EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

.0935

[English]

The Chair: Order. The committee is considering Bill C-76. Our first witness this morning is from the National Anti-Poverty Organization. Lynne Toupin is executive director and François Dumaine is assistant director.

Bienvenue.

Ms Lynne Toupin (Executive Director, National Anti-Poverty Organization): Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to speak to you on this particularly important bill.

As you will note, our document is not thick. It's not for lack of concern around this bill; it's largely because we've been engaged in our annual general meeting and a board of directors meeting, which took place just last week in Regina. In fact, the repeal of CAP within Bill C-76 took up a significant amount of time in discussion among our board of directors.

Our board is made up of 22 members from across Canada. At this point in time I'd say, again, more than 90% of them are people living well under the poverty line. This particular bill has a very real and significant impact on their lives and their futures.

That being said, we have prepared a short document. You have it before you. It is our understanding that you have heard numerous presentations with the particular bent we perhaps will be giving you today. We don't want to go into a lot of the detail that I think you have heard on the concerns around Bill C-76. It's our intention perhaps to touch on four key points.

First, what would be, from our perspective, the impact of repealing the Canada Assistance Plan at this time?

Second, we want to relate to you some data we have found, particularly in terms of U.S. states, to point out what occurs when there is no more federal responsibility for social programs and when states, in this case, are free to do what they wish with social programs.

We also want to touch on Canada's obligations under the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Finally, we want to make an appeal for a particular separate process dealing with certain clauses of this bill.

On the impact of CAP's repeal, I think you have heard about it in many ways and through many interlocutors during the last few weeks. We want to point out our concerns from the perspective of low-income Canadians.

First of all, it's been said by us and by many other organizations that the current block funding arrangement under consideration is such that income support and social services definitely will be the poor cousin of the other two programs, i.e., with the three programs bundled up into one funding arrangement. In fact, certain provincial premiers have already made it very clear that social income support programs will not be able to be maintained at current levels.

We know it is more sustainable politically to fund post-secondary education and health care than it is to fund social programs within the provinces. We had an opportunity to meet with key cabinet ministers from the Saskatchewan government while we were in Regina last week. One of the cabinet ministers clearly indicated our worst fears by saying that with the cuts to the program, there will be fewer dollars for income support. She said it clearly, explaining that this was going to be the reality. So we are certain to see cuts to welfare programs.

Third, we are fearful of whole categories of people being taken off welfare. Premier Klein in Alberta has already indicated his interest in pulling single, employable people right off the welfare rolls as soon as that is made possible. We have experience within the U.S. context that we would like to put forward on what happens when you actually do that, particularly in the context of continued high unemployment.

The fact that there would be no appeal process if you repeal CAP will mean that people may in fact receive dollars that have nothing or very little to do with their actual needs.

In times of economic recession, there's also a prospect of no increased dollars to deal with the increased number of people needing support. Again, that remains a very great fear. We are fearful that there will be less dollars for greater numbers of people in need, or conversely, that provinces may have a certain amount allocated, and after that, if you come before them and express a need for income support they will say, I am sorry, there are just no more dollars left in the pot.

.1010

[Translation]

We and many other groups have provided concrete examples of areas where money could be found so as to avoid cutting social programs.

As far as we are concerned, it is essential that the men and women of Canada be made aware of what is planned so that they may have a clear understanding of just what is at stake, what could be done and how we might continue to pay for our social programs, because we firmly believe it is possible to do that and because we want to continue to be different from the United States.

A journalist recently made a comment that I found extremely interesting; he said: ``If, five or ten years from now, our health care system is indeed a two-tiered system, if we no longer provide a minimum income or assistance to people who need it, just what would there be to keep me here in Canada? Why would Canadians want to stay here? There will no longer be anything to set us apart as a country, as a nation.

It seems to me it's an interesting idea that 10 years from now, quite a few Canadians may all reach the same conclusion, namely that it's a lot warmer down there so why not just move to the U.S., since there's no difference between our two countries anyway''.

Mr. Loubier: One often has the impression that government decisions are made with the sole intention of pleasing my Reform colleagues, who happen to be absent today. It's clear for all to see just how much compassion they have for the poorest members of our society. And it's the same every time we receive anti-poverty groups or organizations that are concerned with unemployment or social problems - the Reform Party doesn't even bother to show up. This government is trying to please people who have absolutely no concern for the future of the most disadvantaged members of society. So, what can you expect! I am just appalled by it.

The Chairman: That was not a question.

Mr. Loubier: No, but I have a right to say what I please.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Toupin and Mr. Dumaine, I think one of the things our finance committee can do - which may be outside of our traditional mandate - is reinforce the statement you made today to us. By any studies, the maximum amount of abuse in the welfare system is 3%. We cannot use that as an excuse for tightening up our programs. I think it's essential we get that through to all Canadians.

Secondly, you have made it very clear that without a cash component to our transfers, we will have no say in setting standards across this country or ensuring that those who are the least fortunate can be looked after. I believe you will find tremendous support on our side of the House for the concept that there must always be a cash component to our transfers.

Once again, you have been very forceful and eloquent spokespeople for those you represent.

Excuse me, Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Discepola: Another important comment Ms Toupin made was that the average time a person is on welfare is maximum six months to a year.

Ms Toupin: It varies from region, but overall, the national average is anywhere from approximately 6 to 12 months.

Mr. Discepola: That's very important because the fallacy out there is that people are on welfare for generations.

Ms Toupin: Mr. Discepola, I may also add that over 70% of people on welfare also work at some time during that process. What's happening is you have more and more people who have to turn to welfare as a top-up to low wages.

Again, I think the National Council of Welfare poverty profile from 1993 pointed out that particular element as well. A lot of people on welfare don't just sit there at home and wait for their cheque. They're out there working part-time. They are in and out, trying to get contract work. Often they are successful. We are painting a rather stereotypical picture of the welfare recipient. I think you would do a great service to these people if you were to dispel some of those myths around low-income Canadians.

The Chair: A previous witness also worked with the poorest people in Canada. She said she had never once met a person getting welfare who didn't want a job.

You've made a very forceful presentation to us, as you always do. I am a big fan of your organization. It's doing an outstanding job with diminished resources. It represents people who do need representation before most committees of Parliament, and especially before our committee. I commend you, and the organization of which you are a part, for another outstanding contribution to our committee.

.1015

Thank you very much for being with us.

The next witness is the

[Translation]

Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université.

The Chairman: Welcome, Mr. Denis.

Mr. Roch Denis (President, Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Roch Denis, and I am President of the Fédération québécoise des professeurs d'université. Our federation represents some 18 university teacher associations and unions in as many institutions in the province of Quebec. Since its inception in 1991, it has pursued its goal of concerted, democratic action in defense of the interests of both its members and university-level institutions in Quebec.

With your permission, I would like to present an overview of the concerns that prompted us to appear before the committee this morning. I will obviously be citing a number of examples that relate more specifically to universities in Quebec and the issues as they see them.

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time I have to make my presentation?

The Chairman: We have set aside 45 minutes for both your presentation and questions and answers. Our best witnesses always try to leave as much time as possible for questions.

Mr. Denis: Well, I will try to follow in their footsteps.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Denis: The Fédération des professeurs d'université wishes to thank the Standing Comittee on Finance of the House of Commons for giving it this opportunity to present its views on Bill C-76.

The FOPPU, as our federation is known, appeared last December 7th 1994 before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development of the House of Commons in the context of its public hearings on the Axworthy reform proposals.

On that occasion, we added our voice to those of many other Canadian and Quebec organizations in expressing our opposition to that program of reform.

Both from the perspective of the philosopy behind it and its financial motives, since it was directly linked to an unprecedented program of budget cuts, the reform proposals heralded an extremely negative impact on post-secondary education all across Canada.

As a result, on that occasion, we emphasized the inevitable impact of the reform proposals and of the federal government budgetary policy on the access of many thousands of students to higher education, on the quality of education, given the reduced means and resources of provinces, and on Quebec's ability to pursue, consistent with its constitutional responsibilities, a societal plan put in place some 30 years earlier to develop the university network in Quebec, in response to the process of standardization and centralization put in place by the federal government.

For a time, we believed that the federal government had decided to pay attention to the testimony of many individuals and groups by withdrawing the pilot project introduced by Minister Axworthy.

However, our hopes were to be dashed only a few weeks later, in February and March of this year. In tabling its budget and Bill C-76, which is intended to implement it, the government undertook to move forward - renaming its plan the Canada Health and Social Transfer - with the basic elements of the proposals that had been so bitterly criticized. Indeed, we found ourselves wondering what purpose the consultations held in the fall of 1994 had actually served.

Worse yet, while the discussion paper which formed the basis for the Axworthy reform proposals dealt with post-secondary education separately such that government plans could still be the subject of a clear public debate, here those plans are practically totally camouflaged, and it is only by deduction and through reference to the impact of budget cuts imposed on the provinces by the federal government that organizations like ours are able to really take part in a discussion of the issues.

.1020

Although we asked in vain that the government here in Ottawa provide us with its analysis of the impact of its budget and its reform of social programs, and even recently formally requested information from the Department of Finance that would have allowed us to take a closer look at the effects of its policy on post-secondary education, and at the various scenarios and theories being laid out, we were unable to get any kind of information whatsoever from these sources. We resigned ourselves to the idea that this information would not be forthcoming. The Federation believes that this shows a complete and unacceptable lack of transparency on the part of the government in an area of such major importance to society as education, and particularly post-secondary education.

Under the federal government's plan, some 7 billion dollars in cuts will be made to transfers to the provinces in two stages between now and 1998 - namely a 2.5 billion dollar cut in 1996-97 and a further cut of 4.5 billion dollars in 1997-98.

In the case of Quebec, the federal government's disengagement will mean a shortfall of some 650 million dollars in 1996-97 and of 1.2 billion in 1997-98. If the budget envelope for the Canada Health and Social Transfer were to be distributed among the provinces based on population, losses for Quebec in 1997-98 could be as high as 1.9 billion dollars.

One of the most important aspects of the Canada Health and Social Transfer is the extension of the federal government's policy of setting national standards that has and continues to be in effect in the areas of health and education.

Indeed, Bill C-76 clearly links post-secondary education to the affected social programs. Outside of the health sector where standards already are in place for the payment of federal transfers to the provinces, Bill C-76 signals a renewed determination on the part of the federal government to introduce pan-Canadian standards and principles in the area of post-secondary education.

Our Federation totally rejects that policy.

First of all, any attempt to dictate standards would amount to interference with Quebec's exclusive rights in the area of education, and the argument that standardization would proceed on the basis of mutual consent, rather than being imposed, changes absolutely nothing as far as we are concerned. Even after asking the provinces' consent, the federal government implicitly retains the right to set standards as it sees fit, if there is no agreement.

Rather than introducing this kind of centralizing policy, Ottawa should allow the provinces, and particularly Quebec, to be fully responsible for designing and developing their own system of education.

This demand reflects the traditional position of Quebec. Quoted in 1988 in a notice sent by the Conseil des universités to the Quebec Minister of Higher Education and Science, the then Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Gérard D. Lévesque, described Quebec's position in these terms: «First of all, it is essential that the federal government assume full responsibility for funding these fast-growing programs that are now causing problems. In order to comply with the spirit of the agreement reached when these programs were implemented, it is essential that it not withdraw from this area, as it is currently proceeding to do with no plans to provide compensation, particularly since in so doing, the federal government is passing on a relatively heavier additional burden to those provinces that are the least well-to-do. Instead, the federal government should withdraw from these areas and provide full compensation in the form of additional tax points, thereby allowing the provinces to independently exercise their constitutional responsibilities». This was the position laid out by the Quebec Minister of Finance in his 1988 budget speech.

Now the province of Quebec is looking closely at its own standards and values in the area of education through the process of the Estate's General on education. We believe the federal government should give up, once and for all, the idea of interfering in the area of education. And if Ottawa really wants to develop post-secondary education, as it claims, it should immediately take steps to give the provinces needed tax points and any other means they require to fully assume their responsibilities.

The Federation fully supports the proposal brought forward by major Quebec unions inviting the federal government to provide Quebec with tax points that would be equivalent to its cash contribution, so that the provinces would benefit from more stable funding and an arrangement that respects their exclusive rights in this area and thus be better able to meet the many challenges facing them in the area of education.

As far as the student loans and grants program is concerned, as early as the 1980s, the federal government was threatening to get around the provinces' refusal - and particularly Quebec's refusal - to yield part of their jurisdiction over post-secondary education by providing direct financial assistance to students. With Bill C-28, the Axworthy Reform proposals and the Canada Health and Social Transfer, the federal government has now acted on that threat.

The Federation opposes this policy for the following reasons:

- Under the principle of income-contingent repayment, access to post-secondary education is based solely on individual action, choices and abilities, whereas access to post-secondary education must, more than ever nowadays, be a deliberate and collective societal choice, and a priority seen as an essential investment for a society, based on a policy of full citizen participation, rather than the result of a series of opportunities given to individuals to borrow money from a bank.

The federal government is now turning its back on that collective commitment and inviting the provinces to do the same.

.1025

- The income-contingent loan repayment program is just as unacceptable, because it flows from a plan on the part of the federal government to make massive cuts to provincial funding, cuts that will force students to assume the burden of this withdrawal of public support and institutions to reduce the quality of education and research at the university level.

- The loans program proposal is just as worthy of criticism because it short-circuits the provinces - and notably Quebec's - prerogative to set its own agenda in education, and claims to give the federal government direct access to students, when it comes to post-secondary education. This plan should be vehemently opposed. Higher education, the funding of higher education, access to the education system and our societal goal to make up lost ground by increasing the number of university students and university graduates are all matters that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. Quebec has made its choices and must continue to be able to make those choices freely, rather than being subject, either directly or indirectly, to interference by a government that is in fact trying to accomplish indirectly what the law prohibits it from accomplishing directly.

In October of 1994, the Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec also expressed its opposition to this plan. The conference's president, Mr. Claude Hamel, stated at that time, and I quote: «as regards the plan to implement a system of education vouchers, including an income-contingent loan repayment program, one of the effects of which would be a significant increase in tuition fees, universities believe that this is a dangerous and unrealistic idea that will have grave consequences for both students and institutions. It should also be pointed out that Quebec is not part of the Canada student assistance program, as it already has its own system in place».

At a time when it is more important than ever for Quebec to pursue its goals to make up loss ground by improving access to the education system so that it can compete effectively, and in light of the universities ongoing financial difficulties, it is imperative that consistent with their respective responsibilities, governments find ways to safeguard the economic base of a system that has already proven itself, that works well, and that is fundamental to ensuring the proper functioning of our society.

As regards access, of all the potential impacts of the brutal cuts the federal government has decided to make in transfer payments to the provinces, the most dramatic one is undoubtedly the significant setback they would mean in terms of student and adult access to a university education. And yet that access, as the government itself fully recognizes, is a major determinant of a country's socio-economic development.

It is important to emphasize that for the men and women of Quebec and, I believe, of Canada as a whole, access to a university education is something relatively new. Just 30 years ago, only a very small percentage of the population of Quebec, for instance - generally people from wealthier backgrounds - had real access to university. Historically, young people in Quebec, and particularly francophones, have been well behind other groups in terms of their access to a university education.

What was needed to remedy this situation was major educational reform, initiated by the government of Quebec in the 1960s and involving better access to higher education and particularly the founding of the University of Quebec. Progress has since been rapid and quite remarkable.

Indeed, in little more than a decade, the network of university institutions in Quebec developed considerably, while student enrolments quadrupled. Women and young people living in the regions who previously had been pretty well excluded from the universities, entered these institutions in massive numbers. Today, almost 250,000 students are pursuing their studies in Quebec universities.

And yet, despite the progress that has been made, Quebec must actively pursue its efforts in this area. In 1992, the percentage of Quebeckers aged 15 and over with a university diploma was 11.5%, compared with 13.9% and 12.4% for Canada as a whole.

Furthermore, for the first time in 30 years, the number of enrolments in Quebec universities dropped by 3% in the fall of 1994. In the Federation's view, it is difficult not to make a connection between that drop in enrolments and the spectacular rise in tuition fees in recent years.

.1030

Although tuition fees remained constant at $547 dollars a year for two decades, the government of Quebec, feeling the effects of budget cuts, decided in 1989-90 to raise those fees. In fact, tuition fees have almost tripled in the space of a few years. They now average approximately $1,500 per year.

So, one can just imagine the disastrous effect a new and brutal increase in tuition fees would have as a result of the budget cuts being imposed on the provinces by the federal government; indeed, in the best case scenario, fees could well double and according to some estimates - particularly those of the AUCC - they could well rise quickly to as much as $5,000 a year.

The implementation of a new system of loans and grants, as proposed by the federal government, would not come close to counteracting the disincentive effect that such a substantial increase in tuition fees would have on potential students. Quebec already has its own system of loans and grants. One hundred and forty seven thousand students benefited from that program this year alone. However, the average debt-load of a student graduating from university is on the rise and now stands at more than $7,400. Those are actually very conservative figures. More than 12,000 graduates have difficulty repaying their loans, and an increasing number of students completing their studies (more than 500 this year) have no other recourse but to declare bankruptcy.

Does the government seriously believe that raising students' debt-loads would in no way inhibit their access to higher education?

The Federation urges the federal government to abandon this plan and instead to reaffirm the importance, for society as a whole, of providing the widest possible access to a university education.

Mr. Chairman, I think it would probably be best that I let committee members read our full brief when they have an opportunity to do so. As a result, I will move directly to our conclusion and recommendations.

Rather than being seen as one of the main causes of the federal debt and thus being identified as a natural and acceptable target for potential budget cuts, post-secondary education should be considered an essential investment.

The FQPPU believes that a government that is unable or refuses to put an end to the tremendous waste that is exposed every year by the Auditor General, that continues, despite budget cuts, to keep the defense budget high, and finally that refuses to reform a tax system that deprives the central government of considerable revenue has no legitimacy whatsoever if it decides to attack post-secondary education and social programs as a matter of priority.

The Federation therefore invites the federal government to set other targets for its budget cuts than the collective instruments of development put in place by the societies of both Canada and Quebec.

At the end of our brief you will find the three recommendations we are making to the committee. Thank you very much for your kind attention.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Denis. Mr. Loubier, you have the floor.

Mr. Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Denis, for an excellent presentation.

I have just one question for you. How do you explain the fact, despite past history - and particularly what has gone on in the last 30 years - and what Quebec has experienced as a community in its relationship with Canada, that the federal government still does not understand that if it interferes in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec, and particularly in the education sector, which is one of the pillars of the Quebec culture, as it allows us to pass on our culture from generation to generation and ensure its survival over time, and that a Liberal government is now repeating the mistakes it made during Pierre Elliott Trudeau's first mandate by trying to once again force a plan of reform down Quebec's throat when Quebeckers are united in their opposition to it? How do you explain that?

Mr. Denis: Well, Mr. Loubier, my answer would be this. Although I have no idea why the federal government is determined to move ahead with this, I do know that we have reached a cooperative agreement with our colleagues within the Canadian Association of University Teachers with respect to policy matters affecting universities. Our CAUT colleagues, who already appeared before the committee have a perspective that is somewhat different from ours when it comes to the federal government's role in post-secondary education.

For instance, they are in favour of setting standards. Every time they make these representations, they intentionally exclude Quebec. They don't advocate this approach for Quebec.

.1035

They know that we advocate a different approach because Quebec society, with its culture and specificity that fail to be recognized by the federal government, could not adhere to this type of policy which would stipulate, for example, an accreditation system - in French we would call this a university accreditation system - which would apply from coast to coast, to all of the provinces, whereas in Quebec, there is a specific accreditation system, there is a law governing university institutions, there are mechanisms and bodies that develop and adopt university programs, etc.

I think that the federal government's appetite for standardization is growing with the budget reduction program that it has imposed on us. This only increases, only exacerbates, if you will, the contradiction between its appetite and the special needs of our society and our university network as such.

I don't think that you could find any more innovative or more creative development than that which has gone on in the Quebec university milieu over the past 30 years. I have read all of the documents dealing with Bill C-76 and I have read the interventions in the House of Commons. However, I do not know why Minister Martin tries to paint the innovative capabilities which will be given to the provinces as a result of these cutbacks as an opportunity for a brilliant future, when in fact we been have doing precisely that, namely innovating and creating, for the past 30 years.

In addition, a summit on education is currently underway for all of Quebec society. We are reviewing our standards and national values. We have no need for some type of general supervisor or central steward who will impose standards upon us defining what we want as a society, what we want as an education system.

Mr. Loubier: Mr. Denis, those who advocate establishing pan-Canadian standards have added a new element to their argument by saying that with globalization, with the internationalization of trade, we must ensure that our training or our abilities are recognized throughout the world and we must also, first and foremost, ensure that this training is recognized in all Canadian provinces, so that there can be mobility of our pan-Canadian human resources. This is the main argument that is used to justify setting pan-Canadian standards. What do you think about this argument?

Mr. Denis: I think that this argument is linked to the concept of the university being a big professional training school. However, university is not a school where one receives professional training. It is not a school offering various professional programs whose purpose is to train individuals by giving them diplomas and to ensure workforce mobility.

The university fulfills part of this job-market related mission, however, if its sole mission were to simply issue professional diplomas, it would be neglecting its role as a provider of basic training, basic research. We would therefore fail to recognize its specificity. The university must develop and convey knowledge, it must do research.

Read all of the documents pertaining to the subsidized organizations that are going to be hit by these budget reductions. I am referring to federally subsidized organizations and, of course, provincially subsidized organizations, particulary those of Quebec. Read all of their documentation; they all say the same thing. The current approach jeopardizes university development in both Canadian and Quebec societies. Everyone is saying the same thing.

.1040

However, when you talk about harmonizing criteria and diplomas in this particular context, it's like talking about car colour or options that we may want to define together without first of all taking care of the base, the foundation of the building. When has the sovereignty of States in Europe ever prevented these same States from setting European or international standards for the awarding of diplomas?

I have been a university professor for 25 years. My diploma, obtained in Europe, was assessed to determine its equivalency with the diplomas awarded here and in North America. This exists and will continue to exist in Canada regardless of how the political situations may unfold.

I do not see why we have to ensure that all of these mechanisms are listed in bureaucratic standards in order to be able to do things that we have already been doing adequately in accordance with the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces.

Mr. Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Denis. That is clear.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Loubier. Mr. Discepola please.

Mr. Discepola: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I didn't grasp your intervention. Are you or are you not in agreement with establishing one or more pan-Canadian standards?

Mr. Denis: No, not at all.

Mr. Discepola: Hence you find it quite normal that a young student from Quebec who is not yet finished his studies cannot go to another province or vice versa in order to finish his studies?

Mr. Loubier: That's false. That is...

Mr. Discepola: Did I interrupt you when you spoke, dear colleague?

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Discepola: Do you find that quite normal...?

The Chairman: Father Peterson wants a bit of order.

Mr. Discepola: You have already said that a graduate from Europe can go elsewhere and practice in his field. That is completely false. A graduate, a young engineer, for example, who has received his diploma in the United States or vice versa cannot automatically work in his field in Quebec or in Canada without taking an exam. The same thing applies to dentists or other doctors who must always pass an exam.

If there is not even at least one standard - and here I refer to student mobility - how can you suggest that the federal government should spend money without having any say at all? I find that unacceptable. We become tax collectors and then we hand out the money.

Secondly, could you explain why Canada spends more on education on a per capita basis than any of the other industrialized countries, and still does not obtain the necessary or required results according to the standards of other industrialized countries?

Do you think it makes sense that the students should have to pay scarcely 25% of their tuition? A couple of days ago or last week, a young woman who was completing her PD came and testified before this committee. She said that it was up to the federal government to ensure that she had the means to finish her doctoral studies.

My question is therefore who benefits from this diploma afterwards? Is it the State, and in what proportion, or is it the individual who can go and get a more high-paying job? In this particular case, is it fair that the student has to pay only 25% of the total bill and the rest has to be picked up by the government?

There are three or four issues that I've raised in my questions and comments.

Mr. Denis: I apologize, sir, I can't see your name very well.

Mr. Discepola: Nick.

Mr. Denis: When you say that the lack of standards prevents graduates from other countries, for instance, from coming to work here, take the example of dentists or a profession stipulating that if you have studied in such and such a country, you have to sit for exams again here.

.1045

I noticed that you only used the example of a professional. This is why I said that this concern was linked to the concept of a university as being a school of professional training in the field of, for instance, medecine. However, my dear sir, the university covers a much wider universe. In both Québec and Canadian universities, we are always hiring professors from other countries who come to work here because they have a PhD, whether it be in history, geography, physics or in mathematics.

Determining the equivalency of diplomas and assessing files is carried out without standards such as those that you have indicated in conjunction with professional associations. Standards, particularly academic standards, constitute international recognition of the value of diplomas. Hence, we don't have to have a graduate from Quebec University who has a PhD in physics; we don't need federal or pan-Canadian standards in order to be able to work in British Columbia. I have colleagues who do this.

Similarly, student mobility already exists without standards in this country, as it does in the United States, France, Germany or England. But I would agree with you that where professional associations have set foot in university, they have, in addition to university diploma, established associations' standards that require the students to sit an exam that in some ways completes the university training.

This is limited to a certain number of fields. We must take care to ensure that the university does not focus solely on the requirements of professional associations because if this were to happen, there would be no basic research and everyone in our field agrees with this. The future of a society such as ours lies in research and development, and here I'm not referring only to applied research for the immediate requirements of the market. This is the first part of my answer to you.

The Chairman: One moment, please. The bells will ring at approximately 11:15 a.m. There will be a vote on procedure. With your permission, we will continue to hear the witnesses. Most of us can ignore the vote. Thank you very much.

Excuse me, Mr. Denis.

Mr. Denis: You have asked me a question, and I think that it is without a doubt the most popular question in the House, if we rely on what the newspapers have to say. Why shouldn't the federal government have some say in the matter given that it is the one paying? In my opinion, the federal government's money cannot be likened to the money of a private company. These are public funds that come from its citizens' taxes.

Mr. Discepola: How can you reconcile your point of view with the fact that all of the groups representing society, the anti-poverty groups, the groups from the educational field, come here, day after day, and ask us to please, as the federal government, insist on standards.

Mr. Denis: I'm fairly convinced that this may reflect the needs of Canadian society with the exception of Quebec. I'm fairly convinced about this. I said this was so as far as our professor colleagues from Canadian universities were concerned. Moreover, we have just signed an agreement with them. I'm not trying to make a bad joke, but it's a real sovereignty-association or sovereignty-cooperation agreement. We are two distinct organizations; the Fédération québécoise des professeurs d'université is not affiliated with the Canadian Association, whereas the federations representing all of the other provinces are members of the Canadian Association. We are not affiliated with this association. However, we do have a cooperation protocol which works very well.

We have just renewed it. When our proposals and our interests coincide, we can take action together. In areas where our positions cannot coincide, such as our views on the federal government's role in postsecondardy education, we agree to disagree.

.1050

The CAUT does not speak on our behalf as far as postsecondary education is concerned because it advocates greater federal influence, presence and weight in postsecondary education. The FQPPQ does not speak on behalf of the CAUT. We feel that Quebec's constitutional prerogatives in the field of education must be fully respected, and this covers every level of education.

If the federal government is so anxious to foster postsecondary education in the country, then it should give the provinces the means to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities rather than play the role of some type of monitor or steward claiming to be responsible for defining standards, as though the provinces were to some extent unable or unqualified to do so in the field of education.

That is our point of view, sir. I know that you do not share the same point of view.

Mr. Discepola: No, I cannot share your point of view. As a Quebecker, I feel that you have a very set and very narrow-minded vision when you place it against the backdrop of globalization. Instead of embracing globalization and taking advantage of it, you still want to erect barriers around the Quebec people. I cannot accept that.

Could we go back to my second question? Every day, as a Member, I ask myself to what extent is the State responsible for providing primary, secondary and postsecondary education? Should we cover costs up to the Masters level? To the PHD level? Where does this responsibility end? Sometimes it is the individual who benefits and sometimes it is society. Could you tell us whether or not we should be providing postsecondary education and to what level? What percentage of the cost should the beneficiary be paying for these services?

Mr. Denis: Right now Quebec universities receive approximately 70% of their funding from public sources and we do not want this proportion to drop. We want it to stay the same. We feel that teaching or education at all levels is a societal choice. As I said in our statement, we do not want this societal choice to be left, as a result of the State abdicating its responsiblities on behalf of the public, to a series of individual reponsibilities that will mean that such and such a person...

That was the problem with the Axworthy Reform vis-à-vis continuous learning. Mainly, we will give opportunities to people who want to study and go back to school and we will give them opportunities to obtain bank loans. If you like, it's a way to make lemonade out of the very sour lemon of a policy based on State withdrawal. That's exactly what it does.

In Quebec, if you take a look at the progress achieved in the past 30 years, - I would like to talk about what occured in other provinces because it must be similar - you can't help noticing that the State got involved fully and completely. When you consider that the State created the University of Quebec network in 1969, and when you take a look at how these universities have developed in the cities, in Chicoutimi, in Rimouski, in Hull, in Abitibi, and when you see how strongly the people in these cities feel about their universities, you are forced to come to the conclusion that this is thanks to the investment and the presence of the State.

.1055

If, back in 1970, the Quebec government had said: ``Listen here, it's too expensive. We're going to let people borrow'', just imagine how accessible higher learning and universities would have been to people living in Abitibi, Hull, Chicoutimi or Rimouski. People would have left the regions in even greater numbers. That doesn't make sense. It is precisely because the State got involved that we have a chance to make progress. The State must remain. In my opinion, the government is defending a different philosophy, it is turning its back on public commitment and saying that education is a choice to be made by an individual. Am I making myself understood?

Mr. Discepola: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Discepola. Mr. Denis, you have told us very vehemently that the current system has served the province of Quebec very well and that you do not support the changes. You have been very clear about this. The debate will continue. Thank you very much.

Mr. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

The Chairman: We will now take a five-minute break.

.1056

.1100

.1102

The Chairman: Our next witnesses represent the Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

[English]

Tom Norton, president, and Bill Day, chair of the board of directors.

Gentlemen, thanks for being with us.

Sorry about the bells. They'll go for about another 15 minutes, but some people say that I'm always hearing bells, so it doesn't bother me.

Mr. Tom Norton (President, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Thank you very much, sir, for the invitation to speak to the committee today.

It's a bit unusual. This is a finance committee, yet when we have a look at the kinds of things being said here and the kinds of things I think you've been listening to the last few weeks, it's sometimes difficult to find the finance trace through it. But we'll -

The Chair: Sir, it's money.

Mr. Norton: We'll try not to plead our cause in that sense.

Our association represents 175 colleges that are called almost everything from community colleges to institutes of technology, CÉGEPs, right across Canada. There are 9 colleges that are not members, so we do not purport to represent everybody, but we do represent 175 in every province of the country.

Let me start my comments by reasserting two things, which, I think, we have made clear at this committee and at previous committees. We were one of the myriad of voices supporting a direct attack on the national debt. So at this point it is completely inappropriate for us to come back and complain in any way about what is happening in the reduction of funding. You can't have it both ways. So you will not hear that from us.

Mrs. Stewart: You have to comment on that.

The Chair: Thank you so much. You are the first witness who's said that to us.

Mr. Norton: The second thing we've asserted is that we believe there is a role at the national level in education for the national government. We believe that role must be exercised through the Council of Ministers of Education, because education, in its delivery, is a provincial responsibility.

So when we are speaking about education and the operation of education in Canada, our starting point always is that it is a provincial responsibility exercised through the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, which represents all the provinces and which all provinces are part of.

That said, clearly our position, as we speak to the finance committee, is that the age of entitlement is over. Those of us who are from institutions have lived for 30 years almost in a hot-house of support that has allowed us to grow and has allowed us to become among the strongest institutions in the world in our particular area. Consequently, an attitude of entitlement has grown where many institutions have felt that it is their right to receive endless support at an unspecified level by government. We accept that those days are over.

.1105

One consequence of all of this, of course, is that the national government is reducing its exposure in a number of programs. As that exposure is reduced - as the federal government regulates, controls and restricts its transfers to the provinces in areas that especially affect our membership - the national government should not be allowed to disengage from its responsibility in education and training. It should not be given the room to see this now as not an area of national accountability.

We are absolutely committed to a national regime of standards that are not national but international. There are no Ontario computers; there are no Singapori lathes; there are no Russian aircraft; there is only world technology. While we are discussing among ourselves the control of national standards in technology and training, there are times when we feel the rest of the world is laughing at us behind our backs as international standards are being struck and many other nations are cooperating in developing those standards.

As an example, we represent Canada in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, with most of the most dynamic Asian nations. Within that community, part of which met just yesterday in Toronto to look at standards of training in technology, the notion of there being anything but an international standard is one that makes them smile, because they simply have to work on that level. So we are committed to the development of that.

In our concern for the disengagement of the national government from higher education and training, we are especially concerned that the momentum that engages Canada in this pursuit of international standards will also be lost. We think that would be a disastrous thing for our competitiveness, and hence we are strongly supportive of our national government continuing to support the Council of Ministers of Education Canada and taking a leadership role in that for us to find standards from that transferability, not simply nationally but internationally.

To do otherwise, frankly, is to cheat our graduates of part of the education and accessibility they deserve.

We have prepared a presentation in which we have tried to outline some very key areas for ourselves and for a continuance of a national involvement. A central theme in that for us is the development of a national human resources development strategy.

In Canada, to have the key pillars of a soon-to-be-announced national science and technology strategy and certainly a national economic strategy, which encompasses NAFTA, APEC and other affiliations as well as internal discussions now in interprovincial trade, and not to have the key pillar of a human resources development strategy for our population makes no sense to us in the colleges at all.

Although we are from the colleges, please understand we do not see this as the exclusive territory of institutions. Institutions have a role to play, as do employers, labour unions and the national government, because it is the sole agency that can create a movement towards the development of a national strategy that will help us all be competitive.

Let me close my part by saying that as the national government correctly, from our standpoint, reduces its spending, and as a consequence of that, there is more consternation and difficulty in the provinces and in communities around the funding of higher education and training. We hope this will not be seen by the national government as an opportunity to disengage itself from its responsibility to provide leadership in cooperation with and support of CMEC in the development of national standards, on the one hand, which must be part of international standards, and on the other hand of a national human resources development strategy that will complement our science and technology strategy and our economic strategy to make a stronger Canada.

I'd now like to introduce Bill Day, the chairman of the board of directors of ACCC and the president of Douglas College in Vancouver, British Columbia.

.1110

Mr. Bill Day (Chairman, Board of Directors, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Mr. Chairman, I would like to lead from the position Mr. Norton has provided you, which is a global orientation of our sector of the education and training enterprise in Canada, and address certain more specific items perhaps derived from my own experience as the president of a working community college.

When referring to the term ``community college'', I would like to stress I'm referring to a group of institutions that could be called perhaps ``tertiary'', as opposed to ``higher education''. We do differentiate ourselves from the universities. We are institutions, all of which deal with two primary clientele. We will be addressing the different needs of these clienteles to you.

Our colleges, CÉGEPs and institutes all deal with a group of younger students, by and large people who have graduated from secondary schools, who are attending full-time and who are looking for either eventual transfer to a university or to the workforce via technical and vocational training programs of a wide variety. These students are full-time, and by and large are governed by the same kinds of needs and issues you've heard about from the universities.

The needs of these students are not different in quality from those of university, except for the fact that, broadly speaking, the students we work with are people drawn from less affluent homes than those who normally transfer immediately to universities. In other words, we are dealing with a segment of the population that is measurably less affluent.

This is not a matter for debate. Statistics Canada provides that in very clear forms. I'm not suggesting we deal with poverty-stricken students, but on average there is a measurably lower level of familial income.

Secondly, we deal with a huge number of Canadians who are not immediate graduates of secondary schools, people in the workforce or in transition within the workforce. These Canadians are older. Many of them are married, many of them are single parents. They are people engaged in a variety of part-time training programs or full-time training programs, but as part of labour force shifts: the young mother who has been laid off and is attempting to retrain to find work in a different sector; the person returning to school from having worked for seven or eight years at a McDonald's and who has realized the only way out of a dead end is training.

One simple statistic will help. The average age of our students across the country is 26 years. We're dealing with a markedly mature population.

The point we would like to make is simply this. With the structural changes in funding which have now been accomplished - and, as Mr. Norton has said, we are not protesting, because we, like all other Canadians, want a balanced budget and a healthy economy - costs for these students will be rising enormously. There is no question student fees will be rising very steeply over the next few years regardless of the efforts of our provincial governments to ameliorate the impacts. These needs will be felt both by the young student attending full time and by the older student attending full time or part time. The stereotype of the part-time student being somebody who's working and who therefore can pay the full cost of their education simply will not bear examination.

Education and training are very expensive. It is clearly impossible for a part-time student, even an employed part-time student, in fact to pay the full cost of their education and training. Therefore there's going to be a dramatic increase in the need for student assistance in one form or another.

.1115

This is not to criticize the existing Canada student loans system and the various provincial systems, all of which support students. Our point is these need vast elaboration, and there must be very, very serious attention paid to the matter of loans and grants - and I specify grants, in order to ensure that education and training are in fact accessible - not in terms of entitlement, as Mr. Norton has said, or in other words, just because I exist, you must give me money...but there must be systems available for people, old or young, who are seriously interested in investing, full time or part time, in their education and training.

Our present systems will be utterly inadequate to handle the flood of need that will occur as tuition fees double and re-double over the next few years. We suggest that indirect forms of support can be powerfully helpful, especially for part-time learners and people in transition within the economy - moving from job to job or moving from lay-off back into the economy - in the form of tax credits.

This is a finance committee, and we have endeavoured in our presentation to move to the topic of money in a very direct sense. We urge that education and tuition fee tax credits for self-funded retraining programs, which need a national standard - in other words, there must be quality control - be re-examined and strengthened in the light of the increasing costs of retraining programs because of the reduction of direct and indirect support. We believe, then, tax credits deserve very, very careful examination.

The Chair: Refundable tax credits.

Mr. Day: Yes.

It is recommended, however, in that light, if we are talking of serious support in the form of tax credits, that training programs eligible for these, whether they are public or private, meet some form of objective standards. That is the logic that forces us to suggest that national standards or, as Mr. Norton has said, international standards be respected. We are not arguing here for public institutions; we are arguing for quality of education and training, public or private, and that includes universities as well as colleges, institutes, and CÉGEPs.

We also believe labour and business and industry are going to be increasingly involved and virtually forced into partnership with public and private institutions because of the reduction in public support. Businesses can no longer attempt to externalize their costs by asking the public to pay for the training.

At the same time businesses that are themselves struggling for survival need the incentive to do this, and we therefore urge that the federal government study the possibility of establishing a corporate tax liability for training, which would be offset by the provision of base levels of employee training that meet national standards.

Again, if we are going to implement a series of rewards, punishments, and incentives for training in business and industry, we believe the matter of standards must be addressed. I might add that we believe our colleagues in Quebec are leading the way in this regard. We believe this general strategy should be nationwide.

That is a summary of our position, Mr. Chairman. We have endeavoured to stress the fiscal machinery that would undergird a system of responsive opportunities available to adult learners in the context of a significant reduction in the level of support to public systems.

We include in our statements the private sector. Again, we are not trying to do special pleading for public institutions. Obviously, we are not going to go away. Obviously, we are the linchpin of our national training system. We do more of it than anyone else. But just as obviously our policies must include a recognition of the very significant role to be played by private institutions, by business, by industry, and by labour.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

.1120

[Translation]

Any question, Mr. Loubier? They complimented Quebec on its achievements so far.

Mr. Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe - Bagot): Although I consider that the government of Quebec acted wisely in setting aside 1% of the total pay roll for training, some of the private businesses have criticized this decision, despite the fact that Quebec, like Canada, trails behind in the area of training.

You mentioned in your presentation that we are down among the bottom industrialized countries as far as workforce training is concerned. There is a lot of resistance, even if we manage to prove that training is essential to the growth - and even to the survival - of businesses operating in an environment that's more and more global. There is still a lot of reluctance on the part of big business. It's special. Small businesses are less reluctant than big businesses. Normally, it should be the contrary on the part of leaders.

As a matter of fact, I would like to ask you a question on that topic. You recommend ``that the federal government study the possibility of establishing a corporate tax liability for training, which would be offset by the provision of base levels of employee training that meet national standards''. Can you explain how the federal government could devise such a tax provision as an incentive to training?

[English]

Mr. Day: Mr. Chair, Mr. Norton has emphasized that addressing this matter on a national level would have to be done with complete sensitivity to the rights and responsibilities under our constitution of our provinces. We see the Council of Ministers of Education as the agency through which these discussions would occur, with the federal government sitting down as an equal partner in this discussion. The assumption simply is it is to our collective benefit to have this kind of discussion.

There are a number of models in place - and I would include France as perhaps being the leading model; it was developed in the 1970s - of such a corporate tax incentive or punishment as an example. There are a number of western European models which could be flagged, Denmark and Sweden being two of the outstanding ones, and a modified version from Holland.

However, I would suggest that our circumstances in North America and in Canada are different enough, and this itself is the challenge we are recommending be addressed. It would be foolish for me to essay the outlines of the very complex and sophisticated set of political and fiscal machinery. That is the challenge. I would urge, and our organization is urging, that we should sit down and devise such a system.

I think the matter of individual corporate positioning on this can be thought of in two ways. One is it is clearly to the benefit of any enterprise if it can offload any expenses on the general public. Businesses are, after all, operating in self-interest. Therefore it should not be surprising that individual businesses might take the position that they do not like a tax system. However, collectively there is no disagreement in the business community that there must be more training.

Mr. Norton: One mechanism that might be explored immediately is the use of the sectoral councils, which have been established in Canada under the Department of Human Resources Development, to explore training standards, training mechanisms and training financing throughout a sector of industry.

In most cases the large industries are represented on those sectoral councils, as are the large unions, but there's been some success in the last several years with industry and labour cooperating in the development of different training models. I think that mechanism could be explored to start looking at the financing and funding of that which, I think, we'll find is more than simply a corporate responsibility but also a union responsibility. The sectoral councils might be a very useful mechanism to explore that through.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier: Mr. Norton and Mr. Day, you were here, a moment ago, when Mr. Roch Denis was heard by the committee. He said that there was an agreement between the Fédération québécoise des professeurs d'université and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the matching organization at the national level - sovereignty-cooperation, or sovereignty-association, if you will.

.1625

This agreement stipulates roughly that when the CAUT argues for the establishment of national postsecondary education standards, it doesn't speak for Quebec. When Quebec speaks, it speaks for itself. Not through the CAUT. So, the CAUT supports national standards applying everywhere in Canada except in Quebec. Is there something equivalent to this agreement of sovereignty-cooperation or sovereignty-association with your Quebec membership? If not, would you consider suoch an agreement?

[English]

Mr. Norton: We're a membership-driven organization and of course we're prepared to come up with any kinds of agreements our membership direct us to. At the moment the vast majority of Quebec CÉGEPs are members, so when ACCC speaks, it speaks on behalf of its member institutions.

In five provinces, institutions also have their own provincial organizations that speak for them from that standpoint. That is true in Quebec. The Fédération des CÉGEPs du Québec speaks with one voice for those colleges, as does our association in Ontario, Alberta and others.

That said, when we are speaking here, it is on behalf of the 175 institutions, which would represent about 26 of the CÉGEPs in Quebec. Our positions are shared with the Fédération des CÉGEPs, who have had our paper now for a period of time.

We invite the provinces to contribute and to make a point of saying, this does not represent our position, if they choose. In this case two of the five provincial organizations responded and we adjusted our presentation that way.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier: Are you telling me, Mr. Norton, that the Fédération des CÉGEPs du Québec supports a position which favours the establishment of Canada-wide standards in the area of education? Is that it?

[English]

Mr. Norton: No. I hope I've been very careful there.

If the Fédération des CÉGEPs du Québec, the same as the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario and other organizations, has a position unique to their province, they will make that themselves. What I'm saying is the position we have made here represents the membership of our association, is reflected through our board of directors, and is a position that a number of CÉGEPs have seen and have had a chance to respond to.

I do not claim in any way to represent the specific provincial views of any of those provinces that have their own organizations, just of the member institutions of our association.

Mr. Day: Mr. Chair, if I could elaborate a bit on the point Mr. Norton made, with regard to the Axworthy papers that were in circulation earlier in the year, we addressed them as an ACCC. The ACCC as a collective adopted a certain position on elements of the Axworthy proposals - income contingent repayment of fees, for example.

In that case the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia, which is our provincial organization, took a position that was significantly different from the ACCC's. I am personally a member, of course, of both organizations. We agreed to disagree. At the national level a consensus emerged, through a lot of vigorous debate at the board, which was different from the provincial association's.

We respect and celebrate those differences. They are acted out in front of you.

The Chair: A bit of schizophrenia is understandable and perhaps healthy in a diverse country.

Mr. Day: It's very Canadian.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

Mrs. Stewart, did you have a question?

Mrs. Stewart: Did you receive a response from any of your member CÉGEPs that was contrary to your position here?

Mr. Norton: We did not, although let me be clear again. It went to the Fédération des CÉGEPs, the provincial group. I would not want the absence of their response to in any way suggest that the Fédération endorses this position, but they did have a chance to respond and comment.

.1130

Certainly the CÉGEPs that are part of our membership - the majority of CÉGEPs - have had infinite chances to get at us in both forming it and criticizing us afterwards.

Mrs. Stewart: But you heard from none of them either positively or negatively.

Mr. Norton: No, not at all.

Mrs. Stewart: How many of them are there?

Mr. Norton: There are 46 CÉGEPs in Quebec. We have different forms of membership, full and provisional. Of those 46, 26 are full members, and I think another 7 or 8 are provisional members. That means they will become full members.

Mrs. Stewart: Are those 26 essentially representative of all areas of Quebec?

Mr. Norton: Yes.

Mrs. Stewart: Are the nine colleges that are not members located in any particular area?

Mr. Norton: No, they are not. One or two are in Montreal, one or two are in Quebec City, a couple in the Gaspésie, and one up in the Lac Saint-Jean region.

Mrs. Stewart: Those are the nine you made reference to earlier, the ones that are not members of your organization.

Mr. Norton: Yes.

Mrs. Stewart: They're all from Quebec. Is that what you're telling me?

Mr. Norton: Yes, that's true. Every other college in Canada is now a member.

Mr. Day: Every other public college.

Mr. Norton: I would also say we had three new members join from Quebec last year, which was nice.

Mrs. Stewart: Okay.

The notion of the human resources development strategy is extremely appealing to me. It's certainly one I have a lot of time for. You're suggesting that this strategy needs to be a national strategy, that our ability essentially to minimize the time to effect the new labour force we're trying to create would be affected if we had a strategy of tax measures, including individual tax credits and corporate tax liability frameworks.

Following on the presentation we had from the National Anti-Poverty Organization, I agree, as they suggest, that our biggest challenge right now is to try to determine and understand and minimize the time to the new labour force, to the new economy. You guys play a significant role in that. As you have assessed what will work to get Canadians prepared and to support industry as they move, themselves, into the new strategy, such a human resources development strategy makes sense. It needs to be national in character and it needs to be supported by not just separate and satellite grants and loans but also by tax expenditure strategies.

Mr. Norton: From our standpoint, I don't want to diminish any of what you said, but many of the key factors in the national human resources development strategy are not financial. From the financial standpoint, however, we have 1.5 million working Canadians as part-time students in our colleges. We want to make sure we're reaching down into that wage-earning group; they are ``learning a living'' with their own resources before they become unemployed.

How do we conspire to encourage working Canadians to learn the next level they have to move to while they're still employed? That's what we're trying to do. If we don't do it then, we're going to do it later at probably a great deal more expense; or see, frankly, the development of social disenchantment, which is unpleasant.

So we think this combination of notions around encouraging corporations on the one hand and rewarding success in learning among working Canadians on the other hand is where we're going to find some answers in this, to wean Canadian corporations off the notion that they can externalize the costs of training; that the government will do it. I think that process is happening now. I think a little more encouragement and ten years from now our successors will say, by gosh, we can remember a time when...; but it will be past.

Mrs. Stewart: Specifically on the corporate tax, do you think corporations will just drop the people who don't have the skills they want and go and hire the ones who do, so they have a corporate mix that satisfies the liability?

Mr. Norton: I don't believe that will happen, but I would respect your judgment of the corporate world much more than mine. I don't believe that will happen.

Our experience in working with corporations - just my own in the last quarter-century - is that there really has been a change in attitudes. All of us are in this scramble now to keep up with the changing technology.

.1135

That's moved from the back-burner issue of the 1960s into a driving force in industry today. The workforce is learning it is that or they're going to fall off the economic truck.

People are prepared to talk much more about this cooperatively than they ever have before. That's happening at the exact moment the federal government seems to be losing some of its - I wouldn't say interest; that's unfair - traditional mechanisms it had to move ahead as a national presence. That's really our concern.

Mr. Day: If I could supplement Tom's comments, the notion of the corporation dumping one labour force and hiring another doesn't represent actual life inside organizations. They simply can't do that. There are many structural impediments, not the least of which are unions. When we're talking big business, big business is normally big unions, too.

We've stressed repeatedly we do not see these activities as exclusive of union involvement; quite the reverse. In every sense we see a strong investment in this. We see successful collaboration in the economy around us now.

I would like to remind the committee of the more subtle impacts of a reduction in transfer payments. At the institutional level, colleges, CÉGEPs and institutes have been enormously successful in taking a base level of public funding and leveraging that into an array of services for part-time learners: full time and part time, days, nights, weekends, year-round.

The reason that has been delivered to the part-time learner quite economically is that the base funding has been adequate. Thus a class, for example, paid for largely by CEIC, can also accommodate five or six part-time learners, who are coming in under their own steam. The fees to those people are marginal costs.

A general reduction is occurring now in transfer payments. This will lower the amounts of institutional funding and create a lot of stress on institutions in terms of services to their part-time students. These costs are going to go up even more than the costs for full-time students, because it is more costly on an hourly basis to teach a part-timer than a full-timer. Thus we are emphasizing the issue of the part-time working learner, if you like, as an issue to be dealt with. We are talking about the indirect supports and incentives that will keep these people in play, encouraged to invest in their own future.

Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): Two quick questions. Near the outset of your comments, Mr. Norton, you mentioned the college sector has stopped looking to governments for an endless supply of dollars, and - maybe I'm putting words in your mouth - it's time to be more resourceful. I'm sure you have been trying to do that.

Can you tell me what percentage of community colleges' revenues might typically be non-government, for example services provided to the private sector? Is that a growing trend?

Mr. Norton: The figure varies tremendously. Institutions in large urban settings have a much greater capacity to earn money than institutions in Yellowknife or Whitehorse or parts of Labrador.

But that said, we do have institutions in Canada that received 85% of their funding in the form of grants from government 25 years ago and that are now receiving 55% or 58% of those grants. The rest is earned income.

Let me be absolutely forthright. Some of that earned income is selling training courses to industry, which is using federal money to pay for the training. But from the colleges' standpoint, they are moving as part of the trend from education as a supply issue into a education based on demand. That is what is being asked for by industry, what is being asked for by the economy and what is being asked for by society. That's been the basic transition, and it's going faster and faster and faster.

.1140

For instance, we have colleges now that earn up to 15% of their operating revenue through selling themselves internationally; through selling their competency in other countries. Just through our association we work in 64 countries, but many colleges work in places where they don't work through us internationally.

So to wrap up the response, I could see a time within my working lifetime when the majority of urban colleges, where the greatest opportunity exists, will be looking to government in the direct funding way for 40% to 45% in the form of grant and will be earning the rest on their own terms by selling their competence nationally and internationally.

Mr. St. Denis: Excellent.

The Chair: Is there a chance for a second -

Mr. St. Denis: Another thing you said which really impressed me was you referred to international standards. We've asked many of our witnesses to talk to us a bit about national standards in education and you're the first one, to my recollection, to mention that there is international pressure -

Mr. Day: Absolutely.

Mr. St. Denis: - on standards. In fact, it might be a better argument for national standards than anything else we have, that it's a way for us to keep up with the world.

We hear the argument over and over again that as the federal government, to any degree, gets out of funding for post-secondary education by giving up cash transfers, in fact it's losing its leverage in the area of the potential creation of national standards. I hear so many witnesses say it's important that I'm wondering if it's federal leadership that's more important than federal cash.

Mr. Norton: Let me just speak to the leadership part. I think federal leadership is fundamental in this because where else will the perspective come from to develop the international standards? Let me give you an example.

The federal government is linked into APEC. We are linked into Asia-Pacific economic cooperation through the federal government. It is in that forum that we're getting the pressures around ``What are your standards?'' Here are the standards of Singapore Polytechnic. Can your students move in here? Can our students move there?

The federal government is a mechanism through which our association is part of the higher education community in NAFTA. The issue there is, if I am a company, if I'm General Motors, I need to have the same standards for my technicians in Monterrey as I do in Detroit or in Oshawa. In that case the issue is not the theoretical issue of international standards, it is the real issue of delivering a consistent training presence across a corporate range.

So the pressure is not just the theoretical pressure of, oh, isn't it nice to talk about the international thing. It's a very real pressure of multinational corporations.

Northern Telecom has moved well beyond just national standards in Canada, where our institutions...whether they're in Longueuil or in Calgary, Northern Telecom want the same product. They want the same level of technician coming out and they're not interested in other kinds of differences you and I might discuss politically. They're interested in the product at the end. Northern Telecom, with a large training and manufacturing presence in Mexico, in China, and in India, want the same standard, because the quality of the product has to be the same.

I'm sorry. I've gone on at too great length. But it is not the theory of internationalism that I'm talking about. It's the absolute practicality of Canadian corporations trying to compete in a world market.

Mr. St. Denis: I appreciate you raising it. Thank you very much.

Mr. Fewchuk: About your project, we are in the leading few right now, in my riding, of putting a quote together with industry, the local municipality and business. The public school has agreed, the funding is there.

You're familiar with C-STEC, are you?

Mr. Norton: C-STEC?

Mr. Fewchuk: Yes, we're taking that and spreading it out to a longer arm. We take people from welfare or the people who have left school and we'll train them for the kind of job the companies want. The companies have agreed to hire them in 20 weeks' time and they will have a place to go.

They had a question. As you say, the learning academies and all that were not doing the job in my community, they said, because here we are, we send them for six or ten weeks, and then they have no place to go.

.1145

As they said, the funding is there; it's just not being used properly. If it's locked in behind this whole package, it might become a model for Canada.

Mr. Norton: I believe there's a real future for those community training networks. There are a couple of key things we're concerned about.

One of the great illusions - and we're afraid it will become a fraud that's being perpetrated often on Canadians - is that training is an alternative to a job or training is a job. Each time there's a severe economic dislocation, the response is, well, let's retrain everyone. But that doesn't create -

Mr. Fewchuk: No, but look -

Mr. Norton: - work at the -

Mr. Fewchuk: - before they get training there they have to be educated.

Mr. Norton: Yes.

Mr. Fewchuk: This group is doing that. They'll upgrade them, bring them to that level, and also take it to the other level, where they finally end up with a job. You see, with the learning...[Inaudible - Transeditor] he doesn't do that. You can take your computer, walk out in six weeks, and that's it. Thank you and goodbye.

Mr. Norton: Those integrated projects you're talking about are the future. They're tied down -

Mr. Fewchuk: Right.

Mr. Norton: - at both ends.

They represent a true transition, not a creation of hope among people -

Mr. Fewchuk: That's right.

Mr. Norton: - that, boy, I'm now trained as an electronics technologist, but unhappily I'm living in a community where there are no opportunities for that kind of thing.

I think we really have to look at that.

Mr. Fewchuk: Right on.

Mr. Norton: But I think what you're doing in that kind of creative project is outstanding, because it ties down both ends and leads to real outcomes.

Mr. Fewchuk: Yes. There's a little more to this package, but it's not at the top of my head.

The Chair: You know, a lot of witnesses come before us, and to me your presentation this morning is extremely memorable. The way you have said these disputes between federal and provincial jurisdictions.... Hell, we should be thinking internationally and working together to achieve these international standards. Your plea for a national human resources development strategy to complement our national economic strategy, our national science and technology strategies, all of these with a global orientation, is a message I just think can't be said enough. We need you before us more often in this debate.

About your proposal for tax credits for students, I invite you to appear before us in the fall, when we go into our pre-budget consultations, simply to deal with that particular issue.

From my own experience I know the tremendous role you are playing in retraining and giving people who don't have jobs the tools to find them. It's working in a very constructive way in my area.

I can't criticize what you said. I support and encourage you to take your message further, because it's a message that is so important. To me your presentation has just been right on and very memorable. On behalf of everybody, I want to thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): We're continuing our hearings on Bill C-76. As our next witnesses we welcome the Canadian Association for Community Living.

Would your spokesperson introduce herself and the others in turn at the table. Please proceed.

[Translation]

Mrs. Paulette Berthiaume (president, Canadian Association for Community Living): Good morning. My name is Paulette Berthiaume and I am president of the Canadian Association for Community Living. I would like to introduce to you Ms Diane Richler, executive vice-president, and Ms Patty O'Donnell, board member and chair of the Self-Advocate Advisory Committee.

I don't believe any further introduction are necessary, given that Committee members are quite familiar with our Association.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Yes, very familiar.

Mrs. Berthiaume: You have the description on page 1.

.1150

We have come here this morning because of our concerns as a national association and a association with volunteers all across the country.

We are worried by the transfers that will be taking place in each and every province. We are worried that people will be forgotten, that our sons and daughters who have a mental impairment will be forgotten - in other words, the money that will be handed over could be used for health services and social services and just easily for road building and education.

For decades now, as an association, we have been sharing our experiences throughtout the country. We know what happens all across Canada to persons who are mentally handicapped. Often, the picture we have is not very rosy. Within our Association, as parents, as professionals and as self-advocates, we work very closely with one another and other players across Canada. Our fear is that the money won't go directly to the people who need it. We are already having trouble making ourselves heard and those we represent are having even more difficulty.

In Ontario, you have the Eaton case - in the area of education - that we won before the Supreme Court. This week, a decision was rendered in Quebec concering the Centre d'accueil Pavillon St-Théophile Inc. These are abuses that those we represent are victims of all over Canada.

We wonder how the federal government can make automatic transfers and if there will be guidelines directing this money to the most vulnerable among us, namely the handicapped and the elderly.

I would like to come back now to the case of the Centre d'accueil Pavillon St-Théophile Inc. It is a parent who launched the battle about eight years ago. Associations across Canada helped this parent, along with lawyers who have yet to be paid. Our sons and daughters are always the ones having to fight for services, for an education, for work. Still today, in 1995, they are not full-fledged citizens. It is this failure that frightens us. We wonder how the federal government will go about transfering this money without there being any guidelines. I believe it amounts to pushing the door wide open.

I will now give the floor to Ms Diane Richler and Ms O'Donnell, and I will say a few more words to you later.

[English]

Ms Diane Richler (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Association for Community Living): Patty would like to speak next, but she's asked if we could do a bit of an interview, as we did the last time we appeared before your committee.

Patty, could you just explain the nature of the committee you chair for our board of directors?

Ms Patty O'Donnell (Board Member and Chair of the Self-Advocate Advisory Committee, Canadian Association for Community Living): The committee I chair is called the Self-Advocate Advisory Committee. It is made up of people who have all kinds of different disabilities and people who live in various places. A few who used to live in institutions don't live there now. People live in group homes, homes with support and families.

Ms Richler: Your committee spent quite a bit of time talking about the social security review and the things that are important to you. Can you talk a little about what people were saying?

Ms O'Donnell: People were saying it's really important that.... They do want to work, but if they do work, they'll lose the benefits they get. Some of them get help, so they'll lose that if they go to work. Also, they may lose where they live. They may lose the support they get.

Ms Richler: Can you talk a little about those supports?

.1155

Ms O'Donnell: Those supports include helping people with their banking and grocery shopping, helping them to clean their apartments, and helping them to go to school or look for jobs.

Ms Richler: So you're saying that people are afraid that if they take a job they'll lose some of their extra health benefits and some of those other supports that help them to live in the community.

Ms O'Donnell: Yes.

Ms Richler: The reason for that is you have to be eligible for welfare to qualify for those supports. Is that right?

Ms O'Donnell: Yes. You have to be eligible for welfare, for long-term care, to get the pension. If you're not eligible for that, you don't get it.

If they see that you're working, they say that person is capable of working so we don't need to give them any help.

Ms Richler: Are you willing to talk a little about your personal situation? Are you working now?

Ms O'Donnell: No, I am not working now. I wish I were. Like other self-advocates, I would like to work, but if I take work I will lose my benefits. I'm in a home now that I consider my home, and I have support people. If I get work, I am afraid I'll lose that.

Ms Richler: Can you talk a little about the kind of support you get now?

Ms O'Donnell: I unfortunately have two disabilities, so the support I get.... I have a person coming into my home, helping me to make sure it's clean and things are getting done. I also have a person helping me to prepare meals so I can eat healthily. That person also helps me with my monthly budgeting. That's because there are some things we want and if we just go out and get what we want, without having the money for them, we have to sacrifice something.

Ms Richler: How does that person help you plan?

The Chair: I know that problem very well. I'm very sympathetic to it.

Ms Richler: How does that person help you plan?

Ms O'Donnell: For example, if we are preparing a meal, we sit down and go through what kinds of foods I like, and because I live on a monthly income, how to bargain-shop, how to go and look for the healthy food but how to buy it so that it doesn't cost so much.

Ms Richler: You said you aren't working. What are you doing?

Ms O'Donnell: I am going to school. I am in a CASP. In that program I am taking reading, writing, math - which makes me better in my budgeting - and computer. One of my main goals is to get a job in which I can work with computers.

Ms Richler: Thank you very much.

We wanted to have her talk a little about her issues, because the issues she's dealing with and the issues other members of our self-advocacy advisory committee and board are dealing with are what social services means to us.

.1200

The support people are getting now to help them live in the community has, over the last number of years, been cost-shared by the federal and provincial government. We knew when Mr. Axworthy announced his social security review last year there would be major changes in the offing. We were one of the voices calling for radical reform. I'm not sure the current budget's radical reform is exactly what we had in mind, but there are elements of it that are consistent or that could be consistent with is, and what I'd like to do is to summarize the recommendations we have before you today.

First of all, key to us is a concern that with the changes that are being made with the creation of the Canadian health and social transfer and the Human Resources Investment Fund, these new funding programs should both be based on a a consistent underlying vision and social policy framework. We recognize that this committee is primarily concerned with the health and social transfer and that Mr. Axworthy's department and the Human Resources Committee will be looking in more detail at the Human Resources Investment Fund. We're very concerned that those two processes not be carried out along separate streams and that they're based on similar principles. In order to do that, we hope there will be broad consultation on the implementation of both of those new programs and community organizations as well as provincial governments will be brought into the discussion, so consensus can be built throughout the process.

We're also concerned, as Madam Berthiaume mentioned, that it will be much more difficult in the new structure to follow the dollars that are earmarked for social services. The budget suggests that the federal government is still going to be playing a role in funding social services by including the funds for those services within the health and social transfer.

We're concerned that when there is a block fund for health, post-secondary education and social services, that public pressures and other strong lobbies, particularly in the area of health, will put undue pressure on that block of funds and it will be very difficult for the public at large to see any real allocation of dollars to social services.

What we're recommending is that the federal government implement a public social audit of the transfer funds so you are able to tell, as a government, whether in fact the Canadian health and social transfer becomes only a health transfer or if in fact the provincial governments are using some of that for social services, or whether in fact they're taking money that's been allocated for health, post-secondary education and social services and using it to build roads or something else. We're concerned that there needs to be some public mechanism for keeping track of how those dollars are spent and at least being aware. Let the public judge whether the provinces are making good decisions on how that money is being spent.

Certainly traditionally over the last number of years it's been much more difficult for us to track dollars that were being spent through Established Programs Financing, which was a block fund, compared with those that were funded through cost-sharing programs. We're looking for another mechanism, so we will know what kind of investment is being made in social services.

We're also concerned - and this is probably a recommendation more for the future than it is for you at this point - but we're concerned that the cash transfer to the provinces not go to zero or not go to such a small amount that it becomes so insignificant to the provinces that they lose any reason for talking to the federal government. We're concerned that they talk to the federal government not only because we think the federal government has some magical solutions to offer but because we think the mechanism of bringing all the provincial and federal ministers to one table and having people talk about common issues is a benefit to Canadians across the country.

.1205

We think unless there's enough cash on the table to make that meaningful to the provinces, there won't be reason for those meetings to happen.

Our last two recommendations relate mostly to the Human Resources Investment Fund, but we do ask you to think about the implications of that fund, and because the fund was created through the budget, to make some recommendations on it.

Again on our first recommendation, the first is that the fund be used in a way that will reinforce some national vision, principles and objectives and that this committee continue to play a role in urging that kind of national vision to exist.

Finally, we are asking that this committee encourage the Minister of Human Resources Development to commit a specific amount of money - we're recommending $200 million - under the Human Resources Investment Fund to promote the social and economic inclusion of people who have a disability. We're suggesting that be done in three ways, which are first listed on page 7 of our report.

First of all, the federal government could use some of that money to assist provincial governments to move towards a certain vision. That's exactly what the federal government did when medicare was first established by making a fund available for the building of hospitals and the creation of health infrastructure. It's exactly what this government did in creating the strategic initiatives programs that were announced in the previous budget. We're recommending that a similar role continue to be played specifically in the area of disability, so that the federal government will have a leadership role in that area.

We're also recommending that the federal government play a strong role in funding social policy research to promote the inclusion of people with a disability.

Finally, we're encouraging the federal government to use some of those funds for community development activities to enable the voluntary sector to participate in the development of new systems that are responsive to the needs of peole who are vulnerable and that support their economic and social participation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you very much, Ms Richler.

[Translation]

Is your interpretation receiver working? Can you hear the interpretation?

We shall begin with Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms O'Donnell, Ms Richler andMs Berthiaume to the Standing Committee on Finance.

First of all, I want to congratulate you on your excellent and very explicit presentation, which included the personal example of Ms O'Donnell's experience; the whole presentation was very educational. I would like to know how things are going today.

How can we make sure at this time that sufficient funds are being allocated to persons with intellectual disabilities and that part of the money will also go to facilitating the integration of those persons into the labour market? How can you make sure of that, today?

Ms Richler: In last year's budget, Mr. Martin announced a project to be lauched in Prince Edward Island in cooperation with our Association, a project to determine how the funds that are currently available in each province should be reallocated.

According to the research we have done up to now, if we could change the current system for the purpose of better supporting each person as an individual - that is, with a view to helping persons living with a disability join the labour market - we could stop the system from wasting money. We are not here to defend the existing system, not at all.

.1210

We think too much money is being spent in services at this time, which prevents people from participating fully. If we could do more than is being done through the IRAP at this time, that is to say, allow people to stay in the community and receive some support - perhaps one hour a day, five hours a week - that would change things and help people to work, with the approval and suport of the labour market; in this way, we could avoid wasting money.

We are confident that we could derive benefits from spending the money we have in a more intelligent fashion. People support us on that just about everywhere. The problem is that we don't have practical experience with such a system and that is what we are doing currently in Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Loubier: That is a pilot project in Prince Edward Island?

Ms Richler: Yes.

Mr. Loubier: And what is included? Were specific funds allocated to helping people rejoin the labour market? Was a range of services offered and what sums were earmarked for that pilot project?

Ms Richler: For the moment, in Prince Edward Island, the funds allocated by Mr. Martin and Mr. Axworthy are set at five million dollars over five years for research and planning. The funds allocated to services and individuals come from the funds that are already in the system.

That is the money we have some leeway with, as it turned out this year, when the provincial government reduced the provincial allotment. So we are trying to use the funds that are already in the system, see how we could reallocate them and put much more emphasis on providing funds directly to the individual to purchase services, to be determined by him or her, while we would continue to invest certain amounts in the range of services in the community.

Mr Loubier: With your permission, Mr. Chairman. Have you considered using pre-determined envelopes for specific cases: reintegrating persons with intellectual disabilities into the labour force, as well as envelopes that would be pre-determined and distributed directly to community organizations with much greater practical field experience than that of public servants in Ottawa?

Have you considered that possibility, an approach which might be more promising and perhaps less difficult at the political level than the establishment of pan-Canadian standards?

Ms Richler: To a certain extent, that is the thrust of the Prince Edward Island project. We are trying to determine the amount at this time, because it is very difficult to determine how much money is spent for each person, since the money is not given to the person directly. A little money is allocated here, a little there. It's very difficult to see what amount would be necessary if we were to change the system and provide the funds to the individual directly.

So we are trying to determine those amounts, the range of amounts per individual, according to the disability, in order to give ourselves a well-organized system, one that would not give $2,000 to an individual in one community and $100,000 to someone else in another community.

How can we set up such a system, without overly broad discretionary powers? I think Mrs. Berthiaume could perhaps describe her son's situation; he is experiencing something similar.

.1215

Mrs. Berthiaume: I'm not sure, but I think that some members around the table know that my son has left the Rivière-des-Prairies Hospital, where he spent 32 years. He is now 40 years of age. For years, my son cost the goverment of Canada, and all Canadians, over $80,000 per year. He never took any medication. He was in a psychiatric hospital. He would attend workshops for two hours each morning and spend the rest of the day walking around the hospital, or go and swim in the hospital pool once or twice a week. He came home during weekends.

My son has left the hospital since April the 1st and we had to fight to get him out of there. We wanted 91 patients to leave the hospital. We began with my son Louis and there are 90 more who should follow.

At this time, $52,500 has been allocated for my son Louis, because he needs to be monitored 24 hours a day. We manage with that money, and by we, I mean a group of parents, a few professionals who have the same values we have and the same objective, i.e. to use less costly personnel and bring about a better quality of life. I think his care now costs less than that.

My son is in his residence since mid-January. We are following the whole situation very closely. We have a board of directors made up of six people. We look at everything. It's an experiment; a lot of parents are watching us and want to do the same thing.

My son needs to be monitored 24 hours a day, but there are other people we know who would only need supervision a few hours a week. In Saint-Théophile, for instance, there are 88 adults from 20 to 70 years of age and most of them are in supervised appartments. Some are married and some work; all of that after spending more than ten years in an institution.

Thus, the money goes back into the system. I'll go back to my son's case, but there are others. Louis may need 24 hour supervision, but if we can find him an occupation, once we have determined his needs, his care will cost even less because he will no longer need supervision during the day. He needs supervision because of the way he speaks, and until he can find his way around the community... After spending 32 years in an institution, you are no longer a person who... He is beginning to take control of his own life, he is learning to do that; he is learning how to say ``yes, I want this'', or ``no, I don't want that''. That is what's needed, the basis, if our people are to become full-fledged citizens, if costs for the community are to be brought into line as much as possible, and if these people are to lead a life just as you and I do.

Mr. Loubier: Thank you madam.

[English]

Mr. St. Denis: Thank you for being here.

As I listened to your presentation, what impressed me the most relates to what I.... One of the things I've learned as a member of Parliament is that even though we have in our society marginalized a lot of our citizens, either because of illiteracy or because of poverty - in the case of your constituency, disabilities - our fellow citizens who fall into those categories are in fact a gold mine of resources as well. In your contituency are a lot of potential workers who are't able to tap into the workforce.

I know you covered this in your brief. You said the loss of the Canada Assistance Plan is not something you mourn. Philosophically, what can we do better with the country to tap that gold mine of resources that right now is not properly available to the workforce? Workers are also consumers, and they are neighbours.

Ms Richler: We recognize that the nature of the federal government's roles in determining the use of funds for social services will be changing. We noted with interest Mr. Martin's choice of words in talking about principles and objectives rather than standards in looking at the allocation of the health and social transfer.

.1220

But as Patty was mentioning, one of the biggest obstacles to people who have a disability now is that they lose their disability-related supports if they go to work. So people are being prevented from working because they're afraid if they take a job...if they require extra medication because they have seizures, or if they require, as Patty does, some extra assistance because of visual impairment, they will lose those health benefits, because often the kinds of jobs they can have access to won't come with the kind of health benefit plan that would cover those; or they may even lose the place where they live because you may need to meet certain eligibility requirements to live there.

One of the keys for us is to say there is a distinction between needing access to supports and services because you have a disability and how you earn your income and how the federal government decides to address that issue over the next few years. So if people take a job, they should not be prevented from getting the supports they need related to their disability

I think there are two major ways of approaching it. One is to build into the set of common principles and objectives an agreement that there will be no such restriction and that access to social services on the basis of disability will not be determined by whether you are working or say you are able to work or not.

I think the other one is related to the potential for the federal government, through the Human Resources Investment Fund, to make direct allocations to individuals on the basis of disability; but again, to make sure if that happens there's no implicit or explicit elimination of people from the labour force.

What happens right now is that the Canada Assistance Plan does not say people can't work in order to qualify for these benefits, but in practice, because you have to be able to declare yourself in need to qualify for certain benefits, the resulting effect of that has been that people have to declare themselves unemployable.

That starts to have an impact on kids with disabilities when they're really young at school. If their families and their teachers recognize that because of the degree of their physical or intellectual disability they're always going to need some kind of support, then what's the point of training them to be able to participate in the workforce? What does it matter if they learn to read and write or if they grow up with the expectation that they're going to have to pull their own way in society? The impression until now has been that they're going to need some kind of support and the only way to qualify for that support is to go into a disability stream that says, I'm out of the labour market.

I think the no. 1 thing the federal government can do is to open up that, as you say, huge workforce. What's really incredible is there has been a tremendous interest on the part of employers in employing people with a disability. There was a wonderful article in The Globe and Mail this morning on diversity in the workplace and how that can contribute to good business, although that particular article didn't reference disability. But certainly our experience has been that employers who focus on including people with a disability see that as being a benefit in the workplace.

I think finding jobs for people is not the problem. Finding employers who are willing to employ people is not the problem. The problem is that those people up until now have had to remove themselves from the workforce in order to qualify for benefits. What that's done also is to create a dependent class of people who have always been dependent and see themselves as always being dependent in the future and create a need for expensive social services.

Mr. St. Denis: That's helpful. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you, Mr. St. Denis. As always, your presentation on behalf of your organization, namely the Canadian Association of Community Living, helps us understand how little we understand sometimes about the great work that is being done throughout the country by organizations such as yourselves, and indeed the role the federal government plays, whether it's directly involved, whether it provides leadership or participates in consultation with other levels of government, with national organizations such as yourselves.

.1225

It's particularly useful to us, I think all committee members would agree, to have people who participate in your programs come before us and be included in part of your presentation. It's something I would urge other witnesses to emulate, because it does truly help us appreciate the fine work you do.

Thank you for your presentation, as always, and for your recommendations, which we will consider as we continue our deliberations on this bill.

Thank you all.

Our next witness is Professor Craig Scott from the University of Toronto.

Professor Scott, we have a copy of your written submission. Was it your intention to summarize the submission and then have a discussion with members of the committee? If so, please proceed.

Professor Craig Scott (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Yes, my intention is to go through some of my presentation - probably half of it - putting it in better context than it might appear in a very quick read on the part of committee members. I hope to do that in no more than fifteen minutes and then open the floor.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you. That will leave us time for questions, which will be very helpful to us.

Prof. Scott: Most members of Parliament know that the bill under discussion at the moment, Bill C-76, will remove legal protection, at least in federal law, for national rights and protections we've associated with social assistance programs for almost thirty years now.

However, what parliamentarians, members of the standing committee and Canadians generally will probably be unaware of is that Bill C-76 will place Canada in a position of breaching international human rights obligations. Quite apart from that, it will almost certainly result in a finding to this effect some time within the next year and a half - probably in 1996 - by a UN human rights body of experts that has responsibility to monitor the human rights in question.

I'd like to speak to you a bit about how that could come about and what legal obligations are in jeopardy as a result of the failure to retain certain protections from the current Canada Assistance Plan in Bill C-76.

On May 4 of this year, not very long ago, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sent a letter to Canada that strongly hints that Bill C-76, if enacted without amendments, will breach an international human rights treaty we've been part of since 1976. That treaty is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which I'll refer to as ``the covenant''. It's one of two treaties that are generally considered to be the pillars of the UN human rights system, the other being the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada is a noted supporter, within the United Nations human rights system, of the official bodies that interpret both covenants.

I think this is very important for this standing committee to know. The decision to send the letter, about two weeks ago now, wasn't taken lightly by the eighteen-member committee, which is made up of independent experts from around the world, including some leading scholars and judges with experience in the field of legal rights protection.

The committee carefully considered and debated whether to set the precedent they were setting, which I'll speak to shortly, before unanimously deciding that it did have a responsibility to signal its concerns to Canada about what some members actually referred to as potentially dangerous legislation.

.1230

The clear motivation for the committee was as cooperatively as possible to indicate there may be problems and it would be worth the while of Parliament to consider those problems before legislation was passed, as opposed to entering into the terrain of having to judge laws already on the books, with all of its more serious ``repercussions'', let's call them.

What international human rights protections under the covenant does this UN committee fear will be lost if this bill is not modified? The question can be answered by seeing what protections are currently mandated by the Canada Assistance Plan, which we often refer to as CAP, but will no longer be part of federal law under this new Canada health and social transfer as of April 1 of next year.

These guaranteed CAP rights - and I apologize for listing rights you're all aware exist in CAP, but I think it's important that we all know what we're talking about - include the right to financial assistance for persons in need; the right to have the level of financial assistance take into account each individual's budgetary requirements; the right to have legal appeal procedures to challenge any details of financial assistance; and the right - the very important right - not to be forced to work as a condition of receipt of financial or social assistance, or what some are now calling ``workfare''.

As well, and quite significantly, by virtue of a 1986 Supreme Court of Canada decision called Finlay, any social assistance recipient currently, until CAP goes by the wayside, has the right to go to court to challenge federal funding of provincial social assistance that fails to respect any of the rights I've just noted. All of these rights will disappear as of April 1, 1996, in terms of their status as nationally mandated legal protections.

It's not hard to imagine how poverty, and thus the poor, could get lost in the shuffle in favour of other elements of the Canada health and social transfer, health and education in particular. The marginalization of the poor...and the fact that this is likely to occur arguably is made clear by the very structure and terms of the bill we have in front of us, Bill C-76. In contrast to the repeal of CAP rights, national standards in the form of legal rights, Bill C-76 maintains the national standards that have to date existed in the Canada Health Act. The five main national standards are still there.

The point I'm trying to make throughout page 3 of my brief is that the current political agenda of deficit and debt reduction has not been invoked as a reason for some type of attack - in very strong language, I have said ``frontal assault'' - on the rights embedded in national health care standards that most middle- and upper-class Canadians, as I suspect most of the people in this room are, including myself, associate more closely with their own interests.

This is plainly and simply discrimination against one of the most vulnerable groups in our society - the poor. This covenant, this international treaty, in its article 2 protects against discrimination in a way very similar to section 15 of our Charter. It has served as one basis upon which this United Nations committee has interpreted the covenant to require a priority of attention in policy-making and legislation to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in any society.

What I'm trying to impress upon you in terms of a legal analysis that applies as well to section 15 of our Charter as to article 2 of the covenant is that Bill C-76 is decreeing that an unequal burden is to be placed on the poor as a result of the collective imperative to get our fiscal house in order.

As laudable and necessary as fiscal responsibility is - and I'm not denying that in the least - austerity measures do constitute discrimination if those measures are aimed at or clearly affect persons faced with poverty more severely than they affect better-off sectors of society.

.1235

If Bill C-76 passes without modifications - that is, without retaining the current CAP protections that I mentioned, or their equivalent - we would be witnessing a classic situation, and at the moment an unintended situation, of the rights of a vulnerable minority being treated not as the priorities that human rights jurisprudence requires them to be treated as, but as some kind of dispensable privilege.

There's some context for this letter. This letter has not come out of the blue. I believe it has been distributed for you to have a look at later or in the context of the follow-up questions. That context took place in 1993, two years ago, when this UN committee I'm referring to issued concluding observations - it's a form of legal opinion - in relation to a state report Canada submitted to the committee under the previous government of Prime Minister Mulroney. These 1993 conclusions judged Canada to have fallen short of its international legal obligations under the treaty because of our failure to achieve what they called ``any measurable progress in alleviating poverty over the last decade'', especially severe poverty amongst especially vulnerable groups. The committee actually went on to detail some of the practices and problems with Canada's failure to uphold our commitment to respect the right to an adequate standard of living under article 11 of the Covenant. I won't go into those, other than to note that such findings were made.

This May 4 letter of two weeks ago, which you have before you and which follows up the 1993 concluding observations, is judiciously, and indeed it could be said diplomatically, worded. What I would like to impress upon you is not to be beguiled or lulled into some sense of false security by the diplomatic language.

The committee does state in the letter that because the current draft legislation we're talking about, Bill C-76, isn't yet law, ``it would not be appropriate to make any specific recommendations to the government on the issues raised''. In view of it seeing itself as having a constrained role in the face of draft legislation, as opposed to legislation that has been passed or that is in force, the committee limited itself to welcoming any observations by the Government of Canada in its next state report to the committee. That report is due at the end of 1995 and will likely be heard and passed judgment on by the committee at the end of 1996.

The committee's cautious approach is really quite explicable in view of the fact that it was setting, or helping to set, two precedents: one, deciding it has jurisdiction to signal concern about draft legislation; and two, it could do so between its otherwise regularly scheduled consideration of state reports.

However - and this is what I begin to say at the top of page 5 - what is clear as day to those used to interpreting United Nations or other kinds of diplomatic language is there would be recommendations to be made if the bill were law and the committee had been approached about concerns with respect to a law and not a bill.

A final piece of context really helps to understand the judiciousness of the wording of the letter and the cooperative spirit in which it has been sent to Canada. In 1993, after the committee issued its concluding observations, the government of Prime Minister Mulroney reacted, I think it's fair to say, very negatively to the committee's critical concluding observations. Some of you may recall that in the House of Commons the government was subjected to, and did weather, a brief fire-storm of criticism from both the Liberal and the New Democrat opposition benches before the government proceeded to all but ignore the committee's conclusions.

.1240

Some observers familiar with the committee and the way the UN human rights bodies operate have expressed the view that the committee's very measured language in this letter is an attempt to refashion a meaningful dialogue with the state that some committee members, and I would say the committee as a whole, view as having behaved recalcitrantly with respect to those 1993 conclusions. Canada has not responded on matters of substance to the committee, nor is it clear whether the current government, in a very short period of being in office, has seen fit to follow up those concluding observations.

The upshot of all of this that I'm seeking to impress upon the members of the standing committee is that you should be under no illusions about the significance of the letter from this UN committee to Canada, especially when you view it in the context of the committee having commented on the lack of progress in relief of poverty for the decade from 1983 to 1993 in quite forceful terms in its concluding observations two years ago.

In that light, it's very likely, in my view, the committee will unambiguously judge the retrogressive measures contained in Bill C-76 - that is, the failure to retain the CAP protections - to be in violation of this international human rights treaty, the covenant, when Canada appears before the committee in 1996 to present and defend its next report.

Such a finding, with respect to viewing the current Bill C-76 as a ``retrogressive'' measure, would be an application of the committee's interpretation, an existing interpretation that is part of the committee's evolving jurisprudence, that the covenant prohibits what it refers to as ``deliberately retrogressive measures'', especially those that place particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups at greater risk than had previously been the case.

It may help this committee to understand at what point the United Nations' committee would perceive the ``retrogressive'' measures in question to have taken place as a legal matter. To cut to the chase and to outline what appears on most of pages 5 and 6 of my submission, in my view the committee will in all likelihood understand the basic fact of legally removing existing federal legal protections as a ``retrogressive'' measure. The reason for this is this repeal of legal guarantees creates a significant risk one or more provinces will not meet previous CAP standards.

On this possibility, even if for the time being all provinces continue to respect the former CAP standards in the rights I listed at the beginning of my presentation, the ``retrogressive'' measure in question would be viewed as the creation of a legal vulnerability, a kind of precarious and constantly contingent legal protection that did not occur when CAP was in place.

This legal vulnerability is not simply that in the future a province may modify current provincial law that exists to conform to CAP, but it's also that there would no longer be a clear basis, à la Finlay case, to challenge provincial failures now that CAP can't be invoked, or won't be able to be invoked, unless - and this is entirely anybody's guess - the Canadian Charter or the Quebec Charter would step in to fill the breach.

Having listened to a previous presenter, a professor from Quebec, I also thought it was quite important to indicate to the committee we're not simply talking about the committee, having said Canada has set up these baselines, these protections, and now can't go back on them...but that it's important to be aware the committee would likely interpret some, or even all, of the rights protections that exist in CAP to be independently required under the covenant, whether or not they already exist in domestic law.

.1245

An interpretation to this effect, with respect to all those rights, would accord not only with the evolving jurisprudence of this committee but also with well-established International Labour Organization standards and protections and with pan-European human rights case law under both the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Social Charter.

The previous speaker indicated that within Europe there are not necessarily pan-European standards at the level of detail he was concerned with, in the educational field. What I want to impress upon you is that the question of forced labour, or workfare, the questions of the right to social assistance and the right to appeal, are all the subject of pan-European human rights standards, which will almost certainly be the subject of consistent interpretations by the UN committee with the international covenants.

I would like to end by reiterating that the committee has, in some sense, done us all a service by acting in a spirit of cooperative dialogue. Their message is diplomatic but quite loud and clear.

I would like to make an appeal to the standing committee on behalf of Parliament to take this question quite seriously. It's not simply a question of violating something out there called international human rights law. It's a question of deliberately going forward with a measure that will put us in a position of breaching international human rights law, the very body of law that underlies the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, not to mention the Quebec Charter of Rights. I would urge you to amend the bill in ways that respect the signal the committee is sending in order to pre-empt what might occur in a year and a half.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you, Mr. Scott.

We will begin with Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Scott, for your presentation. I would like to know specifically in what way we should amend B-76 to alleviate or eliminate the criticism from the UN Committee.

[English]

Prof. Scott: Thank you for your question.

The answer is in fact very straightforward and simple, to the extent that the concern I'm expressing, which the committee is also concerned about, is the removal of existing legal protections in the Canada Assistance Plan in the form of the various rights I mentioned. In that the current Bill C-76 retains national standards with respect to the Canada Health Act within the CHST, the Canada Health and Social Transfer, the Canada Assistance Plan standards should also be retained in order to create a parity of treatment between those two packages within the overall CHST.

I could go on to suggest what additionally could be done to conform to the covenant obligations that maybe even the Canada Assistance Plan does not quite measure up to, but the bottom line is what I have just said.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier: Therefore we would keep the present standards relating to the Canada health and social transfer. Is this the only matter that is of concern to the UN Committee? I thought there were other things...

[English]

Prof. Scott: Thank you for the follow-up.

This is harder to predict, because I think the immediate focus of concern within the very short period in which this committee had a chance to consider this matter - two weeks - was literally the taking away of existing legal protections, which as a doctrinal or a legal matter independently creates a violation of the covenant. It breaches the duty not to go back on progress achieved.

.1250

Toward the very end I tried to mention.... Since I had not measured my time correctly, I did not elaborate as much as I should have. I said most of the rights in the current CAP, in sections 6 and 15, dealing with what I call forced labour, but just the right not to be coerced into work in order to receive social assistance.... In international human rights law each of those has what we would call a ``pedigree''. These are protections states are currently required to provide for their citizens. So the failure of those to exist in the form they existed in before would buttress the fact that the committee would be inclined to say that in any case each of these rights protections is required as a matter of international human rights law.

I would say one thing: articles 9 and 11 of the covenant, dealing with rights of social security, which are also understood to include elements of social assistance, and article 11 of the covenant, dealing with the right to an adequate standard of living, cover the field with respect to Canada Assistance Plan law. Within the European human rights system each of those rights is understood to generate a right of individuals to make a claim based on individual need and the right to appeal procedures, including appeals in a court of law, to determine whether the state's determination of the level of financial entitlement is sufficient to meet the actual needs of the individuals.

So the failure of these to continue to exist as CAP protections can be understood to be independent breaches of these two articles and not simply of the duty not to go back on what you've already achieved as a matter of your own domestic law.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you. I wonder if just for the sake of clarity I might.... As I've said to other witnesses...and we very much appreciate your presentation this morning; it's bringing a perspective we've not heard before, and it's extremely important. But I just want to clarify for committee members and for the record that the brief you have submitted to us and your presentation respect your views and your views only. That's correct?

Prof. Scott: Yes, it is my -

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Your interpretation -

Prof. Scott: - interpretation based on extensive experience with this field.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Fair enough. No one doubts that, but I just want to clarify that these are your views and your interpretation of the convention.

For instance, in the second paragraph of your brief, when you say:

However, what neither parliamentarians nor Canadians generally will likely realize is that Bill 76 will place Canada in a position of breaching international human rights law and almost certainly result in a finding to that effect in 1996 etc., to the end of the paragraph, that is your view.

Prof. Scott: It's obviously my view.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Right. It's not the view of the committee. The committee is formed on economic, social and cultural rights. The committee has formed no such opinion at this point.

Prof. Scott: At this point.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you.

Secondly, in the next paragraph you go on to say that

The committee strongly hints

...and then in the middle of that paragraph you go on to say that

The bill still before Parliament, if enacted without necessary amendments, will breach an international human rights treaty which Canada has been part of since 1976.

The committee doesn't say that anywhere in the letter. You -

Prof. Scott: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): - suggest the letter hints as much, but it is a hint only in your view.

Prof. Scott: It's not only in my view; it's based on the fact of having taken into account the discussion the committee had before deciding to take this step and the fact that the letter was designed precisely to hint.

Lying behind the letter is the -

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Did you -

Prof. Scott: - expression of concern.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): But that's your view, based on your participation -

Prof. Scott: Of course it's my view -

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): - in the committee deliberations?

Prof. Scott: - based on having been in contact with observers who have observed the committee every year for the last seven years.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): So it's second-hand information to you, from which you formed a conclusion based on your experience.

I have a last point. In the second paragraph on page 2 of your letter you ask:

What international human rights protections does the UN Committee fear will be lost if Bill C-76 is not modified.

Then for the rest of your letter you go on to talk about CAP and the changes that are proposed in Bill C-76, although you have attempted in your presentation before us today to refer to the convention articles directly.

I just want to point out that the discussion in your letter.... I think it's an inconsistency between your oral presentation and your brief. In your brief you don't zero in on the actual convention provisions. I think you believe these are maybe breached by this provision.

.1255

The last point is really a question, an observation.

Prof. Scott: May I respond?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Yes, I'm sorry; go ahead.

Prof. Scott: With respect, Mr. Chair, all of these are your views as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Indeed.

Prof. Scott: In fact the submission does refer to each of the articles engaged. The duty not to take regressive measures is specifically tied to article 2(1) of the covenant and the duty of progressive realization. That's explained in the submission. That deals with all rights protections that achieve a status in domestic law and that are also covered by the covenant. I refer to article 9, on social security, article 11, on the right to an adequate standard of living, and article 6, on the right to work, including the right to choose one's work.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): I'm sorry. We've had only a very quick time to have your brief before us. You actually make the references on the last page.

For part of that you're discussing CAP -

Prof. Scott: But to be fair in light of the confusion you see - and I think it's a fair comment for you to have made - the reason I focus on and make the link between the Canada Assistance Plan and the international human rights protections is by virtue of this duty not to go back on the protections already achieved within the domestic legal system. That's the context in which that occurs.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): I didn't want you to misunderstand. I wasn't suggesting that you hadn't made that case here before us, given your experience, or that it wasn't appropriate to try to make that case.

I was just worried that in the second paragraph on the second page you might leave readers with the impression that what we have exactly in CAP is just perfect and right and completely and totally abides by the convention, nothing more, nothing less.

I have one last question. It is, of course, a fundamental principle of international law that states such as Canada, and not the provinces, are actors on the international stage where UN conventions are concerned. To the extent that a UN or a multilateral organization has concerns about actions by regional or sub-regional units of a nation-state, in this case a member of the UN, they cannot act directly with, in this case, provinces. So they express their concerns in reviewing what happens on the federal level.

If provinces had standing at the UN, this letter might well be written to provinces where there were specific concerns with their performance of duties under the convention. My point is that the actor here, the part bound by the convention, is Canada, and the only way the UN can get at concerns it has about programs at the provincial level is by speaking to the member state.

Prof. Scott: Exactly; and that's the case with all federal states, whether Germany, the U.S.A. or Canada.

But one thing I would like.... Your remarks might have created the impression in those listening that the international human rights system would thereby only deal with federal law. The federal government as the representative in external relations is in fact responsible to defend whatever the provinces might do.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): We would come back to the UN in the consultations that have been invited and explain what is happening at the provincial or municipal level.

Prof. Scott: And the fact of the matter would be that if the committee took the view - and in my opinion the committee in all likelihood would take the view - that the legal protections have now been seriously lessened in comparison with what they were under CAP, that and that alone would be enough to find that Canada wasn't in compliance.

In international law you cannot plead your domestic legal or constitutional arrangements as a basis for failure to comply. If for the last 30 years it's been hunky-dory for us to use the Canada Assistance Plan as a joint federal-provincial mechanism and thereby set up that kind of nationally mandated legal protection, we could not go back and say, okay, that was all somehow or other constitutionally illicit. You could not say that at all.

So the -

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): No, I thank you for that clarification. I'm well aware of it, of course.

Canada could not and would not hide behind those constitutional arrangements. It remains committed and liable for the commitments it has made in international conventions. But in explaining this bill and these changes it could cite examples of what will be happening at the provincial and municipal levels to assure those concerned that it continues to comply with its obligations.

That's just a clarification I wanted -

.1300

Prof. Scott: In two sentences, yes, indeed it would. In fact, if it were able to convince the committee that none of the legal vulnerability I spoke of is triggered by sheer virtue of the fact that CAP has been repealed and replaced in this way, the committee might be convinced to wait and see whether down the road any given province does not meet previously existing standards.

My only point would be that the mere fact that there's no longer the special right, as Finlay set down, to challenge provincial programs based on CAP means it's hard to find what substitutional mechanism would exist, unless either Canada or the provinces are prepared to make representations that either the Canadian or Quebec charter provide those protections.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): I think that was helpful. Thank you for the clarification.

Mr. Fewchuk: There's one important thing I realize in this committee: we can't get economists to agree, we can't get lawyers to, and we can't get doctors to. It's very interesting. I don't think we'll solve those three as long as we sit here in the years to come. But we do value their concerns.

Thank you for coming.

Mr. St. Denis: Thank you for coming, Mr. Scott. If I had dropped in from another planet, I would have thought from this meeting that Canada was a pretty lousy place in which to live. In fact, when you consider that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live, I can only imagine how many letters and how much time the UN committee spends writing to China and Iran and other countries in the world that I'm sure have a far poorer record than Canada on these matters.

Do you have copies of the NAC, NAPO and CCPI briefs to the UN committee?

Prof. Scott: I have it with me. Later today, I understand, there will be a presentation by a representative of the charter committee.

Mr. St. Denis: I'm just wondering if it would be possible to request -

Prof. Scott: I think he has copies.

Mr. St. Denis: Okay.

Perhaps the clerk could somehow get us copies of the three briefs to the UN committee, as referenced in here.

Prof. Scott: It was a joint brief.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): We've had presentations from each of those groups. It may well be they're very similar.

Mr. St. Denis: I would like the brief that was made to the UN committee, if that's possible.

Prof. Scott: My understanding is that you will receive it. It will be distributed at 8 p.m. today.

Mr. St. Denis: Okay.

My question is on standards. Mr. Martin made it clear in his budget statement that the federal government would negotiate standards with the provinces about the delivery of the CAP program. Do you doubt the provinces and the federal government would actually come up with standards that are agreeable to everybody...that would compromise the standards that now exist?

Prof. Scott: I don't have a full basis to know what is likely. I fear at least one of the rights in question - the right relating to social assistance and not being forced to work for receipt of social assistance - would be one certain provinces would certainly resist. I think all you have to do is look at the current political justifications and political platforms of certain parties to suggest that this might not be one on which there would be consensus.

I do appreciate the point you're actually raising, that in Bill C-76 there is some commitment to enter into these negotiations to arrive mutually at what would otherwise be imposed national standards, and that through that mechanism what we have in CAP might reappear. I would reiterate the basic point that the ability actually to go to court to claim that questions of adequacy, the level of provision of social assistance, fall short of what is set out in CAP...that itself would not be satisfied by simply reiterating the CAP provisions. There would need to be some type of agreement that individuals do have the right to challenge whether or not there is inadequacy, rather than simply having a right of appeal by bodies within each province's social assistance appeal system who can refer to regulations and budgetary requirements only as set out in the law of the province. They have no ability to go beyond that.

.1305

Finlay currently allows for the courts in this country to go beyond the current standard set in provincial law to judge their adequacy. So the question would be, even if this mutually agreed upon set of standards looks like the CAP protections, without something more specific we will have lost that dimension that is currently provided by CAP. I think Canada will have a very hard time getting around at the international level explaining that as not being a loss of legal protection. That is something I really think this committee has to take seriously, even if you are all comfortable with the idea that the CAP protections will reappear somehow and will not be lost.

Mr. St. Denis: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you very much, Professor Scott, for a most interesting presentation.

We are adjourned until 3:30.