[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
.1529 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
We are pleased to welcome the Minister of Human Resources Development, who will be giving us his view of the report The Grand Design, which was tabled by this committee last December. In addition, he will be clarifying and amplifying the government's response to this report, A House Open to All.
.1530
Mr. Minister, last week we heard from disability organizations, which expressed their concern about the nature of the government's response. The fact that you are the designated minister responsible for coordination across line departments... The whole undertaking that was included as a sort of whole was in that report. In essence they believe the response indicates the federal government believes it has no future role in social development. Their question is if that is the case for the federal or national government, what is their role, and what is the vision for the disabled based on their equality rights under the charter?
In addition, they believe the report indicates the federal government has no future role in social development. They appear to believe we're abandoning our role in protecting the most vulnerable in our society, without ensuring the proper safeguards are put in place. They have told us they are afraid of a race to the bottom with the provision of supports and services for people with disabilities.
They also indicate some concern that income supports are going to be cut back. In particular, they expressed fears about the view of the disability provisions of the Canada Pension Plan. They also have concerns about the administration of the tax system. They want to know how the review of the tax system promised in the budget will be carried out. They are worried the new employment insurance system and proposed transfer of training to the provinces will leave them in a worse position than before. They recognize this is a shared jurisdiction.
They are concerned that on the basis of the plan, which is related to a history of attachment to the workforce, which is not always over a three-year period, given the nature of the disabilities that different people have... What will be their eligibility for training? How and who will represent and negotiate? Given that it's now becoming a provincial responsibility, how will this be taken into account and how will it be negotiated?
They are also concerned about the cuts to their advocacy and service groups, who help in the adjustment of people. If you lose a limb and you need to have some help and encouragement, and if you hope to be able to cope, there are groups that help people back into the workforce. These groups are not self-interest groups in that sense, unless you also classify the Canadian Bankers Association or insurance brokers or whatever in that category.
There are a lot of people here who are waiting to hear what you have to say, Mr. Minister. They're in this room, but they are also out there in all our communities across this land. We know you have a reputation for plainspeak, as we say. I think we appreciate that. We're pleased to hear what you have to say today. That message could be, if I can put it this way, unfiltered by those who often put words into ministers' mouths.
Mr. Minister, we await what you have to say with a great deal of interest.
[Translation]
The Honourable Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development): I am very happy to be here today to give you a broad overview of our government's planned course of action, in keeping with the policy set out in the Throne Speech and budget documents, and in light of the proposal made to the provinces respecting manpower training and responsibility for program delivery, often referred to as active measures.
I listened with a great deal of interest to your opening statement which touched on familiar issues, in particular the fact that many people are deeply concerned. I hope that during these proceedings and in the course of our work in the coming weeks and months, we will also hear solutions, proposals, findings and suggestions. Defining the problem is often the easiest step in the quest for solutions and proposals that take into account a range of factors.
.1535
I am very happy to initiate, on behalf of the Government of Canada, a dialogue with the entire community concerned and I hope the exercise will be a positive one. I recognize as well that many of the issues that you raised in your opening statement come under provincial jurisdiction.
These days, there seems to be a tremendous amount of interest in the relationship within the federation between the provincial and territorial governments and the Government of Canada. I hope everyone will understand that as part of this dialogue and the process of change, we must never lose sight of the Canadian reality with its historic jurisdictions and areas of responsibility. We also must remember where we are going. We cannot be saying two, three or four different things at the same time.
We will have to decide who is responsible for certain areas from a practical perspective. If there are roles that the Government of Canada should play or that the provincial governments should take on, then we will have to discuss this. I hope that we'll arrive at a solution which is responsible and fair for everyone.
[English]
I have a great a deal of concern about how we're going to manage the transition as we evolve into what has been described as the new federation or flexible federalism, whatever the terminology is. I have a great deal of concern about the process that will allow us to ensure that everyone's interests are addressed and protected.
I can't emphasize too much that one of the things I try to be is consistent. I suppose one could say it is an attribute and others may see it as a flaw. I try to reflect what has been said by the government as a whole within the area of responsibility I have been given by the Prime Minister and the government.
The reason I want to open with this is that I believe we have a great deal to learn from the committee and from the disabled community in Canada. I don't think we need to spend a lot more time defining or articulating the problems. I think we're relatively familiar with those and I'm really looking forward to solutions and recommendations.
I am particularly looking forward to the debate or the discussion or the dialogue that's going to take place between representatives of the community we're interested in today and the provinces. I'm going to be negotiating and my colleagues in government are going to be negotiating with governments on a wide variety of issues, including health care, the Canada Pension Plan, manpower training, active measures, and job creation. There's a whole series of areas that by and large are accepted as being provincial responsibilities, at least in the minds of many people who represent the provinces.
If one looks at the institutions that are available to the Government of Canada, I certainly don't think one would suggest that we are in a position to deliver many of these services, of which we have been a part historically. I have no doubt about that.
I hope we will be able to work cooperatively to define and develop and agree at some point on what the role of the Government of Canada should be with respect to the disabled community and what the role of the provinces will be and should be. I don't think that can be done in isolation. I don't think it can be done in a bilateral discussion between the Government of Canada and the disabled community. I think the provinces have to be there and we have to make sure that what's being said to us as a government is also being said to the provinces.
People in every community across Canada vote for municipal politicians, provincial politicians, and federal politicians. All those levels of government have very clear notions, at least in their own minds, of what their responsibilities are.
.1540
I would like to go to questions and answers, because my staff is always very kind and prepares very voluminous notes, and I always look at them and try to make sure I'm familiar with what they would like me to say, and then I say what I want to say anyway.
Let me open the discussion this afternoon by saying that in recognition of the tableau I've tried to outline of this period of transition and change - not just, may I point out, with respect to the proposal that was made last week on active labour measures, but also with respect to significant changes that will take place and are reflected in the arrangement under the CHST, the arrangements that will occur as a result of the consultation on CPP and what has already been done in combining various elements of assistance into seniors' benefits and so forth - it's important for us to demonstrate that we're going to try to somehow manage this period of what I'm sure is great uncertainty.
Today, just before coming in here, Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance; Jane Stewart, the Minister of National Revenue; and I announced the creation of a task force of members of Parliament to examine all of the issues relating to the disability community in Canada. We've asked Andy Scott, who's a member of your committee, to chair this task force, to be assisted by Eleni Bakopanos from Montreal, Andy Mitchell from Ontario and Anna Terrana from British Columbia.
We are asking this task force to look at what the role of the Government of Canada should be, how we will interface with the disabled community and how it will work within the federation in terms of our relationship with the provinces. We're also asking the task force to respond to the commitment made by the Minister of Finance to review tax policy and how it affects or impacts on the disabled community.
Hopefully, in addition to my efforts today and the work of the committee, this task force will make a significant contribution to providing an opportunity to hear from interveners who are interested in this subject matter. Of course we've asked them because, for example on the tax analysis side, we would like to have the capacity to provide the Minister of Finance with information before we get into the nuts and bolts of the next federal budget.
We are in negotiations with the provinces that we don't think we can hold off until next year or whatever, because we're taking about some areas of the country where I think provinces will move rather quickly on the proposal we made last week. So I've asked Mr. Scott and members of the committee to report to us no later than Thanksgiving this fall.
Let me say I look forward to this. I know the people on the committee. I know some better than others. Having worked with Mr. Scott, I know of his very deep commitment to this entire question and have been aware of his concerns for many years. So I'm very pleased, as are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, that he has taken on this responsibility, along with his colleagues.
With that, Madam Chair, I look forward to hearing questions. I'm always open to suggestions and recommendations, and hopefully through it all we'll manage to provide you with some answers.
The Chair: I thank you very much, Mr. Minister. That's a very interesting announcement you've made. We're looking forward to a multidimensional, independent report from the committee you've just announced.
The mainstream 1992 federal-provincial-territorial report is a unanimous report that sets forward the policy direction agreed to by the federal and provincial governments and that really builds on the obstacles and the equality for all in The Grand Design report. I hope that will be a good guidepost at the outset.
.1545
Secondly, as the federal government has undertaken a commitment to do a gender analysis for fair and equitable treatment, I sincerely hope you will see to gender-disaggregated information within the tax analysis you will put forward, because it's a vital part of any work we now do in the federal government and in the provincial governments. So I think your openness in advising us about this is of great interest.
I will now allow the questioning. I'll allow ten minutes for the Bloc, ten minutes for Mr. McClelland and ten minutes over here.
You decide how you want to divide your first ten minutes up and then we'll go to five-minute rounds. I leave that to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Would the Minister be so kind as to introduce to us his colleagues from the department who are here with him today.
Mr. Young: Allow me to introduce Mr. Green, Mrs. Nixon and Mrs. Chapman.
Mr. Bernier: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I understand that you will be here for just an hour or so, or maybe even only45 minutes.
Mr. Young: I arrived at 3:30 and I will stay until 4:30.
Mr. Bernier: My questions deal with agency coordination and funding and I will get to them without any further ado since we may not have time to get back to this topic. I would, however, like to begin by clarifying some things relating to your response to the committees's report.
You already know the Official Opposition's position. Not only do we view your response as unsatisfactory, we feel that it does not even qualify as a response to the work of the Standing Committee on Human Resources and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Let me remind you that we did table a unanimous report, a report supported by all of my colleagues around the table. That was my first comment. We will certainly have an opportunity to discuss this matter further.
My second comment concerns the reference that you often make when you respond to our questions in the House or again during your introduction concerning the changes that will be taking place and the different role that the federal government will play as opposed to the role of the provinces and areas of provincial responsibility. The Official Opposition welcomes your comments on provincial areas of responsibility. I want this to be very clear. As the representative of the Official Opposition, I ensured that our opposition to national standards was noted in the report drafted by our committee last December.
This being said, I informed the representatives of the groups here today and of those who were here last week that we felt the federal government had a responsibility to coordinate discussions with the provinces, but that it should nevertheless respect the provinces jurisdiction over the delivery of social, health and educational services.
My second comment also has to do with coordination; I am surprised and I would like to hear your view on the coordination role that the federal government, or yourself as the responsible minister, is called upon to play. This is a distinction that we made in our report.
You stated at the outset that you wanted tangible proposals, not simply pious wishes. Our recommendations, which included very concrete proposals, made a distinction between provincial and federal jurisdictions. In fact, this distinction was evident in our first recommendation.
As the current federal minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities, you must assume a coordinating role. So too must your department and our recommendations were very clear. Because we feel that this role has not been properly taken on in view of all the responsibilities that fall to the minister - we're not singling you out in any way since we also made this comment with respect to your predecessor - we would like the government to appoint a Secretary of State who would oversee the status of persons with disabilities, identify areas in each department that affects these individuals and determine how the federal government should coordinate its actions.
.1550
We would like a Secretary of State to be appointed to this position so that the discussions can take place at the highest level, that is in Cabinet given that secretaries of state take part from time to time in Cabinet meetings.
That is what the committee requested. I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this and I would hope that the committee could count on your support, since this was a unanimous recommendation.
Of course, this request goes out to the Prime Minister. He is the one who decides whether to appoint secretaries of state. I realize that you won't do this this afternoon. However, I would like to hear your views on the subject and in particular, to know that we have your support. This is very important because any action in response to the recommendations will depend on the decision the government will make regarding this specific point.
I repeat that I have nothing against the Minister who currently holds this portfolio or against his predecessor. However, we feel that the status of persons with disabilities is so important that it should fall within a separate portfolio.
My second question concerns agency funding. I asked you questions on several occasions in the House and your response was twofold. You expressed surprised at the fact that the official opposition wanted the federal government to get involved in an area of provincial jurisdiction. I responded to that earlier on.
When we talk about agency funding, regardless of whether representatives are here now or not, we have to understand that these agencies work primarily, and almost exclusively, at the federal level. Consider the CCD, the Association for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired and so forth. Much of what they do involves advising the federal government and questioning it about its activities.
I cannot speak for all of the provinces, but in Quebec, these agencies already receive the support of the Quebec government when it comes to their activities within the province. Naturally, they feel that they do not receive sufficient funding, but a program is already in place to award them subsidies.
Once the agencies operating at the federal level no longer receive any subsidies in three years' time... We don't dispute the fact that some action had to be taken. However, once the agencies that truly provide information and reference services have disappeared for lack of funding... This won't take three years, Minister, because once they have used up half of their grant, they will no longer be able to operate. That's almost the case now. With which agencies are you prepared to deal if you say that this is a provincial matter? That is my question.
I would like you to tell the committee which province will be taking over each agency. Which province will be assuming responsibility for the CCD? It seems to me that there is something wrong here. I would be interested in hearing your opinion. I'm confident that we can find some very practical solutions.
The Chair: Do you want the Minister to answer?
Mr. Bernier: Yes, I would appreciate that.
The Chair: In two minutes or less.
Mr. Bernier: No! He can have five minutes, Madam Chair.
Mr. Young: I will take all the time I need, Madam Chair. Since you allow questions that are seven or eight minutes long, I will take all the time I need to respond.
It always amazes me when I think that we allow reports to be adopted unanimously with dissent. Nonetheless, I appreciate that the work was carried out.
Mr. Bernier: [Inaudible] ...it even went to Cabinet.
Mr. Young: Yes, but unanimity with dissent is a purely Canadian concept.
As for appointing a Secretary of State, as you said, this would be a matter for the Prime Minister to decide. You wanted to know how I felt about things. I think it would be preferable to see how we are going to proceed with the matters that I have already raised, considering that we are going to make some fairly radical changes in our relations with the provinces in some sectors and that we also have to deal with the ministerial council report prepared by nine provinces.
.1555
Quebec was not involved in the drafting of this report. Although I'm not familiar with all of the details, today I learned that the Western premiers will also table a series of proposals on a range of social issues.
We have asked one of your colleagues from the House to participate, along with several of his colleagues, in a task force of government members with a view to making some suggestions. In my opinion, it would have been premature, even if some were strongly recommending it, to suggest to the government that it restructure itself before knowing exactly where it was heading.
This won't take a great deal of time. I understand the prevailing uncertainty and I hope that by this fall, we will be in a position to get a fairly clear idea of the direction the Canadian government is taking. We will take into account the work that has been done by the committee and by the member for Fredericton and his team, as well as the provinces' proposals, whether they be unilateral proposals from Quebec or joint proposals from the other provinces.
I hope that the government will be able to announce whether or not a secretary of state should be appointed, as you suggested, or else examine other courses of action.
As far as funding is concerned, we want to ensure some continuity and that's why we will not be cutting this year - I don't believe so and I would like to be certain - funding to organizations which represents a total of $168 million.
Cuts of 10% are possible, but you were talking about...
The Chair: Many of these organizations have had the rug pulled out from under them...
Mr. Young: I don't wish to get into a debate with you, Madam Chair...
The Chair: No, but you haven't given us the correct information.
Mr. Young: I don't have the information, but I will get it to you in due time. In any case, I want to say for the next year - could I have the exact figures please - we fully intend to maintain the level of funding to organizations and this, in our opinion, should enable them to maintain important structural components in place.
There is no question that every component of government has been affected by budget cutbacks.
Mr. Bernier: Are you telling me that you are going to review the decision taken to ensure that organizations are adequately funded?
Mr. Young: No, that's not at all what I said. I said that for this year, we believe our projections are such that adequate funding will be maintained. As you stated, I'm certain that funding is not adequate in the provinces either, even if some agencies do receive provincial government funding. We're working with the funds that will be available and I will try to...
Mr. Bernier: In three years, these organizations will disappear, isn't that right?
Mr. Young: No. We are working with three-year forecasts. Based on the results of this summer's work and the recommendations that we will make this fall, we will know whether to maintain the present level of funding, reduce it or increase it. This will be decided by the fall. During the transition, we want to ensure that there is adequate funding in place.
Mr. Bernier: These agencies will no longer exist in three years' time. That's what we're trying to make you understand.
Mr. Young: I hope that they will still be around. We'll see.
[English]
The Chair: That question will be picked up. We've already had 14 minutes, so you'll please forgive me.
Mr. McClelland, I'm pleased to welcome you back. We haven't seen you for a long time. Go ahead, please.
Mr. Young: Could I ask the person...? I know how to turn this device off and on. Could you make sure that when I'm not speaking it's turned off - because I'll use the button myself.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): I too wish to welcome you to the committee.
In welcoming you, I'm sure that the disabled community sees in this some good news and some bad news. I think the good news is that, whether they like it or not, they're going to know exactly where they stand. It's by knowing exactly where we stand and not mouthing empty platitudes that at least we can go on. So if we do nothing other than know exactly where we are and exactly where we're going to go, this will be worth while.
.1600
The bad news is that I'm sure the announcement of yet another task force will perhaps be met by decidedly mixed reviews. This would probably not be the first task force, nor would it be the first time that action has been sloughed off by yet another task force. I'd like to know where the initiative for the task force originated, so we have some sense of whether it has any staying power. Did it originate in the bureaucracy? Did it originate in the political arm?
I'd like to know whether there's any difference in this task force from Beth Phinney's task force or the red book task force. What are the terms of reference? What will you be able to solve? I'd like to ask what this task force will do that the committee didn't do over the last year with a unanimous resolution. We as a committee, after having listened and consulted with all the interest groups, with each other, carefully over a year, understood clearly that the well had gone dry as far as money was concerned. What we wanted to do was to ensure there would be political accountability. We felt the only way that could be achieved was to have a person with stature and status within the government appointed to make sure things happened, someone with enough power to make things happen. That's why we felt it was so important to maintain the profile on a federal level even if there isn't a lot of money to throw around, or any money to throw around. The most important element is to maintain a profile.
We understood from the reports and from background information that the real turnaround in human rights action in our country came with this committee in 1980, with Dr. Halliday and others who shared the same commitment to doing the right thing. Money wasn't as important as the desire to do the right thing, the intent to do it on a daily basis, to get up every day and do it.
That's why we felt the most important recommendation was to have a secretary of state. It doesn't require a whole lot of money, but it does say the government is absolutely committed to maintaining the profile, especially when you get into the provinces.
Persons with disabilities are not sexy. This is not a sexy item. How do you keep it with a profile? When we as a federal government cannot maintain a profile for persons with disabilities, what's going to happen in the provinces? That's why it's so important that we...
If it's so important that the federal government will go to the wall defending the five principles of the Canada Health Act, what is so sacrosanct about the Canada Health Act that the government cannot go to the same wall defending even more vulnerable people, people who are systemically disadvantaged because of disability? If ever there was a human rights consideration, it's to hold people harmless from disabilities.
[Translation]
An honourable member: Normally, that happens all by itself, minister.
Mr. Young: Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. In this case, it does.
[English]
On the question of a secretary of state, I hope you will understand... And I don't mean any disrespect to the previous government, which had something like 44 ministers and secretaries of state. I listened to you very closely. In your introduction you talked about rhetoric or empty platitudes. I think that was the term. I can assure you I have no interest in supporting profile with no money and having somebody named to a position where it would simply be a place where you come to express your concerns but nobody can give you any real help. I don't think, certainly not from a personal point of view, I'm interested in providing opportunities for more frustration.
I'm not suggesting the recommendation wasn't appropriate, but it's what you put around it that I'm more concerned about, in terms of what the national vision is, what the national commitment is, what the financial commitment is.
.1605
I know a lot of people with disabilities and I've been associated with many people who have various types of problems, and I can't imagine myself saying to them that I can give them a profile but I can't give them money. Until we know how we're going to proceed in a tangible way, I wouldn't want to provide symbolic kinds of responses.
I'm not in any way suggesting that what you proposed was not appropriate, because it was one recommendation among many coming out of the committee about the secretary of state situation, as you put it. But because of the funding questions, because of the jurisdictional questions, because of the transition, we felt we should wait.
You asked about the origin of the task force, and again I hope you will bear with me. It originates with me and my colleagues, Mr. Martin and Ms Stewart.
Some of you will know that I have had a task force on the commercialization of CN. It's not something that anybody thought was going to happen in this country, and as it turned out, it was sold last November. I'm not suggesting that the task force by itself was entirely responsible for that, but when we ask people to do things we normally have a great deal of faith in what their capacities are. Certainly the bureaucracy and the administration of the department did not ask us to put a task force in place. They're very familiar with much of the work that has been done.
We felt we needed to have a very careful look at some things, not only at the problems that many of you have identified today and those that have been identified by groups that have appeared before you already. We think there was an undertaking in the budget to do the analysis of the tax impact as well, and that had to be addressed.
So I guess on the question of the origin I would have to say that it was an idea that came from me because of a very good experience in the past. It's something that can move quickly and that I hope will provide a good opportunity for further input.
With respect to the organizational funding question, let me be very clear. I have an absolute, unequivocal personal commitment to ensure that whatever form the process takes, we do everything we can to take care of people. I have to be blunt about this. Organizations are fine. Some of them are very useful. Some of them have a raison d'être. Some of them are like government organizations in that they become bureaucratic and top-heavy. I'm not going to point fingers at one or two or three or four.
What I am saying to you, sir, and to other members of the committee is that I will do everything I have to do to ensure that whatever resources are available, whatever we negotiate with provinces, and however we wind up, every effort will be dedicated to making sure that individuals are taken care of. That may require some decisions when we're dealing with limited resources federally, provincially, and municipally, but in the final analysis, that's where I come from.
Obviously the suggestion was made that these people operate as organizations at the national level. That may be so. Maybe many organizations should have been doing a lot more work at the provincial level too. I don't care how many times you split the hair, much of what we will talk about over the next few months involves the provinces daily and hourly, when you're talking about health care, education, training, job creation, by-laws, and all kinds of things that impact on accessibility and mobility of people with disabilities.
I'm not going to nuance my language beyond being able to say that yes, there are organizations we'll also have to take a look at, and I think the organizations should look at themselves very closely to see how many people they represent. What's the financial support from the community? I don't mean just the disabled community, but what is the support from non-governmental sources for some of these organizations? Can they or should they only survive with government assistance?
How many other organizations across society with very specific kinds of clientele they should also represent operate in the same way? Are there creative, innovative, appropriate means of making sure that at least there's some shared financing, whether it's from the general community, whether it's from the tax system, or whether it's from other levels of government? I don't know.
In my response to the honourable member, Madam Chair, let me close by saying that we will continue to play the role that I think people are talking about in terms of being a catalyst, trying to ensure that there is visibility, concern, and awareness of problems, because probably only the national government can do that adequately. We'll have to find out how that fits in the overall scheme of an evolving federation.
.1610
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think that oversight of the whole picture is absolutely vital.
I want to remind the minister that it would be helpful if his staff would go back and give him all the accountability mechanisms that were suggested, both from the Obstacles report chaired by David Smith... And the chosen vehicle was the Secretary of State. I know this is not something the minister can do. This was repeated in Equality for All and it was a consensus for action in 1990. It's in The Grand Design. The issue, frankly, was accountability and coordination, because so many ministers are involved.
Life is not just the labour market. Life is also the home life and the ability to live in a healthy environment.
Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): Welcome to this hearing, Mr. Minister. I notice that the opposition questions somehow take more time. I suspect it has to do with politics.
New Brunswick is the only provincial government that is bilingual, and you discussed in the last few minutes that you will be transferring some responsibilities from your department and other departments of the government to provincial government. One option you mentioned is manpower training.
Having said that, I also want to mention that some provincial governments are going around privatizing everything, including the jails, and contracting out training programs and what have you. How can you ensure that a provincial government will maintain the bilingual policy of the federal government when they take the responsibility and they go a step further and contract the responsibility out to private corporations, which may choose not to follow the federal government policy of bilingualism?
I used to work in Montreal. I had a problem because I wasn't perfectly bilingual. So I want to make sure that Canadians who come to Montreal or Ontario, or whatever the case may be, will be served in the language of their choice, either French or English. When one day you transfer the responsibility to provincial government, would you also assure us that bilingualism will be maintained?
Mr. Young: Yes. In answer to your question, as you will know on the employment insurance legislation, it's a commitment on the part of the government in any case that in any negotiations with provinces the existing parameters will continue to be applied - and that is that the Official Languages Act will be respected.
I want to be clear that in many of our programs now the criterion is often where numbers warrant. In other words, it has to make some sense. It would be our intention that the situation with respect to accessibility on the basis of language would be as it is now.
Very many of these programs are now delivered by the private sector. The private sector has been extremely involved in various aspects of manpower training. If that were to occur in the future, in their negotiations with us provinces would obviously be expected to respect that reality of Canadian life, that people can be trained or are served in either of the official languages as long as it meets the criterion that has been there since, I guess, 1967 or 1968.
The Chair: I'd also include the fact that for people with disabilities there are often auditory or vision problems that require special kinds of treatment. Will you be looking into that to ensure that different, alternative, forms of communication, which is fundamental to our ability to access the job market, will be included in that training?
Mr. Young: I cannot insist. What I am saying is that even in the existing situation, where the Government of Canada has had the responsibility or in some cases has taken on the responsibility for some manpower training, we still are not involved nearly to the same extent as provinces are in manpower training.
We would not be expecting provinces to do any more in the new arrangement as a result of our specific directives, but we would not expect them to do any less with keeping in mind, as I said, the Official Languages Act or any other aspect. We're not going to ask them to do any more, and they won't be expected to do any less.
.1615
They may wish to do a lot more. Hopefully, because of their desire to take on a lot of these responsibilities, they will be far more innovative, creative, and I hope successful in both active labour measures, as well as manpower training, than we have been in the past, because that's the objective of the exercise.
The Chair: We'll come back to that.
All right, Jean.
Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): I also want to say how pleased I am that the minister has joined us today.
I am a member of Parliament who interfaces with and sees organizations and individuals from organizations on a regular basis. I know that you mentioned in the proposed new arrangements that the emphasis is going to be on individuals. Can I go back to the question of organizations and funding for them? I wonder if they would be cut completely. If so, which organizations would they be? Is there a thought as to which organizations they would be?
Or what services do various organizations provide that could otherwise be dealt with in other areas, including the individual himself or herself arriving at solutions? Is there a phase-out? How is it going to go from the organization to the individual? Is there a transition? Can you can speak,Mr. Minister, as to how that's all going to happen?
Mr. Young: Ms Augustine, I want to make sure we're clear on this. I said that my personal commitment is to ensure that, to the extent that we can, we try to protect individuals in all of our endeavours. We provide support directly, through provinces, through partnerships, through cooperative arrangements, or whatever. We obviously understand the need for organizations, but I wanted to make the distinction that if I ever have to choose between organizations and individuals, I know where my heart will be and where it always has been.
With respect to organizations, we have looked at a period of three years. We have said that we will try to keep reasonable levels of funding in place so that adjustments can be made.
Look over the summer and as we move to the fall, not just with the work I've talked about today, but with what we're going to be doing with the provinces and the whole area of the new federation. We'll see how it can work better and how we can eliminate duplication, overlap, inefficiency, and so forth.
We will see how - I hope we will get suggestions - organizations should be financed. What organizations should be financed? Should they be entirely the responsibility of the Government of Canada, or very substantially so? Should they be able to demonstrate their raison d'être through, for example, the numbers of members relative to the community that is served by that organization? What kind of interface do they have with their membership?
But I don't want to judge that. I don't want to sit and decide that, at this stage, based on the limited experience I've had with the situation, say that this organization or that organization is better, works more efficiently, or has the appropriate level of staff and salaries, and so forth.
Every organization in the country with which I'm familiar is faced with severe or difficult decisions. Very few, whether we're talking about educational institutions, health care systems, or hospitals... I live in the city of Ottawa for eight or nine months of the year. I spent the last five or six months keeping track of hospitals in case we had to go to one. I didn't know which one might be shut down.
Every day in the press, that's what we were faced with. That's the reality of it. I can't escape that, nor can organizations, nor individuals. It's a question of how we deal with it as appropriately as possible.
We will try to maintain enough stability. I understood that the honourable member said that in three or four years these organizations will have disappeared. We have no intention of letting that happen as a result of activity or inactivity over the next four, six, or eight months.
By this time next year, there is no doubt that the Government of Canada will have to go through clear policy directions and budgetary decisions to come to grips with how we're going to deal with this entire issue. That's the commitment that I hope I've been able to articulate and that I'm prepared to repeat. This is not something that is going to be put off indefinitely; it's something to which we're going to move.
.1620
There's the tax analysis we've talked about doing in the budget and that we're now going to undertake. There's the work that's been done by your committee and the input we will get from witnesses who are appearing before you now. There's the information we will get in our negotiations with the provinces. This will all lead us to making both the policy decisions and the financial decisions to support those policy decisions within the next year.
The Chair: I guess one can assume, for the groups that are listening... I'm watching the body language of all these groups behind you, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Young: You're interested in body language these days, are you?
The Chair: No, I've been interested for the last forty years or so. I didn't have to wait for her to tell me.
I just want you to be quite clear that no cut will be put in place now until you have had some report, except for that 10% cut you mentioned earlier. Is that right, yes or no?
Mr. Young: Madam Chair, please do not try to ask me a yes-or-no question. I'm used to that from the opposition, and I know you're tough.
What I will tell you is that anything you want to know about funding, which is very complicated... There is a stream of funding that is reducing, and everyone knows that. I will undertake to give you any information you want in writing. It will be factual, with numbers.
I am not, and never have been, capable of being able to just pull numbers out or to make commitments based on things that are off the top of my head. I would rather that it was very clear and very factual.
The Chair: I had heard that earlier when you were speaking. I just wanted to have that cleared up in the consultation with the other person.
Jean, you have a minute to finish.
Ms Augustine: May I use my minute to ask the minister about the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program? What are the plans for that program?
Mr. Young: Again, Madam Chair, on that particular program, as you know - I'm sure you're aware of who the clientele is - it has always been a federal-provincial arrangement. We are going to have to look at all of the funding and the arrangements.
What the result will be for that is this. As I understand it, that's been retained to 1996-97. That's where I talked about the $168 million, about which I was mixed up between the organizational funding and the funding for that particular program. That covers the period I've indicated. By that time, we will have specific and final decisions, I hope, on both the policy and the funding.
Mr. McClelland: I have a short question, Mr. Minister.
On the EI legislation, which will be passed soon and implemented, there's a huge transfer of money there from the federal government. This has been offered to the provinces and will probably be taken up by them. I wonder whether there's a percentage of that at all, a small bit, that could make a big difference to these people. It could be used by this community. Of course then we come back to the national standards. So I'm just wondering how you, and how we, the federal government, will ensure that these standards will be met in the following years.
The Chair: I'm going to ask the minister to hold an answer to that question. I'll ask Mr. Bernier to place his other question he wanted to place.
[Translation]
The minister will answer the two questions.
Mr. Bernier: When you say that you would opt for persons with disabilities if you have to choose between funding organizations and funding persons with disabilities, I think your logic doesn't wash. We're talking about two completely different areas of funding and what you're saying could lead someone to believe that we are asking you to fund organizations at the expense of persons with disabilities and this is completely ridiculous.
I would like to see chambers of commerce and business people come before committees in the federal government to tell us how much they deduct for their transportation expenses and representation costs. How many millions of dollars is this costing the government? In the case of these organizations, we're talking about $3 million per year and surely this amount is not going to add to the deficit problem.
As for the task force that you are planning to set up, let me say that I have a great deal of respect for my friend Andy Scott who dedicates much of his work to persons with disabilities. However, you are doing the same thing here as you did in the transportation field, that is you are setting up a strictly partisan committee on which the opposition is not at all represented.
I would like to know if you think that persons with disabilities will tell you anything different than what they have already told us here. A unanimous report was drafted, a report which also received the support of the opposition, albeit with some minor reservations. Do you think they will tell you anything new or that they will be better able to convince you to meet their demands and satisfy their needs?
.1625
[English]
The Chair: Okay, Mr. McClelland, last question.
Mr. McClelland: In an earlier response you indicated that the department is working cooperatively with the provinces in transferring responsibility, power and accountability. Could you advise us as to how many meetings have taken place in the last six months with the provinces and how many are actually scheduled - actually scheduled, not anticipated - in the next six months?
Mr. Young: Let me answer these questions. I don't have my agenda with me, and I don't know... If you asked me how many meetings I had last weekend, I couldn't tell you.
What we have done, though, Mr. McClelland, is - no, I mean the department - we're talking about ten provinces, the territories, the Yukon... We're talking about bureaucrats at the regional level, about people in the head office, and about politicians.
For example, on the VRDP, we've written to the provinces. We've indicated that this is the financing situation and that we wish to enter into discussions with them. There's ongoing discussion, and it would be nearly impossible for me to try to answer that except to say that communications with the provinces... And it varies from province to province depending on the interest they have in it and the level of representation they have in departments that have a particular responsibility for this area.
It's also a discussion that crosses over from my department into health and into a number of areas, like tax, for example. People are having discussions. Finance people have discussions because it's a very broad subject area. Certainly over the next few months it will be greatly intensified, because we understand that as a result of the work of the committee, your report, our response to it, the ministerial council report and the indication from the western premiers today that they wish to discuss social programs, a lot of this will perhaps be wrapped into other discussions.
The disabled community will play an important part in how we negotiate with the provinces on a number of these fronts. I'll try to keep you abreast, and I undertake to do that as we go through these discussions. We'll keep you briefed and we'll make sure you know what's up.
In terms of the question on national standards, I don't want to minimize the importance of trying to have some principles adhered to. I have always tried to find national standards, and I have very rarely, if ever, found them in anything.
In the system we have now with respect to training, for example, there are no national standards. If you bought a program in Nova Scotia from the Government of Nova Scotia - we were doing this in their community college system or vocational institutions - you didn't get the same kind of thing as you got in Manitoba. As a country we have always had a great deal of difficulty with national standards.
I often make the point that if - talking about hospitals in Ottawa - one of our children is injured this afternoon and goes to an Ottawa hospital like CHEO, I know they're going to be getting a lot better service than they will if they're injured three weeks from today when they're in Bathurst playing on the beach and go to the Bathurst regional hospital.
So there are services available, but I have never been deluded into thinking that there are standards across Canada. There are probably minimums, and there are principles, so we'll try to do what we can.
But you asked if part of the funds could be targeted specifically. This is why I keep coming back to it. What you will have to do... I believe that interveners are going to have to talk more. They may have been talking a great deal with the provinces, but much of what we've done is the working out of arrangements with provinces who deliver the programs. The community colleges, the vocational institutions, the technical schools, the universities, the private training organizations, and the high schools, for that matter, have always done far more work for provinces - and even in some cases for the private sector - than for the Government of Canada.
For us to be able to conclude negotiations, we certainly will be making every effort to underscore the need to take care - in an equitable way - of groups in our society that perhaps need extra support for various reasons to be able to achieve their ends.
This is why in a federation you have to talk to provinces. And this is why I'm always concerned when organizations operate nationally. When you look at what they're actually asking for, a great deal of it, in one way or another, is delivered by provinces.
.1630
To be honest with you, I don't think we can say you're going to have to devote a specific part of EI funds to this particular sector. Hopefully that will be done, but it will have to be as a result of interventions and representations made by the community to the appropriate provincial authorities, and that's even the case now in many ways.
[Translation]
You say that it is ridiculous to intimate that we must choose between individuals and organizations. When I have a choice to make, my options are not always clear cut. The Government of Canada must treat all groups of individuals fairly and ensure their welfare and survival.
I am, admittedly, more often interested by individuals than by organizations. This does not mean that I fail to recognize the importance of organizations, but today I feel that we have lots of organizations and too few individuals. That's how I feel.
Mr. Bernier: If you talk to these organizations, they will also tell you about individuals.
Mr. Young: Undoubtedly.
As for our expectations of the task force that we announced today, I think that the issues have changed just as the federation has changed and this is reflected in the proposals that we made to the provinces.
Where once we spoke of training, we now talk about active measures. We have just been asked how we are going to ensure that the needs of people in special situations are addressed. I hope that in addition to defining problems and making certain recommendations, we will benefit from the input of this and other groups on specific funding issues, particularly as regards the federal government's commitment not to use its spending powers to unilaterally intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
A whole series of issues will be addressed and I hope that agencies and individuals will share with us not only their problems, but also what they propose to do and how we can work with the provinces. The dialogue must be coherent and must reflect the reality of the Canadian federation, taking into account the nature of the relationship between the federal and provincial governments.
Mr. Bernier: Are you saying that this is a job for our committee?
Mr. Young: I certainly don't want to dictate the committee's agenda, sir. You can do what you like. We've already seen that you do good work. I can assure you that I have no intention whatsoever of telling you what to do. Do what you feel you must. I think we're entering a new era.
Last February's Throne Speech unveiled the Government of Canada's new approach to exercising its spending powers. The offer that we extended last week is another major policy change and I think it was rather well received by the provinces.
Therefore, we will have to find ways of reacting to all of this. As federal minister, I'm committed to trying to define from now until this time next year the role and responsibilities of the Canadian government as well as the financial parameters that we intend to set.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Minister, I thank you.
I must say that in our undertaking as a country and when the United Nations declares us to be the best country in the world in which to live, it's because, influenced by the Charter of Rights, we have tried to attain goals in the legislation and the approach we take. The paradox is that with changing technology, the goalposts keep moving and it's hard to catch up.
You can't make everything happen at once, but one thing is for certain: the people of Canada and their national government have some role to play. I'm glad you have indicated this needs to be looked into in the changing and evolving federation.
.1635
That being said, the most vulnerable in our society have been defined, and in that most vulnerable are the equity groups, in particular the disabled. The federal government, as you have pointed out, is going to have to find, in that evolution, its specific role and its place, because it is in the interest of all Canadians, irrespective of where they live, that their best interests be protected.
We leave you with the confidence that you understand that and it will be part of the negotiations that will be undertaken with each of the provinces, but with a national view, that individual people get together to share their experience, particularly if they're disabled. It's only when you're disabled that you are able to look for new solutions to help yourself get to that next goalpost on the route.
I hope you are in a position to see to that and that it will be in the best interests of the group we wrote this report about and that the task force is going out to look at. I hope it will be wholesome and wide-ranging in its approach and in the end satisfy what I consider has been told us are the most important needs for people who want to give their best to this country, have every right to participate and need to have the communication mechanisms in a variety of formats that enable them to be full participants in this society and therefore become breadwinners and have the sense of participation and goodwill, not that they are just receiving money, but that they are giving money back to the society because they're earning a living.
Thank you very much. I hope we'll have the opportunity to have these groups meet with you. Perhaps they can even discuss with you and help you decide how the allocation of money to these groups should be done.
The meeting is adjourned.