, as Mr. Simpson so eloquently put it earlier, has a role to ensure citizenship rights, has a role to ensure some equality of social service and social assistance provision across this country, and that requires a commitment of the federal government to initiatives in broad social policy.

At present we do not see that as being a priority within this government. When we submit proposals, for example, to do studies related to access to information and alternate media, we're told they don't meet an employability agenda. But for our community to get jobs... Unless they have access to information and we develop mechanisms to deal with the new technology that is emerging to ensure access for all people, people are not going to get jobs.

.1540

In a nutshell, that is a list of three things we want.

The Chair: Good review.

Mr. Beachell: We appreciate the opportunity to appear today. You asked three questions just before you left, related to consultation, related to federal-provincial relations, and related to the recognition of diversity within the charter.

On federal-provincial relations, let me just say I think our view is that federal-provincial relations are like a family situation. There needs to be discussion. There needs to be inclusion. There needs to be an opportunity for everyone to be involved in the decisions and to state their views very clearly. But in my family, when I was a child, somebody ultimately made a decision and said it's going to be this way. Yes, my thoughts and considerations were taken into account, but sometimes they were not listened to, or they did not rule the day.

I would say the federal-provincial relationship is that relationship with family. Yes, the provinces have a responsibility, a jurisdictional responsibility. Yes, the provinces have clear duties to the members of their communities. But the federal government has an overall responsibility for citizenship, to ensure equality across the country, to ensure there is leadership, to ensure there is a vision of what we want our society to be. That is the role for the federal government. And it does mean leading and making decisions. It does not mean just consulting.

On the consultation side, that having been said, all voices have to be heard. All voices need to be at the table. And it isn't endless rounds of meaningless discussion. Our organizations believe we have brought valuable input to the federal government over the years: input related to the National Transportation Act, input related to employment equity, at present input into discussions around Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, at present discussions around devolution of powers and a number of other pieces of legislation, such as CHST.

We believe the discussion around social audit, which we were, frankly, first to present to the Standing Committee on Finance in response to the budget of 1995, is worthy of research and discussion. We don't know where it will lead us, but I think we bring to the federal government valuable contributions which require support and require an opportunity to ensure people are around the table.

Madam Chair, I was not sure what you meant by the diversity in the charter, but -

The Chair: Section 15 is the diversity of the country, and we just added sexual orientation as perhaps the last group that are discriminated against, with certain qualifications and on certain bases. This is what I meant about diversity: the full inclusion of the diversity of this country, whether it's race, language, religion, mental or physical handicaps, etc. I won't read the list.

Mr. Beachell: We heartily endorse that. The charter is the supreme law of the land. We fought long and hard to ensure protection - that we were not discriminated against on the basis of physical or mental disability. And as you know, we were before you recently to support the inclusion of sexual orientation protection. We now await the second package of amendments we hope the minister will bring forward in the next few weeks. They will include a duty to accommodate within the Canadian Human Rights Act. We are hopeful that amendment as well will ensure protection and provide greater obligation on the part of employers and others to identify barriers in our community and remove them, so people can participate.

I know time has been difficult today and I had hoped our other members could be here.Mr. Smith from NEADS has not had the opportunity yet. We coordinated our presentation this morning and have gone forward. I'll turn it over to him. Then if there are questions, Traci or Frank or I would be pleased to try to answer them, however you wish to proceed.

The Chair: I have a million and a half questions, and so does everyone else around the table. I feel we are colleagues and partners in the fullest sense of the words and we need that exchange. But because of the timing, I would like to have your input, and I certainly would like to have Frank Smith from NEADS speak, and as a matter of fact, everyone who is around this table. If you don't mind, we're prepared to stay a little later, because we really would like to do this.

.1545

I'd just like to ask you about your consultation, if you can go back to that for a moment. You refer just to the federal-provincial-territorial consultations. In response to the question I asked about consultations, you talked about the federal-provincial, the family and the father or the mother figure in the family. I had placed it a little more broadly - if you want to think about that after - because there are other aspects to consultation with ministers: if you want a round table with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of HRD, if there's something you want to do with the bureaucrats... It strikes me from everything we've heard that there's a whole resensitization to the reality of an inclusive society and what ``inclusive'' means in the fulsomeness of that sense.

That will be when I come back. We'd like to hear from Frank now, if we might.

Mr. Frank Smith (Executive Director, National Educational Association of Disabled Students): Thank you very much.

First I would like to thank members of the standing committee for inviting the association to appear at this meeting to discuss the contents of the government response to the committee's report The Grand Design: Achieving the `Open House' Vision.

NEADS represents college and university students and graduates with disabilities across Canada. With over 112,000 people with disabilities participating in post-secondary education in this country, our constituents clearly have a stake in the future of the nation as contributors in all aspects of life. We believe the federal government has a central role to play in ensuring all members of society have full access to higher education, employment opportunities, and social services.

At the time of the release of the committee's unanimous report we joined the Council of Canadians with Disabilities as one of its members in welcoming the recommendations to the federal government. The message from the committee was strong and clear. It included many key recommendations that would ensure a continued role for the national government beyond the sunset of the national strategy. The committee's report demonstrated that members had listened to the representatives of the disabled persons community and valued their input as the principal partners in the process.

Importantly, your committee recommended the maintenance of national standards under the Canada health and social transfer through negotiations with the provinces. You saw the need for a social audit to ensure accountability in this process. In addition, you recommended strongly that the federal government ensure federally funded employability measures make adequate and comprehensive provision for people with disabilities. Throughout the report the standing committee reiterated the important role of persons with disabilities and their organizations as key players in all of this to set priorities and evaluate the success of all initiatives.

The committee stressed the importance of continuing a national strategy of renewing a mandate to cover all disability-related programs in all departments. You emphasized there must be a lead minister, a secretary of state responsible for disabled persons issues, to coordinate all federal activities.

Having acknowledged the success of the committee's report in articulating the needs of disabled persons so clearly and providing a vision for the future for this government, it is extremely discouraging to read the vague document that is the government's response. A House Open to All: A Shared Responsibility sets the tone with its title, which clearly indicates Human Resources Development Canada is abdicating its leadership role by suggesting from the start that this area is a shared responsibility. It is all very well and good to say the government remains totally committed to the objectives of equality, full participation, and the integration of persons with disabilities, but where is the commitment beyond rhetoric?

The report waxes eloquent about the success of the mainstream 1992 consultation process, the development and implementation of the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities, and this government's social security review, which involved a thorough examination of disability-related supports and services. While the government in its response says it remains committed to the open house vision and claims to be well aware of the concerns of the disability communities, it does not seem interested in forging ahead with the kind of federal commitment which made the national strategy a qualified success. Instead we are left with a document which views all the issues of importance to disabled citizens of this country with respect to the new environment of economic restraint and downsizing and strategically redefines its role in this context. In this new world responsibility rests primarily with the provinces.

.1550

It is not good enough to indicate that the 1996 budget ensures that the cash component of the CHST will be maintained for the next few years. There is no mechanism for ensuring Canada-wide standards in the delivery of education and social services. At least the previous EPF and CAP arrangements ensured a federal role here.

The Minister of Human Resources Development remains the lead minister, despite the recommendation of the standing committee, of your committee, that the government designate a secretary of state responsible for disabled persons' issues. And the community of course has called for this.

The concerns of the community cannot be properly addressed by HRDC and its minister. The lives of people with disabilities are not strictly defined by employability. We need to have accessible education, access to housing, public transportation, attendant care, government materials in accessible formats, and so on.

From the perspective of students with disabilities, it is encouraging that it appears as if the federal government is working to extend the VRDP program beyond March 1996. In a 1993 needs study on financial aid issues, 44% of close to 400 post-secondary students across Canada indicated that they rely upon vocational rehabilitation services and funding in order to attend college and university. While VRDP probably will carry on for one more year, what will happen after that?

We hope that the government will indeed seek the perspectives of various communities of persons with disabilities when evaluating VRDP and give them full consideration. The country needs a strong Canada student loans program and an effective VRDP program in order to ensure that people with disabilities can continue to participate fully in post-secondary education. This is especially vital as tuition fees increase and services and programs are being cut on campuses across the country.

Also discouraging is the fact that this government appears to be working to minimize the role of the key stakeholders, persons with disabilities. As you know, since last March HRDC has reduced the amount of funding available to disabled persons' organizations from $12 million to its current level of $3.5 million. This is a whopping two-thirds cut in funding, and the regional delivery of what was the disabled persons participation program has been entirely eliminated. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities and its provincial members will have to find a way to exist and contribute with cuts in sustaining grants of 10% for this year, 30% for next year, and 50% for the following year. Funding to these groups will be eliminated altogether in 1999-2000.

A House Open to All does not commit to disabled persons and their organizations. Instead, the federal government seems to believe that it can maintain the equality, full participation, and integration of people with disabilities in Canadian society while minimizing the role of disabled consumers and instead looking to other sectors of society.

People with disabilities want to be full Canadian citizens. They want to live in a country that provides them with an opportunity to participate. The statistics have shown that when people with disabilities have equal access to post-secondary education and employment opportunities, they can excel and succeed.

Still, there are many barriers in society that need to be removed if disabled people are to participate on a level playing field. The federal government must make a commitment to its citizens with disabilities. It must send a clear message that they are valued.

Despite the vague and uncommitted words of the government response to your report, we ask the committee to make sure that this government and its lead minister, Doug Young, will live up to these responsibilities.

We thank all members of the standing committee for allowing the association to present to you today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I have one question before I move over to the next person, who didn't get a chance to speak this morning.

You've given us a very enlightened overview. With respect to the Canada student loans program, which you referred to, there is a special opportunities grant, which according the estimates went from a cost factor of $3.2 million to $9.9 million. How do you view that change, and have you some idea of how come?

Mr. Smith: I missed the last part of your comment.

The Chair: I saw that almost more than a tripling of the budget under the special opportunities grant. Could you ascertain whether it was because there was a pick-up in use because it had been demonstrated to be a good program or it was a replacement for something else? What did you think when you saw that increase from $3 million to $9 million?

.1555

Mr. Smith: We recommended three to four years ago, when we did our study, that the government look at providing grants funding within the Canada student loans program, because that hadn't been available previously. In fact, the national student aid program didn't really recognize that students with disabilities often take longer to complete their programs of study and often require greater levels of assistance.

The fact of the matter is that with the amount of funding available in the program at $5 million, if you look at the distribution of funding across the country that would only allow for some 2,000 to 3,000 students to receive grant funding, special opportunity grant funding. Of course we're looking at over 100,000 people with disabilities who are participating in post-secondary programs. So certainly the special opportunity grants component within Canada student loans is very important.

The level within that program right now is certainly not very high when you compare it with the need and the number of students out there who are requiring some kind of grant assistance and are in many cases unable to function with a loan, considering levels of debt upon graduation and their ability to get a job immediately and all those kinds of things. We are certainly very supportive of that program, but we also believe it needs to receive greater funding in the future in order to meet the needs our members have.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Who else was here this morning who didn't get a chance to make a presentation and would like to pick up the opportunity at this moment? Following that we'll have some exchange around this morning.

Mr. Beachell: I think all who were here this morning on the panel have made -

The Chair: Could you give me some guidance, Laurie? The committee itself is feeling a bit frustrated because we haven't had the opportunity to respond to the very considered remarks that were made. Nonetheless, we have some new players at the table with you. Would you prefer to have us hear the balance of those people who are here, particularly those who have to leave early? Would they agree, or would they rather have some questions and answers around those who want to leave, or who have to leave?

Ms Traci Walters (National Director, Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres): I wouldn't mind opening it up right now to questions, but if Laurie is able to stay he is able to answer on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

The Chair: The decision has to be yours. It has been a difficult day for everybody.

Mr. Beachell: I can stay for questions toward the end, if that is what you wish. I know Traci has to leave for child care responsibilities very shortly.

The Chair: We could have a bit of an exchange with Traci and then we'll go on. Is that all right with you and with Mr. Smith?

Maurice.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): First, I would like to comment on the minister's response or so-called response, to the report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I would then like to ask our guests some questions. I would like to thank them for coming to meet with us, and particularly for the endless patience they have shown up to this time with respect to the delays by the committee. I should mention in passing that these delays were not caused by the Official Opposition, which was as cooperative as possible.

I would like to start by saying, as all our witnesses did today, that the Official Opposition does not see the minister's response to the report we tabled in the House last December as being in any way a genuine response. I believe you said that during your presentation, and other witnesses made the same comment on a number of occasions.

.1600

Our committee drafted a serious report, one which went beyond political partisan considerations. The Bloc québécois made a comment in the report about national standards. However, in the main, we were part of the unanimous report, which, I repeat, went beyond political partisanship. We think political affiliations must be set aside in considering the status of persons with disabilities.

The Minister's answer is no answer at all, I hope our committee will have an opportunity to hear from the minister in the near future, and that my colleagues from all parties will be unanimous in pointing out to him that this is not at all the response we were expecting to our report.

We think the work was botched and is not at all a genuine response. It is almost an insult to the serious work done by persons with disabilities who have testified and to our committee, which wrote the report. That is a general comment I wanted to make, and one I will repeat when the minister is here. We will have an opportunity to ask him some specific questions at that time.

As to the point you have raised quite rightly on numerous occasions, I would just like to clarify something about national standards. I would like to explain the Bloc's position very briefly. I will not speak for the Reform Party, which also commented on this matter.

The reference to national standards has nothing to do with a sovereignty option for Quebec defended by the Bloc québécois. We studied the existing constitution, and we would like the federal government to get out of areas of jurisdiction that are acknowledged to belong to the provinces. It's quite clear: we want provincial areas of jurisdiction to be respected.

While this is not part of the report, it is important to point out that the federal government, which has had the spending power for many years, and which has more or less invaded the field of social services, income security, manpower training and so on, should, if it withdraws and turns this responsibility over to the provinces, give them a corresponding amount of income tax. If responsibilities are transferred, money will have to follow. The federal government and the provinces will have to agree on tax transfers, cash transfer or some other type of transfer.

The Minister was saying today that transfers for manpower training would continue for a number of years and would eventually be phased out.

That is a problem that you and Lucie from COPHAN were discussing this morning. Obviously, we would have serious problems in all the provinces if funding were not made available. If we want to maintain services that are equivalent to existing services, without being extraordinary, taxpayers will have to continue to pay the same amount to the federal government, and provinces will have to raise additional taxes in order to provide services that are equivalent to those we have today.

This is an important problem that we should clarify once and for all.

As far as standards go, the Bloc québécois acknowledges - and I mentioned this during our discussions on the report - that the federal government is required to coordinate policy. Some policies come under its jurisdiction, and in those cases there is no problem. We acknowledge that the government can play a coordinating role in an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction. However, this should not result in the imposition of standards, but rather in discussions and negotiations with all provinces to meet the common objective of providing essentially the same services everywhere.

.1605

In areas that come under provincial jurisdiction, we do not object to national standards. However - and this is the distinction we would like to make - we insist on negotiating these standards so that they are not simply imposed by the federal government.

I come back to what the minister was saying in the House in response to the question I asked him about your funding as an association.

I will second guess the Minister, but I'm sure he will be able to clarify his intentions when he appears before the committee.

We have noticed that at the moment the minister sees the issue of persons with disabilities as a matter that comes under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So when I asked my question about funding for the associations, he answered that he was surprised that a member of Parliament for the Bloc québécois would be telling him to intervene in an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction.

There is not doubt that some responsibilities come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. At the moment, that is true of manpower training, in which the federal government still has jurisdiction, although there are some proposals regarding the transfer of this responsibility to the provinces. Mr. Smith was saying earlier that all labour market adjustment program, training programs and transportation programs were clearly matters of federal jurisdiction. Many income security matters, at least unemployment insurance, clearly come under federal jurisdiction.

There are a number of such fields. The minister and the government cannot all of a sudden say that they will no longer deal with issues regarding persons with disabilities and simply turn it over to the provinces.

I would like to hear what you think about this and about funding for your associations.

I hope that our committee will eventually take a stand with respect to funding for the associations. When will the federal government obtain its information and with whom will they discuss these matters if associations like yours no longer exist, because their funding is dried up, because the federal government has run the risk of jeopardizing your survival?

Since the minister told me that the provinces should be in charge of this area, I would like you to tell me which province will deal with the CCD, or the Association for... Will the associations be broken down by province, with some going to Newfoundland, Prince-Edward-Island and Quebec? I'm trying to imagine how this might work. It doesn't make any sense.

It's clear to everyone that the federal government has certain responsibilities and that it should continue to provide its services to persons with disabilities and continue to provide funding to the organizations.

I would like to hear your comments. My colleagues and I support the principle underlying what you are doing, even though it does not necessarily coincide with the Opposition's position. However, we have to convince the Minister that the federal government must continue to assume its responsibilities as regards persons with disabilities, and that it really must take some action.

One of our main recommendations was about coordination. We wanted a secretary to be named. This recommendation was set aside, but I am sure that the committee will be asking the minister this question, because it was one of our main recommendations.

[English]

The Chair: Does anybody have a specific question as Frank is leaving?

Thank you very much for joining us, Frank.

Traci.

Ms Walters: Laurie can pick up after me.

About our role in the funding of our organizations, right now we have been cut dramatically.

The Chair: Tell us exactly what you mean by ``cut dramatically'', please.

.1610

Ms Walters: We have three years to become totally self-sufficient. We're cut by 10%, then 30%, then 50%, and then we're out.

Everybody is reducing staff load. I have three staff left, myself and two others, and we spend most of our time in responding to government and being asked to participate in this type of process. Right now we can't even get out to do anything other than respond to these requests.

I don't understand where they think they're going to have people coming from to consult with the federal government or with any other government. Where do they think the organizations are going to go?

Mr. Young said in the House of Commons that he supports people with disabilities. He cares about people with disabilities, but he doesn't care about their associations. It's easy to care about people when you don't have to hear about them or hear about their concerns. Where do they think they're going to get a voice?

Right now we have CPP discussions taking place, consultations. I went to one about a week and a half ago. What I heard was disgusting. The people with disabilities were not there. Only a couple of groups were there. I found out about it on the same day. Right now we have -

The Chair: Are you talking about David Walker's group?

Ms Walters: That's right. They are going to Waterloo in the next couple of days, but none of the disability organizations have been informed about this. This is CPP disability, but we're barely in the process of that consultation, let alone when we don't have a voice and our associations go right down the drain.

That's why I'm having a very big problem with understanding how they can on one hand care and say that we do excellent work and that everything we discuss and talk about is critical to shaping society yet on the other hand pull the rug out from underneath us. I don't understand it.

Mr. Beachell: I understand your issue around coordination. I think that is what we look for. There have to be partnerships between federal-provincial governments and partnerships that include the community to determine these. Frankly, those partnerships are hard to develop when you announce the Canada health and social transfer with no discussions around principles or guidelines in advance. The CHST came into effect on April 1, yet to date there have been no discussions with the provinces.

When we go to provincial governments to ask them what's happening around social policy on this and their discussions with the federal government, they say they do not know. They don't know what's going on. They have not been talked to.

We just wrote to the first ministers, all the premiers and the Prime Minister, again. The next discussion on social policy will be behind closed doors at the first ministers meeting, at which the public has no input and no idea of what is going on. It is not debated on the floor of Parliament any longer. It is debated behind closed doors in federal-provincial negotiations to which the public has no access.

What are we going to do? We're going to go. We've asked to be part of the game. We know we won't be. If Ovide Mercredi doesn't get invited, then I guess we won't. But I think we'll have to be outside telling our message. It is disgusting that this is what we're coming to.

You'll note that at the end of our brief I included the letter to the Prime Minister. We have requested a meeting with him to discuss the cuts we saw. The response was that his schedule is extremely busy. We understand that. He referred us to Doug Young. The response from Doug Young was that his schedule's extremely busy and to please meet with Cathy Chapman. Cathy Chapman is the director of the secretariat, which frankly has been buried in the bureaucracy.

We have made four separate requests to meet with Doug Young since he became minister, but there has not been one agreement to meet.

As far as consultation goes, there has been none. As for developing partnerships so we can develop a vision, unless we can talk to each other no vision is going to be shared.

The open house here that is talked about in the federal government response is a house without a roof for protection. It's a house without walls. It's a house you're welcome to get into, but you may not find any plumbing. You may not find anything else there. It's just open and vacant. If this is the open house vision, it's not our vision of what an open house is.

The Chair: Out of curiosity, I'm looking at your letter. Did you remind Mr. Chrétien of his sensitivity and understanding when he was responsible for the charter and the fact that he included disability in it? Is that in your letter?

.1615

Mr. Beachell: Not in this letter specifically, but it has been in previous letters, and we can certainly do that as well. In 1981 Mr. Chrétien was very helpful with the charter inclusion. During the election campaign he also made very specific statements related to disability and his personal experience related to disability, and his understanding of that. The Prime Minister is on the front of the 1993 issue of Abilities magazine, which many of you have seen, talking about his commitment on the disability front.

We are coming to the committee to remind all parties and all members of the fact that Canadians with disabilities are citizens and do deserve equality of opportunity. We would hope there would be some action on that.

The Chair: Andy.

Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Thank you, Madam Chair.

About the presentations, I guess I don't need to say to anybody that they were important. I'll re-commit to our document and what's in it.

The Chair: This whole room.

Mr. Scott: It would appear to me to be all the more important.

I'd like to touch on a couple of things, because I think if we agree that even that document... It wasn't as if we had to reach deep into our souls to find the vision to write that, if you follow me. If we want to go down that road, if that's what we want, I think it's important for us to find the values in it and make sure we understand your position on those values. I have a few I'd like to ask about before people have to leave.

The secretary of state recommendation that was in our report - am I safe in assuming the important thing here is that there is an identifiable place where interest in disabilities or the community of disabled persons is lodged? Is that what it's about? Whether it's a secretary of state or something else, the issue here is that we need to have a definable responsibility, one that is perhaps not buried somewhere else. Is that what the issue is?

Mr. Beachell: That's what the issue is; and it is an issue that has a cross-departmental capability. It is not just within the mandate of HRDC.

Mr. Scott: To some extent one of the things happening is that, for instance, a lot of people are referring to provincial and federal jurisdictions. I understand about labour and manpower and training and those kinds of things, but that's as it relates to labour and manpower and training. I don't know where this inherent notion that disabilities, if I can use that term... Let me not worry too much about what terminology I use. The spirit is willing here. Somehow we have got it in our heads that there's a provincial jurisdiction here. I'm not sure where that comes from. I think it's based on the old social welfare model, or maybe health; I don't know. I don't know where you would find inherently a responsibility on the part of the provinces to deal with this.

As it relates to training, I understand it. As it relates to education, I understand it. As it relates to health, I understand it. But when you say as citizens of this country there is a special need that persons with disabilities have, why is that somehow considered to be provincial? I don't understand that. I just want to put it on the record. I don't understand. Maybe there's an answer. I look forward to it. Maybe Mr. Bernier can offer it.

The fact is I don't see that. We should not allow ourselves to be caught even in the political rhetoric that's around what's happened today. I think what they're talking about is devolution of various things. Some programs that relate to training may be devolved, so we think somehow responsibility for this community is devolving. I don't think that's the case. What's happening is responsibility for labour and manpower training is devolving. I would suggest that puts an added responsibility on the federal government to make sure this particular constituency inside that provincial responsibility, if we accept it's a provincial responsibility, has its interests protected, as you said earlier.

We need to be very clear in the language, because to be honest, I think what's happening is you're caught up in political interprovincial, federal-provincial language and no one's actually thinking too much about what they're saying. I don't mean deliberately, I just mean there are a lot of things happening very quickly. I don't think anyone's malicious. I think things are going very quickly and maybe people aren't giving things the amount of thought they should.

.1620

Having said that, I need to be told by someone where this notion came from that somehow disability is the responsibility of the provinces. I understand that health is. I understand that social services are. I understand that education is. I understand now that labour is, and all kinds of things. I don't know where it says that disabilities are. It's just that some of these things apply to persons who happen to be in that community, and I think we need to make sure we keep track of that. If we're going to go on some kind of a mission here for the next little while, I think it's important that we understand each other.

Mr. Beachell: I think I understand what you're getting at. I would agree to a certain extent. The reason we have seen disability viewed as a provincial responsibility in some people's minds, and maybe even in ours at times, is that the majority of our members have been trapped in that social welfare network. If we had not been so disadvantaged and so trapped in that model, maybe we would not be so paranoid about the devolution issue.

For example, you see the Canada health and social transfer doing the block funding to fund education, health, social services, and social assistance. You see that the federal government only provides protection around service delivery on the health side through the Canada Health Act. There is nothing, no protection, no standard, no guarantee, nothing other than a non-residency prohibition for anything related to social assistance or social service or education. You see all this and you begin to wonder whether the federal government feels it has any responsibility for the equity principles of all citizens participating within that.

They've protected the equity principles for the health model: portability, universality, all those publicly administered things with no user fees, and those kinds of things. They may have done that for political visibility reasons. It's sort of backfiring right now. The provinces are saying they are cutting social services because the feds cut it, so you're getting political visibility, but not the kind you want.

To me, we've protected one piece but we haven't protected the other piece. For our community, if it weren't in one pot, if the transfer were just for health and it had the health standards attached to it through the Canada Health Act, we wouldn't be as worried. When you cut the dollars and when you put it in block funding and you put health in competition with social assistance, social services, and education, we know what's going to lose. We know the only parts that are critical to our community are the social assistance and social services piece and the education piece, which are ultimately going to get us the jobs.

So you did two things, you block-funded and cut at the same time, and created that competition by protecting one piece with no protection on the other side other than some promised future discussion on principles and guidelines, which has never happened. We don't even think the letters have gone out to the premiers or ministers of social services to have it happen. What can you expect us to be other than paranoid?

Mr. Scott: Hopefully you didn't understand that I said I thought you shouldn't be.

The Chair: Perhaps someone else around the table would like to respond. Maybe you could do it in three steps. You said you had three or four points you wanted to clarify, right?

Mr. Scott: That was one. I was trying to get at the responsibility, but that's probably enough for now. We have a while yet.

The Chair: Does anybody else want to respond to that particular point?

Ms Walters: Basically what Laurie is saying is that we have a responsibility to protect the citizenship rights of individuals to participate in all aspects of society. Without that basic protection to ensure that basic participation, there's a problem here.

.1625

I see what's going on at the local level at all times through my own personal life as a user of the health care system and home care, the Victorian Order of Nurses and all of that. It's sad to see what's going on locally. There's absolutely no protection there. I'm a little bit off topic here, but even today when I went with the CBC crew to the local self-help organization, the CBC crew was asking them how this was going to impact their lives, what was going to happen. They expected them to have deciphered all of the information when most people, without low literacy skills, haven't been able to figure out the impact.

So our organizations, which should be helping people understand what's going on in this country, are so busy just trying to be here to be able to present our position, we're not even able to get this information to local consumers so they understand what's happening. If they understood at this point, and had that information, they'd be outraged, scared to death, knowing that we are at the whim of somebody at the local level to decide what people with disabilities should get. It could be somebody like Robert Latimer deciding what rights people with disabilities should have.

The Chair: Continue, Andy.

Mr. Scott: I just wanted to see if there's anyone... No?

The Chair: Linda? David? You don't have to. Because we've changed the dynamic doesn't mean that the rules can't also bend a little bit, so if you feel you want to respond to this fundamental question Andy has posed - and it relates to what Mr. Bernier said - please don't feel held back because you haven't made a formal presentation. That was all I meant.

Does anyone wish to? Okay, Steve, go ahead.

Mr. Steve Mantis (Secretary, Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups): I as well as you, Mr. Scott, am somewhat perplexed by this discussion of jurisdiction over disability. I mean, what is disability? What are we talking about? We're not talking about disability; we're talking about people. Are we saying now that people with disabilities are no longer Canadians? Is that what we're saying?

If that's what we're saying, it offends me to my very heart, because I'm a Canadian and I'm proud to be a Canadian, or used to be proud. Now I'm beginning to lose a little bit of faith, because what I see - and I don't know all this stuff about politics - is everybody scrambling to cut as fast as they can, and whoever happens to fall by the wayside, too bad. And if we can use an argument of jurisdiction to accomplish those ends, so be it. It happens to be a handy one; let's use it.

I am fundamentally just upset about this lack of respect for people. What are we here? Are we not a country of people? Excuse my emotion, but you got me.

The Chair: I think Russ wants to respond too, Andy.

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Why I'm concerned here is that we've made such advances, going back to David Smith's report Obstacles. We've made such tremendous strides and we've gotten such good people involved, who really care, who really don't receive compensation. I see here someone pulling on a thread and the whole garment coming apart, frankly, and I see us trying to save nickels and dimes and losing hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars worth of support for people with disabilities. Talk about being scared, this scares me. It scares me that we're doing this, but it scares me even more that we don't realize perhaps that we're doing this.

The Chair: That's the key.

Mr. MacLellan: I think we've got to key on that before it's too late. Anything we can do to bring this forward to show what we're in danger of losing here, and the tremendous tragedy it will be for our country, is vitally important.

I didn't want to take a lot of time, but I wanted to mention that because I know we have other witnesses we want to hear from.

.1630

The Chair: Yes. I'm sorry, I can't see your names.

Mr. Jim Sanders (Associate National Director, Government Relations and International Services, Canadian National Institute for the Blind): It's Jim Sanders from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Many of us around the table are products of the system we're talking about. We're here, to a great extent, because of ourselves and the initiatives we've taken, but we did so in an environment that was supportive from the very early days. I was born as a blind person, was educated as a blind person, was trained and work as a blind person. But first of all, I work as a person. So what you're hearing today in discussions comes from those of us who have been part of a system that works, from our own initiatives and our families, through to society and governments at all levels.

For the first time in post-war history - and whether it's perception or reality none of us know - we're seeing a system that has improved each year, even if many of us thought perhaps not fast enough, being dismantled without a clear understanding of what that means. All of us, as taxpayers, as citizens, understand deficits; perhaps we don't understand the numbers, but we understand deficits. But is budget cutting a goal or a means to an end? It appears to be a goal by all governments, not just this one, but the end is not clear. Fear of the unknown is very high. Thousands of us who could be here today and speak about this ten years from now may not be at this table. We don't know.

The Chair: Could I ask you a question? It's something I've learned more about and I'm concerned about.

You are visually handicapped. What happens when you want access to information? Communication is a vital link. Really, I've been sitting here and thinking of how many people came in in wheelchairs, and of all the new things we're doing, all the marvellous new communications and press buttons and access to HRD information and getting a job, etc. What happens to people who have a visual impairment?

Mr. Sanders: I'm in the fortunate position of having a resource of our organization around me. But I have been often asked to disassociate myself when thinking about access to information.

What happens if you don't work for the CNIB that provides this as a course of action? I've talked to people who have worked for our organization and have left, and it is pretty dismal. It is a good example, Madam Chair, of an attempt by many to come up with a ``one size fits all'' visibility policy without regard to the individual and the individual's needs. A ``one size fits all'' visibility policy leads to an attempt to have a one-stop system, a one-stop shop. Because blindness is such a low-incident disability relative to many others, there are often costs associated up front, such as the production of Braille material, that often frighten people -

The Chair: Do you read Braille?

Mr. Sanders: I read Braille. When you have a blind child in a school -

The Chair: I'm sorry, I don't want to interrupt you, but what happens if someone doesn't read Braille? Does everyone who is visually unsighted, or whatever, read Braille?

Mr. Sanders: No, particularly older people who rely on other forms, such as the human voice or audio cassette. Also, there are a growing number of people using adaptive computers. But the problem when you have one budget for all disabled people in any system, for example the education system, is that you begin to say if we can serve ten people with that amount of money in this way, as opposed to a Braille book that could, depending on its complexity, cost $40,000, you have to make those decisions. What it's doing is it's placing one disabled person against another disabled person through a system that hasn't recognized that we have individual and different needs. Disabled people end up fighting among themselves for survival and we end up beating ourselves for survival. We're seeing that in the education system now.

.1635

You asked if I read Braille. I learned Braille as an adult. I should have learned it as a child. Most children, with the exception of those in large centres who are attending their home school today, are not learning Braille. We now have two generations of identifiable illiterate blind children who use computers rather than learning Braille, and that's because the system has a budget for the disabled rather than individuals. I don't want to take up the time of the rest of the group, because that is a difficulty in itself, but I really am seeing dividing and conquering and pitting disabled persons against themselves.

Today you're hearing from consumer groups who by their very nature have the right to speak on behalf of their constituents. You're hearing from organizations like CNIB, which cannot and should not speak for blind people, but that have something to say because we're the ones who are expected to participate in solutions. We may not necessarily always provide service, but we are looked to by governments, society and blind people to help look towards those solutions. We have to work together as consumer groups and as organizations that are providing service, and it's getting more and more difficult when you're grabbing the same dollar to fulfil your mandate and what you believe in.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I would like to come back to what Mr. MacLellan was saying earlier and ask a question, because I want your answer to be part of the record, so that we can refer back to it if necessary.

Mr. MacLellan was saying that the problem with budget cuts is that at some point, as members of Parliament, whether on the Opposition or government side, we might not see that certain things are happening. We don't realize what consequences decisions may have until they have actually been made.

I would like to mention the best example, in my view, which is the grants to organizations. I would like this mentioned in the record with respect to our future discussions with the minister.

When I met with representatives from the various organizations to talk about the cuts, they told me that last year, when Mr. Axworthy was the Minister of Human Resources Development, there had already been a 15% cut. The organizations had understood that this would be the last time they would be asked to sustain such a cut, and that there would be no further budget reductions in the future.

Mr. Young came to the department in March, and without any public announcement - there was not press release put out by the department - he decided to cut the grants to associations completely. This was supposed to happen immediately in the case of some organizations, during the year ahead for others and over a three-year period for another group. These associations told me that they would not die in three years, but that they would die once they were getting only 50% of their budget. At that point, they would no longer be able to function.

That is my example. I would like the representatives from the associations to confirm what I'm saying, or deny it if I misunderstood them, because I don't want this to be a partisan matter.

I'm not saying that Mr. Young did this maliciously, but sometimes budgets are cut without realizing the impact this may have.

I would like you to tell me if I am mistaken.

[English]

The Chair: I think Traci Walters answered that.

[Translation]

I think Ms. Walters answered your question to some extent. She said that once the funding to associations is cut by 50%, they would disappear.

Mr. Bernier: The point I'm trying to make, madam Chair, is that this cut was not expected last year. It happened...

The Chair: Out of the blue.

Mr. Bernier: Yes, exactly.

[English]

The Chair: Does anyone want to respond to that?

.1640

Ms Walters: Right now we're basically being paralysed from even doing any of our work, because the cuts are becoming so drastic. We were underfunded in the first place, let alone taking these hits, last year 15%, and now ultimately we have to find ourselves to be self-sufficient. I can barely communicate with our own members any more. When you're a national organization... We try to communicate with our French members, but right now we don't even have money for translation. We can't even network across this country any more. That's what's very frightening.

We were underfunded. By next year we will be paralysed. Most of us will not even be around in three years' time.

The Chair: Laurie.

Mr. Beachell: I just want to speak to the issue of unintended results. The unintended results are very clear. We do not believe there is a malicious intent on the part of government anywhere to undermine people with disabilities. However, until the recommendations of your committee's report are adhered to and listened to in a serious manner, we believe there will continue to be unintended results.

Until we have a minister, a secretary of state, responsible with a policy unit at a senior level that can look at the impact of these policy decisions on people with disabilities and try to soften or ameliorate the unintended results, we're not going to have anything. You have to create the unit within government that can do the work to say okay, block funding on social assistance to that might do this to this sector of the population, so are you clear that when you make that decision, this is what the result may be? Maybe you have to make another decision as well to protect this population or that group or something.

It's having a policy mechanism within the government at a senior level that will allow that to happen. A parliamentary committee, your committee, is extremely important for that as well, but there has to be a mechanism within the Government of Canada for that.

No one goes and openly says get rid of the disabled community, they're just a pain in the ass, but frankly, that's the result of the cut in funding to supposed special interest groups.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Mantis: I wish I had the same faith as Laurie expresses. Either people are not paying attention to the decisions they're making or they have a reason behind it. When we look at the gains that have been made by people with disabilities, they are because those people stood up and said they're not happy with the way the systems have been working, they're not happy being treated like third-class citizens, they want something different. It didn't happen because government said it was a good idea. It didn't happen because business said it was a good idea. It was because people with disabilities stood up and said it's not working, we have to change it.

The Chair: You're right, Steve.

Mr. Mantis: They have driven that agenda.

Now, if a decision is made to take away the support to those organizations, what's the message? To me the message very clearly is that agenda doesn't matter any more. That may be not intended, but it's pretty hard to miss the point.

The Chair: David Pollock. It's the first time we've heard from you.

Mr. David Pollock (Executive Director, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): Thank you. I'm with the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work.

I just wanted to link Mr. Scott's earlier comments to the last comment Laurie made. The fear, as I listened to the way you were expressing it - maybe I can share it with you - is that the question of Canadian citizenship rights is so vague and abstract, and so much of the concrete material and needs is mediated through these areas defined as provincial responsibilities, that even if one takes your definition and works to maintain it, and maintain it as a vision and a guiding principle and premise, it's still very much in danger of getting lost at the level of budgets and concrete programs.

.1645

How I want to link that to the comment Laurie was making is that it seems to me that there may be a small window of opportunity here. If the minister can be convinced that a senior policy mechanism such as Laurie is speaking about indeed could be created, then the very first thing I would do is press very hard to form an ongoing body of senior policy at the federal level and at the interprovincial level and to link the consumer organizations into a period of time to work through some of these unintended consequences so that you won't pull out the supports that are rapidly being pulled out.

We've seen that there is some extension to some of the programs until next year. We've seen that right now there's a three-year window before all of this funding to organizations will disappear.

We have the window of opportunity, but in my judgment you must not remove and put those policies in place until you've negotiated federally, provincially, and with consumer organizations and we walk away from that table with an agreement and say ``Given the current budget constraints all across the country, in terms of the Canadian human beings involved here's a strategy that we've walked away with, saying that this is the best we can do for the next five- or ten-year period''.

The commitment is that you won't implement these programs of withdrawal and reduction and lack of coordination until you go through that stage.

If I had Mr. Young in front of me now, that's where I would go in terms of a first-priority approach at this stage.

Mr. Scott: This is very helpful. I didn't mean ``unintended consequences'' as an excuse; I meant it as a strategic issue.

We need to establish the role to build off of. As long as the responsibility is broad enough that it can be challenged by the provinces, or by people who would even want to use that argument to do something else regardless, as long as it's broad enough that it's questionable at the margins, we're always going to be vulnerable to that.

If you start from the inside out, find the kernel, find the specific... I believe it's citizenship in the broadest way. That is our obligation. That also carries with it obligations in the area of education. It also carries with it obligations in the areas of the labour market, access to jobs, so the federal government could in fact...

Nobody challenges the fact that AIDS is a health issue. Nobody challenges the fact that the national government has a role to play because of the unique nature of this particular situation. Consequently there are all kinds of examples where the federal government can engage itself in activities that are of provincial obligation generally but in which we could engage specifically.

We have a literacy secretariat, which is arguably educational. Personally, I think it's a citizenship issue, but I suspect that most people see it as being an educational issue.

I don't mean to take up too much time.

The Chair: It's intriguing.

Mr. Scott: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, for helping me to draw that out of my confused mouth.

In terms of the mechanism to drive the vision, I welcome the suggestion that we need the organizations - I'm not sure where it came from, perhaps Russell - to understand what Mr. Mantis said about the fact that this is where it's come from. We need to make sure that is there, but we ourselves also have an obligation to derive the agenda from our end.

We need to figure out exactly what that mechanism is. We need your experience to help us do that. As often as we can, we need to make the distinction between that vague big circle that we're going to be challenged on all the time because it includes education and health and all kinds of issues and the more specific circle, without using that as an excuse to rid ourselves of obligations in any of the other areas.

The Chair: Does that respond to your vision that was expressed before David Pollock on the senior policy? Is that part of what you were thinking?

.1650

Mr. Pollock: I'm not sure if you were going around the edges of responding. It sounded to me in large part as if you were saying about the recommendation I was making that if we could make something like that work you would be very much supportive of that. That's what I was hearing him say. Is that what you intended to do?

Mr. Scott: [Inaudible - Editor]...I said yes. You have to understand that I'm in a business where we have a tendency to -

Mr. Pollock: I had a late night but I'm really clear.

The Chair: Lynda White, we'll hear from you first.

Ms Lynda White (Past President, Council on Rehabilitation and Work): First, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I'm with CCRW and I welcome the opportunity to be here today as a Canadian.

Speaking personally as a Canadian, I feel this government response has an appalling lack of commitment. I would commend the standing committee on some of the recommendations that have been put forward, but in terms of measurement and accountability there's nothing to monitor because there are no specific actions or timeframes for completion in the government response.

I earn my living in the private sector, and if we submitted a response like this it would be unacceptable to our board of directors and our shareholders. We would be sent back to the table to redo it. I think this is what's being suggested by your shareholders, by Canadians, and particularly by Canadians with disabilities.

I'd like to make a few comments on some of the specific items in the response, and then my colleague David Pollock will make a few additional comments.

There's a comment that attitudes have changed. It seems to me to be an extreme overstatement the way it's phrased. If I look at the number of people with disabilities employed in government and the private sector, the numbers have moved minimally. HRD reports and CHRC annual reports show the relatively small movement in employment. The small movement in employment indicates the small movement in the full participation of people with disabilities in the economy of Canada.

Lack of information access in communication is inhibiting mainstreaming. I think a communication policy is necessary to ensure that people have basic access to information on the things that affect their daily living.

Government used to be held up as a model of leadership in the area of employment equity and support for the designated groups. In fact, there were advisory committees for women, visible minorities, and people with disabilities. I chaired the women's committee at one time. Those no longer exist. Within government, which is still the largest employer in Canada, the leadership is not there within their own workforce and their own supports.

If we look at the devolution that's going on in several different areas today, I would suggest that there should be some minimal funding protection across the areas we're devolving. If 15% of Canadians have some form of disability, does that mean that 15% of our budget should reflect disability issues in some form, or at least mainstream into the things we're devolving?

I think there is a precedent for that in some of the health care issues we saw a few years ago, where provinces that stepped out of line with federal guidelines were in danger of having their funding cut. The same kinds of things could be done around issues of disability as we look at things being devolved to the provinces.

We've talked a little bit today about training and ensuring that people have the skills to compete in the labour market. Of the new jobs that are being created, two-thirds are in the small business sector. That generally is not federally regulated in the sector I work in.

That sector is also one that is not a heavy investor in training. Sometimes by the very nature of their organizations they have difficulty funding that kind of thing. Therefore there's a need for government to support that and to ensure that the skills development is there for all Canadians, particularly Canadians with disabilities, so that they have the skills to compete in the labour market and to participate fully in the economy.

Also, looking at the report and the response, there's talk of government working with the provinces, the disability communities, and other stakeholders to keep leadership focused on the open house vision. I would second Laurie's comments about the vision of the open house. It sounds like it's pretty open to the environment the way it's been structured.

.1655

The private sector today is being impacted by government cutbacks, with the number of NGOs that are suffering, and the infighting that's been discussed, not just in the area of people with disabilities and that community. I come from the Royal Bank of Canada; we are the largest corporate donor in this country. We donated $15 million last year to the communities where we live and work, and we should do that. We've got profits; our shareholders would like us to do better. They're still not happy. However, that's the responsible thing to do.

We have calls every day and we are in a position where we cannot come anywhere near meeting the number of requests we get for funding from NGOs. I get several calls a day in my office asking for meetings to come in and discuss how organizations can look at being viable down the road. I also get asked to present on a volunteer basis about fund-raising in the NGO sector because I have a fair bit of experience in that environment. The level of concern across all organizations in the NGO sector is phenomenal today. It's phenomenal. It's the very infrastructure of how we as Canadians participate and accomplish some of the things we're trying to do.

I think we can't minimize that, as much as this response indicates that we're going to look at partnerships and working together, it's a shared responsibility. Government still is the largest employer in this country. If we look at the employment equity guidelines and goals that are in place for government and the federally regulated sector alone, there needs to be some leadership in terms of some of the things that are carried forward and the support of the NGOs and the partnerships that need to go forward.

The standing committee recommendation was that all memoranda to cabinet should include a mandatory section assessing the impact of any proposed measures on people with disabilities. One more time it looks like this is being made special. We're not mainstreaming it and we really do need to. If it is a matter of creating somebody at a senior level of government to be sure that we're looking at this being integrated into everything that goes on in what we carry forward in this country, that's what has to happen. We're still making this a special piece instead of integrating it into what we do every day.

I think overall, just as with the national strategy, the way this stands we're looking again at a lack of strategy, a lack of coordination, a lack of accountability and a complete lack of integration.

I think we also need to look and ask the people providing the response what kind of concrete measures and timeframes for completion they're prepared to put in place. What are they taking or making in terms of measures to ensure that the government and those in the federally regulated sector reach employment equity goals, reach the mainstreaming things that we're looking at?

I would reiterate the need for clearly defined actions and timeframes with the plans for integration and coordination across all government departments. As I have said, if senior level appointment is the way to do it, so be it.

This whole thing talks about different pieces of work that are being done in different departments, different pieces that are being carried forward as part of the strategy. I don't see any accountability in it, I don't see any coordination and I don't see any integration.

Unless we have those things, we'll never get there. As we look at the private sector today, accountability and measurement is what everybody's hammering at. I hear it in government but I certainly don't see it in this paper.

David has a few more comments to make that I think are reinforcing some of the national partnership and national organization pieces that I'd like him to address.

Mr. Pollock: In a sense, I guess you've probably been hammered all day but you probably don't actually feel hammered because many of you share the same sentiments that have been expressed by the participants.

Since 1973 I've been involved in one way or another in reviewing and commenting on different public policy documents and responses. This has to be very close to the bottom of the barrel in terms of adequacy and I think you're hearing that all around the table.

If you will look at 2(c) for a moment, just to give you an idea, a quick comparison, in 2(c) the government response is saying the 1996 budget provides a long-term funding arrangement for the CHST transfer that is sustainable, stable and predictable. Then it goes on.

.1700

Then I turn to the very recent document of the Caledon Institute, which I know to be a very reliable source, as I'm sure you do. They make the following comment:

Assuming that the CHST is only partially indexed, using the established GNP less three percentage point formula, and also adjusted for changes in provincial population, Caledon estimates that the federal cash transfers will disappear by 2011 to 2012. Federal cash transfers would end two years sooner, by 2009 or 2010, if the CHST did not adjust for population growth.

The Chair: David, excuse me. I'm sure you don't want an incorrect fact to sit in the testimony you've given -

Mr. Pollock: In the record.

The Chair: In the record. There is a frozen base. Inasmuch as we have the experts here...

Russell, what is the fact there on the CHST? It's not going to disappear, I know that.

Mr. Scott: The last budget established a floor of $11 billion in cash.

Mr. Pollock: That's only for the next five years, is it not? We're talking beyond that.

Mr. Bernier: It's five years.

The Chair: At least we have the five-year $11 billion. Your concern goes beyond that.

Mr. Pollock: That's correct. I'm just trying to situate the response to the document.

The Chair: Okay. We're unweaving as we go, but I just don't want the web to unweave in an inaccurate way.

Mr. Pollock: No, absolutely not. I was projecting beyond that five-year period.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pollock: I'm just saying the first statement in the response is an absolutist statement around sustainability, but the direction the Calendon Institute indicates for a longer term is still with that disappearance.

Then if you go down to 2(d), the government response...and I picked this up briefly by way of a kind of introduction, but I say it because I think this is really quite fundamental to how this report has been received quite widely:

Federal and provincial governments may wish to specifically address the issues of how to ensure fairness in dealing with people who are vulnerable.

Well, the way I think a lot of us hear that is it also means the governments may not wish to respond to that. It's a very vague kind of language. I pull that out because it epitomizes the obtuseness, abstraction, vagueness, and lack of commitment Lynda was highlighting. I'm just sharing with you again that that's my personal reaction to the report.

I really only wanted to talk about one issue. We're one of the few organizations to focus on the goal, seemingly so high on the government agenda, of promoting employment, yet our agency will also feel the brunt of the cuts in various grants and so on. It raises some issues about the understanding of partnership.

We don't really partner with the provinces and the federal government in a profound sense. They facilitate our work, but our major partners are really corporations across this country, and people who are in the business of hiring individuals. Well, these corporations will set international strategies and national strategies, and when we want to work with them on employability issues it's very difficult for us if we can't work in a national fashion. If we want to be on the cutting edge of innovative projects, you don't want to have to rediscover that project in Prince Edward Island and then in Vancouver, for example.

I'm very worried about the fact that we don't have a big infrastructure across the country. I don't want to have one. But in order to work in a meaningful way where all this devolution has occurred we need some help from the federal government in terms of coordinating mechanisms, in terms of helping to bring players around the table. Even if the money is decided in different places, we need to have one place, for synergy and for clarity and efficiency.

Business is in the same camp. They don't want to have twenty of these conversations across the country.

The other piece is partnerships become unreal and become open to all kinds of manipulation and interests if your dependency is too one-dimensional. I think a good economic development strategy for non-governmental organizations in developing countries is to diversify your dependency as much as you can. You can't become not dependent, so you try to diversify. If you have very little federal funding and you look to the corporate sector for all the funding in a partnership, who calls the tune in that partnership? Does it really then lead to the meeting of the interests and the mandate of the voluntary organization and the voluntary sector?

.1705

So there are a number of reasons here why we want to try to insist as much as possible that there needs to be the maintenance of some mechanisms to allow these kinds of efficiencies and coordination of work to go forward, and there needs to be a recognition that you really weaken and damage the work, beyond just the issue of the economic survival of the organization, if there's no federal support in there. For the organization, maybe six times as many dollars are going to be pulled out.

I've seen one estimate from the Centre for Philanthropy that the charitable donations sector is going to be able to fill. So when we talk about partnership and now moving the burden onto other sectors of society, it's quite unrealistic to expect that all of that burden will get picked up by either the private sector or increases in individual donations, even with some changes to the tax law.

Without any doubt, we're talking about a loss in programming in absolute terms.

So I just raise those issues with you again, in terms of where we feel the report has really not come to grips with the full consequences and with the notion of meaningful partnership. We would like to see the partnership with the federal government maintained in order to allow us to carry on the kind of mandate that we think is a part of federal policy.

The final area, of course, is the one we raised to the human resources standing committee on changes to the UI Act. Probably you have heard this many times before, but there is the question of employment benefits not being available to people who have disabilities if they have not been in the workforce or in the labour force for the last number of years.

This is a time when medical technology breakthroughs, computer technology changes, and home-based businesses offer more possibilities for people with disabilities to be employed than ever before. This is the very historic moment when more of those people have the opportunity, through technology and home-based businesses and so on, to be employed, but now we're going to pull out the supports for that vast number of people with disabilities who haven't been in the workforce to meet that criterion in the change. So we need some exemption.

I can't have the ability to seek out all the pockets of government funding, whether we talk about the $5-billion surplus and whether some should be held in reserve or some should be used in a different way... What one has to look at is a fundamental policy issue: is there not some mechanism by which an exemption can be created to give a chance for people with disabilities not to be discriminated against and to get up to a level playing field?

Those are the main points that I'd like to share with you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for a very articulate presentation.

Could we please hear now from Sharon Irwin.

Ms Sharon Irwin (Director, Special Link): It's very frightening to follow somebody who is that articulate this late in the afternoon.

The Chair: I agree, but we're listening.

Ms Irwin: Thank you.

The organization I represent is Special Link, which is connected with child care organizations that are interested in including kids with disabilities in their programs and with a wide range of parents who have become involved because of their needs for those child care programs.

We're a non-profit national child care organization that happens to exist, or is based, in Cape Breton. We're able to be truly national because of a vigorous blend of modern information technology and traditional kitchen meeting contact.

We have strong roots in the frontline community-based child care community, and we start from the well-established finding that parents of children with special needs face additional barriers to employment that can best be alleviated through an expansion of the child care system to include fully their kids, as well as other kids.

Currently, the child care system - if we can call a non-system such as child care a system - disproportionately excludes children with disabilities.

I know that a lot of the other organizations that were here today include the very young children with the particular disability they're representing. Our organization is a sort of cross-cut that looks at all very young kids with disabilities and the issues facing their parents.

.1710

I will digress slightly from my text for a moment to say that I guess we're guilty of coming to this table and to the earlier hearings and to the hearings on social reform with a version of disability economics. That's not where we started. We started with a base in healthy child development and opportunities for primary caregivers, that is mostly mothers, to have the same opportunities to be in the workforce that other primary caregivers, mothers, have. The general tendencies, tensions, provisions of the government for the last few years have suggested that we get very quiet about the inherent value of good child care programs for kids with disabilities, as well as for other kids, and make our mark based on disability economics.

It's not real hard to focus on the disability economics issue here either. When I met Mr. Scott in the cross-country hearings of the last committee he sat on, as it went from west to east, many parents of pre-school and young kids with disabilities came out to those hearings. In fact they came out to every single city and were heard in every city from Whitehorse -

The Chair: That was on the agenda, by the way, so those were very good tactics.

Ms Irwin: It didn't take much. It took a little coordination, but most of the drive came from people who were out there who felt a need to say how much they wanted to be active participants and how either there were barriers that they couldn't get over or the child care arrangements that had been developed were still very fragile and how nervous that made them every day.

The Chair: Another five minutes, Sharon.

Ms Irwin: Yes, another five minutes will do it.

It surprised me when I first read the national strategy to see how silent it was on the issue of very young kids. I suggest - and I'm sure you can offer more eloquent and learned hypotheses to why that was so - such things as kids don't vote; kids or their proxies, who were mainly their parents, were not at the table when the goals were set; kids or their proxies were not identifiable as a stakeholder group when the agenda was set; very young kids cannot usually be very eloquent self-advocates; and finally, the people years represented by the zero to six population don't add up to the same numbers that the people years represented by the 21- to 80-year-old population of persons with disabilities.

In addition, the emphasis of the national strategy on employment and physical access would have driven the emphasis away from the very young, since neither the missing opportunities for parental employment nor the future employment prospects of these very young children were factored into the employment question.

Since I have my five minutes, I will skip over the next part, which mainly talks about the pay-off of having young kids with disabilities in their communities in their child care programs from the very beginning. We know that the best studies we have talk about a $7 payment for every dollar spent. We also know that the actual studies that have been done on the price of each barrier are very few, but there is some literature out there we can deal with at some point.

The second thing, and I think this is new to this group or is new to this discussion, is that when we're talking about very young children with disabilities, we really have to talk about the impact of that child's disability on at least the workforce participation of the primary caregiver, who is usually the mother. What we keep hearing is that the documented disproportionate lack of available child care condemns this group of women and men to being outside of the labour force. That's why we came to this social reform hearing. That's why last October Mr. Scott suggested that we come to your hearings.

.1715

I have six modest suggestions. The first three I made before, so I'll skip over them, except to say that with number two we're talking about targetable set-aside provisions. Now we are adding that the needs of very young children with disabilities and their primary caregivers should be polished into the disability lens and included in any social audit. The disability lens must include impacts on families of young children with disabilities, especially the impact on the ability to be in the workforce or in training programs.

The next one is about research and pilot programs. It takes the social order a little further. It's important we get a better picture of the current participation rate of children with disabilities in child care programs and compare that with their participation five years hence. It's also important we find out more about the participation and non-participation of their primary caregivers. Several pilot initiatives demonstrating effects of accessible child care on unemployed parents of kids with disabilities would be appropriate.

The policies for each of the five employment benefits and two supports that are currently being finalized and provisions for covering supports related to disability should consider primary caregiving parents of very young children. There seems to be an opportunity here to address employment issues related to primary caregivers. The disability lens must be focused on these primary caregivers, particularly with enhanced assistance for child care under the dependant care allowance or newer mechanisms. If child care is being situated as a sixth employment benefit, this is a place where some of the difficulties of obtaining the often more expensive child care for a child with a disability could be addressed.

Maintaining and increasing the level of participation of children with disabilities in Canadian child care is a social good and should be a societal priority. Children with disabilities, parents and society at large are its beneficiaries.

Maintaining and increasing the level of participation of children with disabilities in Canadian child care is also an economic good and therefore should also be a societal priority. When primary caregivers of young children with disabilities can participate in the workforce, children with disabilities, their parents, their peers and society at large are its beneficiaries.

Gains in this area made over the past decade are at risk as the dedicated funding program provided under CAP to assist parents in need or likely to be in need with child care costs absorbed into the Canada health and social transfer. If other social programs are at risk under the block funding, child care doesn't even get to that table to be there when the pieces are cut up. It is terrifying how quickly the child care programs in this country are diminishing.

The Chair: Sharon, I think your point is being very well made.

I'll tell you quite frankly, prior to going to Beijing there was no chapter on the girl child in the whole Beijing document, and we've been working for three years on the background document. It took Canada to really take the rights of the child stuff and put it into the Beijing documents. I'm not surprised you don't see it in great big lights. The gender lens and the disability lens often forget the lens that needs to look at the sexual and gender differences. It's important, and I thank you for bringing it to our attention.

If you don't mind or if you're finished, if we could go on to Jim Sanders and perhaps with a couple of questions, Sharon, there might be things you want to clarify.

Okay, Jim and then Steve Mantis.

Mr. Sanders: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me add my appreciation to the group for the opportunity today. It hardly seems like seven months; I believe we met last October as a group. I will not emphasize any of the comments said here today, but the fact I'm not going to repeat them I would not want to be taken as any form of disagreement, it's simply a time factor.

In view of the federal leadership issue and the whole area of disability, this standing committee is even more important. It must be emphasized and supported by all of us who were involved in the initial petitioning and assistance in forming this committee and we have to work very hard to keep it.

.1720

Somebody once said to me - I'm not sure if it was a quote, I don't remember it correctly - that philosophy doesn't put bread on the table, but without a philosophy you don't bake bread. We're trying to wrestle with what it's going to be like in three, five, and ten years in our society in Canada. It must begin, as has been emphasized here, at the vision stage and be translated into policy that has been clearly thought through from nationwide to regional to local.

As an example, I've often talked about decentralizing services. On the surface that makes sense, and in practice it often makes sense. In 1918 CNIB set that as its service delivery system, by visiting the homes and workplaces of blind Canadians, and we still do that. You can't get much more local than somebody's home.

At the same time, decentralizing everything because it's a philosophy doesn't always work. I can only use examples of CNIB, but there are many. The CNIB Braille and talking book library, the largest of its kind in the world in the non-profit sector, operates out of Toronto, delivering books in Braille and audio material to the homes of blind persons. Yet because of philosophy and subsequent policies there's no place for that library in Canada. Libraries are a provincial jurisdiction, often decentralized to municipalities, and to have a library of this nature in every municipality, or even in every province, doesn't make sense from an economy-of-scale perspective. We're repeatedly told at the municipal level they don't know what to do, we should go to the province. The provincial level says it's municipal, go to the municipalities. The National Library of Canada, just down the street from here, said it's not their mandate, it's not their priority.

I'm using that only as an example. Nothing will change.

To finalize the point, taxpayers in Canada visit their public libraries as a tax-based institution. It's a wonderful facility in Canada. Blind people are taxpayers, but there's no place for them in public libraries, because of a philosophy and because of a policy and because of a practice. And this will continue, but at an increasingly rapid rate.

If you check the transcript from last October, I mentioned the good things that have occurred because somebody in the federal government stood up and said it just doesn't make sense not to do it. That's why the federal government took the lead role with the private sector to initiate programs such as the computer training program for blind people, the physiotherapy program for blind people, which resulted in hundreds of highly paid, permanent, full-time jobs. This now, under the new system, at least from what we understand of it, can no longer occur. Again, it's a philosophy, it's a policy, and it's a vision.

The employment insurance program has been well discussed.

All of those fit with blind people, with one additional emphasis. Blind people today, to compete, generally rely on additional communication technology, and often special adaptations to that technology, such as computers. With technology changing so quickly -

The Chair: How effective are computers, and how many people can access them?

Mr. Sanders: In the workplace you have to. Of course outside the workplace you're quite correct, Mrs. Finestone, but in the workplace, as an example, it takes so long to come up with adaptations. With little or no support to individuals unless they're on employment insurance, workplace adaptation and maintaining or sustaining a job are in jeopardy, again because of a policy and a philosophy.

Right now what would appear - it's not intended - is if you're working and lose your job, then you can have the support and services you need...and the whole issue of VRDP.

.1725

The final point I would like to make is based on the leadership. It's interesting, but of concern to me, to note that Human Resources Development Canada has agreed to take the lead role in disability. That eliminates 80% of all blind Canadians - 70% of whom are beyond the age of the workforce, and 10% of whom are children. I don't know what it means or translates into.

It's ironic that on April 1 the CNIB was one of the organizations cut 100% on what used to be called the sustaining grant. We heard indirectly, that is; I don't believe we've heard formally yet. We've also heard indirectly as to why we were cut - they felt we could afford it more than others. I don't know what that means or doesn't mean. But the irony was, the day we heard this news indirectly we received three formal and very complex requests from the government for analysis and support.

I'm a very optimistic person, and people claim I wear rose-coloured glasses sometimes, but we've worked hard since 1989 for CNIB to have a presence here in Ottawa - a physical office, staffed by myself and my colleague - to support and work with government in a very positive way. Whether or not we can afford it probably is academic at the moment. I'm not sure that within the next year there will be anyone with whom to speak, outside this committee, that has a national vision and scope. We are now, in nine out of ten requests, told to go to the regional office.

Thank you.

The Chair: I heard what you said about your grant, and I was just trying to recall if I'm right that there is a council - a Canadian Council of the Blind. I remember giving a donation to them. I have nothing but admiration for CNIB, quite frankly, because my family has used them effectively. But I thought you were part of the Canadian Council of the Blind.

Mr. Sanders: The Canadian Council of the Blind, the nation-wide consumer group of blind persons, was maintained on the list. If there had to be a choice between the two, that was the right choice - to keep the Canadian Council of the Blind. It's a consumer group similar to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and other consumer groups.

It's just a tragedy that those types of choices have to be made. Whether they do or they don't, I'm not in a position to know, not having seen all of the budgets and priorities. But the fact that a choice was made for the first time in history since 1918 for the federal government to formally cut its economic ties with CNIB... That choice was made; it's done, it's finished, and we have to look for a new way of working. Our organization will not go out of business, but we certainly will have to do business in a different way.

For me, having worked for 30 years with CNIB and since 1989 here in Ottawa, it's a sad comment on how badly the relationship has deteriorated, from a formal perspective. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for your information.

Rex, I know you wanted to ask a question earlier. Did you want to ask it before you have to leave?

Mr. Crawford (Kent): Yes, please.

Unfortunately, I don't sit on this committee, but I've found it rewarding, and I'm certainly glad I had the opportunity to sit in today, because the subjects that were covered today... I have sat many years on the children's treatment centre in my community. I've sat many years on ARCH industries, which are now Community Living London, as well as skills development and OTAB, so you're covering everything that I was involved in. I was on the boards for many years, so I know everything you're -

The Chair: You're going to be a great advocate for us when we look for change, aren't you?

Mr. Crawford: I certainly hope so. But I can also bring up some negatives regarding what has happened on our behalf, as volunteers, that cost governments much money over the years. I was just wondering if the government was looking at some of the things we did.

The Chair: How would you like to put some of those concerns on record? I think that the advocacy community and the consumer groups should know what it is you're thinking, or what your experience was.

Mr. Crawford: I'm going to try to do it quickly, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Okay, please, do.

I think I'm right when I say, Mr. Mantis, that you don't mind waiting, just so we can hear this. I think it's important to us. There are always two sides to the coin.

.1730

Mr. Crawford: All right. The first one was the children's treatment centre. We had a building. We got by; we had bake sales and everything, because there weren't grants, there wasn't money. And all of a sudden the government saw fit, thank goodness, to give us money.

At that time I was warden of the county. They approached me for property to build a new building, and I was on their side, naturally. They got the money for the building and then they built the Taj Mahal. Instead of building a building that I felt would be serviceable to the students, there was so much money involved in this building that they couldn't get the services afterwards that they liked.

We ran into the same thing in ARCH industries. The government came through, we built a new building, and right now the office of Community Living is a Taj Mahal that we never needed. I think that's what went wrong over the years, that money was spent... The government didn't go in and do a good study and see that we could build a building for a million dollars instead of three million. So then we build homes for children - or not children, they were 21 years of age - who had been in institutions since birth. We built three $150,000 homes. They'll house one person each, with 24-hour care and supervision.

My argument was we are training physically and mentally disabled people, but we couldn't hire more people to service all the people we had out there waiting to come in, because we'd built these beautiful ranch homes.

That's all.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I think that sometimes we need a little closer supervision on undertakings, but that doesn't negate the need for the service, nor the wonderful role the volunteers play. I'm sure you mean that.

Mr. Mantis, please go ahead, and thank you for your patience.

Mr. Mantis: No problem. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I just wanted to make it clear that I'm here as a volunteer. I had to take off the day from work and lose the day's pay to come. This is the way our organizations mostly work; about 75% of the work is done by volunteers. The Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups has 40 local groups across the province, and for those 40 groups we have five staff, so you can see that the vast majority of our groups operate on a fully volunteer basis. We never have been part of the sustaining grants that have been given out. We have access to some funding and that is certainly being reduced right now.

We kind of get caught up in this issue of jurisdiction as well. Because our main focus has been around workers compensation, it being of provincial jurisdiction, that's where we focused most of our energies. So we have a national organization, the Canadian Injured Workers Alliance, which is mainly there for sharing information between the different provincial organizations so that we can learn from each other and benefit. I've provided you today with a document from the Canadian Injured Workers Alliance, which focuses on employment and re-employment as one of our main goals.

Though it's becoming more and more important that we don't get caught up in our jurisdictional perceptions, at this point in time workers compensation - very much like a number of other programs for folks with disabilities - is being cut back. In Ontario, in 1990, there were20,000 people who, after they got hurt at work, ended up with a permanent disability. By 1994, by changing the legislation, that number was reduced to 7,000. The number of accidents didn't go down; the severity didn't go down; they just disappeared because we changed the definition. Those people now end up on the systems that provide support through taxpayers' dollars.

.1735

So we're seeing a major shift within our group, the group we represent, from that sole jurisdiction of workers compensation that is funded through - it's like an insurance scheme - an assessment on employers. That burden is shifting from employers to the public purse.

It's important to understand the scope of that. There are right now 500,000 workers who have a permanent disability as a result of a workplace injury accident. These are ones who have been accepted by workers compensation boards across the country. There are approximately an additional 500,000 who have never been accepted. When we look at seniors and the number of people who end up with diseases that are related to their workplace, we see the numbers just becoming astronomical. There are over three million people with disabilities in this country, a large proportion of which are the result of their workplace. This clearly increases our interest in public policy issues outside of that realm of workers compensation.

I'm kind of torn today because this committee has been a strong supporter and advocate for people with disabilities. So I feel very much that I'm among friends. On the other hand, we're asked to address a response from the government that is not very friendly.

I think the report this committee submitted to Parliament in December was an excellent report. It clearly didn't go far enough, from our perspective, but we never expect to get everything we want. If we move the agenda that much further, that's great. Our very sincere compliments go to this committee for the good report that was done.

Unfortunately, and we've heard it time after time after time today, the government's response was somewhat lacking, shall we say. When we look at some of the specifics in recommendation number one that came from this committee, the question has come back asking what we can do. Clearly, unless we have a plan we're not going to be very effective. You lay that out in your recommendation number one.

I think this is very much the first key step. There's got to be a vision, like you say, a mandate that's very clear and with that there's got to be a plan to achieve it. There have to be goals, there have to be timetables, and there have to be clear responsibilities. Those responsibilities have to start at the very top.

This document is so ludicrous. It says the government confirms the lead role of the Minister of Human Resources Development in a government-wide perspective. Clearly, he's got responsibility for one ministry. He doesn't have responsibility for the whole government. So what's the message here? There's so much double talk in this document it's really a sad state of affairs, just like Linda was saying. If in my workplace I gave something like this, I'd be out the door. This is a joke.

As David said, in item number two it says that the federal government and the provincial government may address issues surrounding individuals who are vulnerable. It scares me. I don't see any commitment at all. Another wishy-washy word. They may do it, if they have time.

Number three: it's been stated as well that there are changes in terms of programs for folk with disabilities within HRD. In terms of employment, they're gone, because it's just for people who are receiving employment insurance. Most of our members are unemployed. So where does that leave us? Clearly, that leaves us out.

.1740

HRD is going to take responsibility for all disability issues. It says it right here. That's great. Everything we've heard from HRD has said that their only emphasis is jobs and economic development. So I guess those are the only disability issues there are any more, just jobs and economic development. That's what the paper is telling us.

The Chair: Are you saying there is no focus on jobs and economic development with respect to disability as a result of injury in the workforce?

Mr. Mantis: No, I'm saying that HRD says their focus is on jobs and economic development, but they also have the whole responsibility for disability issues. So if they tell us that's their only focus, what we learn from that is that there is no longer anyone taking responsibility for housing, transportation, attending care, and all these other things. They're kind of out there in a never-never land.

A number people have talked about the changes to VRDP. It is the major program that provides funding for folks with disabilities, through federal dollars. We have no commitment at all that this will continue.

One of the members said that by saving pennies and nickels, we're ending up losing dollars. I think this is what's happening. We see it in our analysis of a number of systems. When we focus on just saving money, we lose the big picture. We deal with this in more depth in our report that is submitted to you.

We see other jurisdictions where the supports and the programs are planned well, where first of all we have an emphasis on preventing disability. All of a sudden, costs start going down. When we have the emphasis on providing support so that people can work, the costs go down. We have examples where it costs less money to do it right.

We're not against saving money. We think it's great. But let's do it smart. Let's have a plan. Let's proceed with that plan. In fact, we can achieve both ends.

I think the final part of the government's response sums it up quite nicely. Number five says:

We've reached a maturation in terms of our analysis of issues of concern to persons with disabilities. This response to the standing committee report clarifies the scope of the federal role.

Is it clear in anybody's mind what the federal government's role is? I don't know what the heck they're talking about here. We really look to you. We really need your help at this juncture.

In wrapping up, I want to respond to your questions at the break.

In the federal role we see devolution taking place. We heard the announcement today that the provinces are going to have responsibility for training and labour adjustment. This scares the pants off me.

In Ontario, the body that's responsible for that, OTAB, is now disappearing. We've tracked that. Less than 1% of the people who access programs there are people with disabilities.

The Chair: Who accesses the programs? Could you explain that?

Mr. Mantis: Of the people who access OTAB programs for job skills training programs, less than 1% have a disability.

So we're giving the responsibility to the province and this is what the province is doing now in terms of their programs for training and labour adjustment. There is no discussion of standards, no discussion that there has to be some representation with people with disabilities. They say here's the money, go ahead and do it.

.1745

Well, let's look at what's happening. It's a shame. We thought we were making real progress when we said that children with disabilities will be mainstreamed. This is really a positive thing. This is a way that will lead to people accepting folks with disabilities for the rest of their lives.

In our town, with the cuts that have come down, all the special needs educators were laid off. So all those kids who had supports in the school just lost them. They're not going to be able to stay in the classroom. This is what's happening.

On the three wishes you asked about, I direct you to the last two pages in our presentation, appendix B.

The first one I'd highlight is the first one on our page, which talks about the principle of a pension for life for disability for life. Right now we have all kinds of systems that say that if you go to work you lose all your benefits. Clearly, people choose not to go to work, because if I have a disability I don't know how long that employer's going to keep me there. When the lay-off comes, the chances are that I'll be the first to go. I can't give up that security for a ``maybe'' job.

The second one is at the top of the next page. It's that the Canadian government adopt a policy of mandatory affirmative action for the re-employment of injured workers, and we clearly expand that to all folks with disabilities. We see where there is a clear mandate with accountability and enforcement mechanisms. It happens.

To that we'd add that we want to see accountability. We heard from - I'm not sure - the gentleman who left recently about the lack of accountability in building a Taj Mahal. We need accountability in all the programs. Whenever these tax dollars are spent, there has to be accountability - and not only for tax dollars, but also for folks who have control over the workplace and the dollars. We want accountability that the health and the safety of our citizens is the utmost priority. Until those folks will be held accountable, we'll have more folks with disabilities and we'll have higher health care costs and higher tax costs. We need to make it clear that if you're going to be making the decisions for the rest of us, you have to be accountable for those decisions.

Thank you very much for the time today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I noticed that you noted Maria Minna, who is one of my colleagues, and you want, under rehabilitation, full acceptance of the report of her task force. That's very interesting. Is that part of the group that went out on HRD?

Mr. Scott: I'm sorry. I was reading my notes.

The Chair: Appendix B.

Mr. Scott: Yes.

The Chair: Were you looking at that?

Mr. Scott: No.

Mr. Mantis: There was the Maria Minna task force.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mantis: But that was in 1987. It was a provincial task force in Ontario.

The Chair: I was wondering what that was. Thank you.

Mr. Mantis: A good job was done there too.

The Chair: Well, she's an excellent member of Parliament. So that's good.

[Translation]

Do you have a question, Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Bernier: No, that's fine.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Scott: On the $11 billion, the reason you caught me, at least, off guard is that basically what the budget did for the first time was separate it from tax points. Most of what I'd seen from the Caledon Institute was before that. It was going down because the tax points were going up, and that was having a negative impact on cash. Some of us were lobbying hard to get that disconnection, because we realized that if there was no political leverage or spending power leverage associated with the tax points... We saw some positive outcome as a result of having that separation.

.1750

I guess it has to be said because this is Access Week. It would occur to me that I'd like that to be on the record.

I have a couple of points. I've asked whether you would consider pursuing, again strategically...because I think it's apparent this is strategic, as against trying to convince us of something. Because of the reach-back in the EI program, the reach-back being the numbers of people who can access the fund and who couldn't before... I know that doesn't include many of the people we're talking about today, but it does include a lot of people.

The reach-back is that if you've been on unemployment insurance for three years of regular benefits or five years of sickness and maternity benefits, you're entitled. A lot of social assistance receipients will be able to access UI. I know in my own... I've done quite a significant analysis of this, and a number of people who never could before will be able to access not UI income benefits but UI employment benefits.

No one is going to deny there's a lot less consolidated revenue fund money in the system than there used to be, but I really wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea strategically for somebody to call, for first call, on whatever CRF money is available...first call for those people who would have the hardest time getting labour force attachment. It seems a logical argument to me. In other words, if much less money is available outside the EI program but there is still some, someone should be asking for that money to go to those persons who would have, for whatever reason, the hardest time getting labour force attachment and getting into the system the other way.

The Chair: Or really not being expected to access the system in the way it's planned.

Mr. Scott: However you may wish to frame it, I think there's an argument to be made there. I would put it in the way of a question. Far be it from me to suggest that.

Finally, the other thing would be this. About making the case such that our colleagues, all our colleagues in the broadest sense, can buy into what we already have... I will put the question, and I'm just looking for reactions, so if I'm saying it wrong, I'll fix it for the next time.

If the Government of Canada is saying we don't have the fiscal capacity to correct all the injustices the free market system and the system we live in bring upon us... Because it's not a fair system, and it's not intended to be. Ultimately there are people who start from a different place and therefore they end up in a different place. Those of us who succeed like to think we all started from the same place, because it makes us feel better, but I think everyone recognizes that's not true. So if we suggest we don't have the fiscal capacity on the other end to do what we think we should do, then it seems to me we can make a strong case that we have a larger obligation on the front end to level the field.

I would really like to start hearing that back. If it's not clear, explain to me how I can say it more clearly. I really think that is the position the federal government is ultimately going to have to take.

A witness: Madam Chairman, that was my point about 48 hours ago, or whenever we started. I am a product of that system, and I pay my taxes as a Canadian citizen and do so with that understanding. I now get my statements in Braille, my T-4 slip in Braille. I used to have dark hair before I read it a few months ago, but I can tell you I'm glad to pay those, and the taxes I paid back last year in very direct dollars in one year probably paid back most of the tax-based support I received as a youngster going through school many decades ago.

In response to Mr. Scott's comments... To me it's an economic issue. Price tags on dignity and all these things - tough to do. Economics - not difficult at all.

.1755

The Chair: Mr. Pollock.

Mr. Pollock: I really appreciate your strategic question, as you put it. I'd be interested myself to know whether there are projections, or where they're available, in terms of the consolidated revenue fund, comparing what it used to be with what we think it's going to be shortly - to give a sense of that.

On the other point you raised - and I really agree with the notion of putting the principle forward of creating a level playing field; I think there's mileage in that tactic, if you like. Many of the training programs we've been involved in have related to pre-employment training for persons with disabilities that can prepare persons for the workforce. Some of those projects, skills training partnerships that we've been involved with in the past, have had federal support. In my mind, that would work by way of the kind of exemption I think we are looking for. I was using the language of exemption from that policy; you're looking at the notion of a level playing field. So I think if we could work in that direction that might be quite fruitful.

Ms White: I think what you're speaking to is what we've talked about in terms of integrating and mainstreaming.

If I go back to my private sector experience, I manage employment equity initiatives globally for the Royal Bank. One of the things we've been pushing very hard in the last couple of years is integrating everything we do to our business. When we look at people with disabilities, they're in our workforce, they're our clients, and we need people in our organization to understand that it is part of our everyday life. If we look to the leadership of government, that means we mainstream it in every government department, in every piece that is carried forward in terms of strategy or determinations of how we respond to things in Canada. That's what will level the playing field. That's what's going to take a lot of work, potentially, up front in both the public and private sector and across the country. But when we get that right, the cost reductions are going to be phenomenal.

The Chair: I'd like you to address - and excuse me for hitchhiking on that - one of the big arguments we're going to hear from the Reform Party, who unfortunately have not been at any of these hearings, which I really regret, because they did participate very actively in the development of the initial papers; that's the cost-benefit analysis. They're going to say these are special interest groups... No, don't let me say it that way.

Let me ask you this. I'm not attributing it to any particular political party, but it is an argument that can be made by some that we're not in the business of financing special interest groups. You have no cost-effective analysis that can prove to us that it is worth our while where we invite business to be a partner in this undertaking and where we might even say that you can have some benefit in terms of deductions on your taxes, and so on, as an incentive to hire people for a period of time in a training mode, which you've been talking about. Then they become full, effective, efficient and very committed members in your workforce.

I know that's been proven to us, certainly, time and time again. But how do you have a demonstration? I've heard this verbally but have never had any cost-effective management paper or principle. Because you've been involved in that, Linda, and you also, David, have you an argument you can make for Andy or anyone at this table in this committee that can put that argument forward to support some tax incentives, some type of meritorious case that includes the concept of full citizenship in all its aspects?

Mr. Pollock: This is only a partial answer, because I don't think either that all of the work has been done trying to create that full argument. But just within a pilot project of the federal government itself - I'm talking about the disability management project - the figures I've seen indicate a kind of ten-to-one savings in that program of the four government departments that were involved, which has to do with a kind of early return to work of injured workers that could save up to ten times whatever the initial moneys put into it would be.

In terms of the broader question you are asking, I think with some work we could create that argument. But I don't know where it exists presently all in one place.

.1800

Mr. Scott: I just want to make a point that illustrates one of the biggest problems we have. Say we have ten different programs all offering some kind of support. That's probably a low figure for most people. If you're trying to measure the cost of doing something else against this, if the ratio is nine to one and you get ten programs contributing equally on the one, there's not one single department whose interest it is to make that saving. If they were to incur it, it would in fact be an increase in the cost to them.

It's a terrible thing to admit or recognize, but fundamentally one of the biggest single problems in this equation is the cost associated. When you're doing cost benefit analysis, the costs associated are all over the place. Consequently it's in nobody's interest to take on the solution. In some cases the solution, strictly in the context of their costs, may in fact mean an increase, even though there are nine other departments that might be able to make enormous savings.

I think that also speaks to the need for a central place that sees the big picture. Despite the fact that there's not a single department, including HRD perhaps, that can make a case on cost-benefit analysis for this, the government can.

Mr. Mantis: I'd like to speak to that because that's exactly what I was trying to say: the responsibility has to lie at the top. We know how bureaucracies work, and you spelled it out exactly right. Everybody's going to look after their own little bailiwick and they're not going to be interested in the big picture. It's the guy or the woman at the top who has to look after the big picture. If we don't get commitment from the top, the rest of them aren't going to work.

When we look for a global picture of all the programs and a cost benefit analysis, I don't think we'll find one. I think accountability means that we have to have measurable outcomes, we have to set targets, and we have to evaluate and say this is what happened.

Building on what David said, I work for a non-profit organization in the training industry and we can show very clearly that our programs have traditionally been funded by federal dollars. There's a 30% return every year on the investment. I challenge you to show me where else you can invest your money and get a 30% return every year.

The Chair: Did you put that in your report, Mr. Mantis?

Mr. Mantis: No, I didn't. That's my work hat and this is my volunteer hat.

The Chair: In your work hat, do you think you might supply this committee with some of that stuff?

Mr. Mantis: I'd love to.

David also talked about disability management, which is really the focus of this document from the Canadian Injured Workers Alliance. There is documentation from a number of sources that costs can be reduced substantially, by 30% or 40%, and that's within the same department. That's as the employer.

In your report you talked about the $300 million that the federal government spends on compensation costs. That money can be saved directly by each and every department in the federal government as a whole by using good practices.

The Chair: There's a new disability conference that's forthcoming.

Mr. Mantis: It's in October.

The Chair: Are you involved with that and are these matters on the agenda?

Mr. Mantis: Yes, some of them are.

The Chair: Good.

Lynda.

Ms White: I have a couple of things. Wearing my cynic's hat, I think one of the things that happens with us and with the government and sometimes with the private sector is that the people who are elected or who are in powerful positions have a tendency to look at the period of time that they know they're going to be around. They look at the short term rather than the long term.

That happens in both public and private sectors. I've seen it happen with people who know they're not too far away from retirement.

The Chair: I don't agree with that observation, but go ahead. That's your personal view. I totally disagree.

.1805

Ms White: I think one of the things that is happening is that we don't look long term enough in terms of the economic cost right now but the long-term input of people with disabilities into the economy, into consumerism, into the tax base and into not taking back from the social networks that are there right now. That's what I mean in terms of a short-term view.

There is going to be some cost up front to make it happen. If you look at things like accommodation with physical or technical needs in the workplace, there is a law that requires that you accommodate subject to undue hardship. You know, there is no question that in most government departments, I'm sure, and in the organization I work for, accommodation is a given. It's an expectation of every workplace we've got. That just brings somebody to that level playing field to be able to become part of the economy and be a valued employee and contributor to society.

I guess then, too, if I bring it back to the specific business case, one of the things - and again this is drawing on some of the private sector experience - if we look at Canada we know that 15% of Canadians have some form of disability and we know that with the baby boom population it is going to increase. Therefore, if we look at the clients we serve, we know that represents 15% of the people who walk through our door. We have 10 million clients in this country, so 15% of them have some form of disability.

The baby boom population, they say, is the wealthiest population that has ever been. Whether it is people who are looking at retiring with significant incomes, or whether it's people who may be providing for disabled children with trusts and things of that sort, we'd like a piece of the action in terms of our business and how we provide services to people and make a profit.

When we did an accessibility study we built the business case on the fact that if 15% of our clients needed different means of getting into our premises and being able to access our services, it was important to us. The fact that it cost us a quarter to a third of a million dollars just to do the study and build the data base, we built a business case for it. Then we took that to our senior people to commit the funds to make the balance of our premises accessible. I'm talking millions of dollars to make the balance of our premises accessible.

Steve made the point that we very often spend twice as much after the fact as we would if we did it up front. Accessibility is a really good example of that. If you do it in the beginning it costs you a fraction of what it does later. Again, I think I'm going back to some of the infrastructure. It's going to cost us some money up front, but it will cost us a whole lot less if we do it now and get it right than if we look at it ten or twenty years down the road.

The Chair: I think there was a very significant amount of money and targeting done about five years ago for special projects to access federal government buildings. Even to that extent, it didn't work.

Ms Irwin: I guess I want to sort of push a caution here from perhaps the Luddite side and say that the disability calculus can lead us into places where we really don't want to be. I look at some of the early cost-benefit analyses in my area, and I'll just be very brief about this particular one. A large meta-analysis was done of some major interventions in the United States around premature babies with a substantial number of early intervention activities. The studies had looked good earlier, but somebody went back and applied powerful economic instruments to analyse them again. What they found was that the interventions they were doing were of some value to high birthweight premature babies but of very little value to low premature birthweight babies. Their conclusion was to stop intervening with the low birthweight babies.

The Chair: Sharon, the conclusion was that a bottle of milk, an orange, and an egg a day would reduce by almost 60% the number of people who had low birthweight babies; then you wouldn't have the cost of $60,000 per child up to age six months. That's what the decision was. I'm glad you raised it.

Ms Irwin: What I want to get to here is that I see us looking for numbers. I see us at Canada Manpower in Sydney trying to do well with the training dollars and being very selective about who we train, because there are a whole lot of people who are real cheap to get back into the workforce, and other people with significant disabilities or low-incident disabilities who are a whole lot more expensive.

.1810

That desire to have quantifiable outcomes can lead to that kind of selection, which only looks at those numbers and forgets the citizenship component rather than who can be re-employed more cheaply.

The Chair: I'm glad you raised that, because I was very concerned, Lynda, about selling the business case. Quite frankly, I'm glad you raised the issue of prenatal child supports. First of all, it happens to be in the red book. I'm not at all proud of the red book - I'm very proud of the red book. It is a commitment we've fulfilled, and it was not a costly commitment. We've saved millions of dollars in our hospitals and in health care as a result.

In the business case you made, have you done the follow-up that would give an indication after the millions of dollars that were spent in X, Y and Z buildings of the bank? Then you went to seek your personnel as well, because you put people who have disabilities behind the counters so that they're obvious as well. They are welcome, because they're here and they're present. It's the same as what you have done with visible minorities and women in your banks.

I think we should all say thank you very much, because you've done a superb job in many areas in terms of ensuring that people who have not had the fullest of access are starting to feel welcome by the undertaking of a number of steps that have been vital to the well-being of the service you wish to render to your clientele.

What have you found out? Was it worth the investment per bank? Did you go that far?

Ms White: No, we have not. I think that's where the two come very nicely together, because citizenship social responsibility and doing the right thing is important. We do not break down our clients by designated group. We don't ask them to do that. The two very much go hand in hand.

You raised the question around the business case. That's the way in the private sector. You very often have to drive the beginning part of it, but the two pieces are complementary once you get the beginning piece into it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is everybody else happy? You've all been very patient for very long. I thank particularly our staff, who have been so good and kind by sitting here as well. I thank you all very much. Good night. Safe journey home.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page