EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 3, 1995

.1005

[English]

The Chair: Welcome to the committee. I am the MP for Winnipeg North. I would like the members present to introduce themselves to the witnesses, please.

Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): My name is Ian McClelland.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): Maurice Bernier, of the Bloc Quebecois, MP for Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead.

[English]

Mr. Grose (Oshawa): I'm Ivan Grose, the member for Oshawa. It's a pleasure to see you again.

Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): My name is Warren Allmand. I'm a new member of this committee.

Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): My name is Andy Scott. I'm also a new member of this committee.

The Chair: We just constituted a quorum for the House business aspect. Before we lose it...with the indulgence of the witness, it will only take us a few minutes.

We have circulated for you the proposed budget for the trip to Halifax. I assume you have gone through the document. I would welcome a motion for its adoption. Essentially, we are looking at a total of $1,250.

Is there any discussion of this document?

Mr. McClelland: I move the motion.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: As a last item, we have the work plan we adopted last time. Nancy has tidied the document. Part of that work plan, of course, would be the list of witnesses we will consider. We will not go through that today, but I suggest that a steering committee meeting be held tomorrow at 6 p.m. I hope everyone will be available for that, for maybe an hour.

Mr. Allmand: Excuse me, I didn't understand that. The steering committee will deal with what?

The Chair: With the list of witnesses for the round table.

Mr. Allmand: Okay.

The Chair: Then we will go back to the mother committee.

Mr. Allmand: With respect to the other possible order of business, we had spoken about reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Act and so on. That won't be taken up at this time?

The Chair: Yes, sir.

Mr. Allmand: It will be?

The Chair: Yes. Would you be available for that meeting?

Mr. Allmand: No, I won't be here tomorrow. We have something going on in Quebec. I have to go down there.

The Chair: We can always have another meeting of the committee to deal with that. I have a partial report from the Minister of Justice, so maybe it is just as well that we postpone consideration of that item until after the next meeting of the steering committee. We will look over the witnesses.

Mr. Allmand: All right. So you'll deal with the round table on the disabled, but not the human rights question.

The Chair: Yes, we will defer discussion on that.

Mr. Allmand: Very good.

The Chair: Before I call on Mr. Clark, one other member of the committee, Marlene, has come in. Would you kindly introduce yourself?

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Marlene Catterall, member of Parliament for Ottawa West.

The Chair: On that note, Mr. Clark, would you like to proceed with your opening remarks?

Mr. Bruce Clark (Acting Executive Secretary, Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, Human Resources Development Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me begin by thanking the committee for the invitation to appear today. I appreciate very much the opportunity, although I reserve the right to revisit that remark later.

Let me introduce the colleagues who are seated at the table with me. Mr. René Campeau is the coordinator for the national strategy and is the person on my staff who has the front-line responsibility for issues related to the national strategy. Suzanne Potvin is a program officer who works specifically on the national strategy and deals with many of the issues with our partners.

.1010

Both of these people are here to assist me when we to stump the band a little bit later.

Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that this may be the first of two sessions with the committee. I think that's subject to review by the time we conclude today. I propose to begin today by providing two main pieces of information to you. One is an overview of the issues associated with disability and persons with disability in Canada.

That understanding is fundamental to your discussions with regard to the national strategy. We will then move away from that to deal with a fairly global overview of the national strategy, what it is, and how it has been undertaken.

I propose to deal with questions on those two areas. For the next session, I propose to deal fundamentally with the evaluation and recommendations of the national strategy, where we are in the environment today, and where this department and other departments are moving in addressing the issues of concern to persons with disabilities.

I'll leave the review of that timetable to you, Mr. Chairman.

I have followed with much interest the political careers of many of you. I certainly know of your keen interest in disability issues. I thank you for that on behalf of Canadians with disabilities. I have appeared before this committee several times to present information and also to support ministers in various capacities. The Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat has a long-standing history of collaboration with this committee.

I think that of all of the activities undertaken in this country at the federal level, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons has been one of the catalysts for that activity taking place.

The tradition of non-partisan cooperation of this committee is certainly outstanding. The various reports and recommendations and results of your work speak for themselves. I know you'll hear much of that later when you hear from the disability community itself.

It might be useful to give you a little background on who I am. First of all, I am a person with a disability. I was born with a disability. My mother had rubella during pregnancy, which resulted in a visual impairment.

For the first six years of my schooling I was in a segregated classroom specifically for children with visual disabilities. After that, by my own decision and through pleading, I moved into an integrated mainstream school setting.

That was unheard of in those days and it was a struggle, but it was important for me and important for my family. I moved on to complete two university degrees and taught high school for a period of time. After that I had a short career in broadcasting. I then accepted a position with the Canadian Council of the Blind as their executive director, where I served for five years.

Following that I came to Ottawa to work for the federal government as a policy analyst working specifically in the area of disability. Now I have the pleasure and honour of serving as the director general of the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat. It's a unique organization and I'll have the opportunity to tell you a little bit more about the secretariat as we go through this briefing.

As you can imagine, when preparing for a briefing of this sort it's difficult to know what information to provide and where to begin. The national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities is a huge topic, one that I certainly am delighted you have chosen to examine.

When preparing this briefing, I said to my wife a couple of evenings ago that it was like preparing for the closing arguments in the O.J. Simpson trial. I hope I'll be somewhat briefer than they were and I hope your deliberations will be somewhat longer than those of the jury.

.1015

I also hope at some point to be able to give some guidance for the work plan of the committee. The secretariat with which I'm associated has a very close relationship with the disability community. We have consulted extensively with the community about the national strategy, and I think we have a good sense of how that information can be useful to your committee, knowing the keen interest of its members. So I hope at some point to be able to comment on how you might most effectively move forward in addressing the national strategy.

To begin this morning, I would like to take some time to examine disability as an issue, recognizing that many of you have been involved with disability issues for quite some time and others may be fairly new to the subject area. As we move into really understanding the national strategy, it's fairly important that first you should understand disability.

Disability is certainly not a new issue in Canada. It has been around for a long time and over the past decade has really moved into the forefront of understanding as an important issue for all of Canada.

The national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities is the main subject of your interest, but let's stop to examine for a few moments disability in Canada.

There are 4.2 million Canadians with a disability, so it is a fairly large number of people. Approximately 15% of the Canadian population have some sort of disability. When we think of marginalized groups or minorities, often we don't think of the numbers as being exactly of this magnitude, but 4.2 million is a fairly significant number.

Disability cuts across all age groups; it knows no geographic boundary; it knows no racial or cultural boundary; and it certainly knows no limitations in terms of where you will find it in this country. So it is a vast and fairly complex issue.

When people think of persons with disabilities, often they think first of a person who uses a wheelchair. I want to point out to the committee that this is only one type of disability and a large range of disabilities make up this population. As this chart suggests, there are mobility, agility, mental, hearing, sight, and speaking disabilities. So it's a fairly wide range of disabilities.

The issues confronted by these individuals are equally broad and complex.

It's important that, as the committee continues its work, it endeavours to hear from all segments of the disability community and to cover the broad range of various types of disabilities, because the needs of individuals with disabilities relate in some measure to their disability. So it's important that you should hear from a broad representation of the community.

Disability is also age related. The probability of acquiring a disability increases as we grow older. As you will note from this chart, about 72%, or a fairly large number, of us will spend the later years of our lives with a disability. So it is a personal issue and it very much affects each of us.

Also, as we make progress today in addressing community access, community living, and integration, we make a difference that affects all of us. In fact, the access that we try to provide today might be what will enable us to live independently in our homes later in life.

So disability is personal and is something that very much affects each of us.

The labour force participation of persons with disabilities is a central and complex issue. Labour force participation for persons with disabilities is significantly lower than it is for the general public. Only about 48% of persons with disabilities who are in the labour force are employed, and that compares to 73% in the general population. So the employment level is lower.

.1020

The unemployment level of people in the workforce is about the same. But what is most important is that almost half of persons with disabilities who are capable of working and are of working age remain outside the labour force. That compares with only 19% in the general population. So this is a huge potential human resource outside the labour force that is not contributing to the economic fabric of our country.

To address the issues of why those persons are outside the labour force is fairly complicated and it involves some careful analysis. The information is that of all these individuals who are outside the labour force, a large percentage are capable of working. The fact that they have a disability does not limit their ability to work. Sometimes adjustments may be needed in the workplace or in the working conditions in order to facilitate their employment, but they are capable of working. But the current dynamic is that they remain outside the labour force.

It's quite interesting to look at why persons with disabilities believe they have difficulty in finding and maintaining employment. The number one barrier cited by 21% of persons with disabilities is that they would lose their current source of income. A large number of persons with disabilities are dependent on social assistance, welfare, and family allowance payments. To secure employment would cause the loss of that income source.

The experience of persons with disabilities is that sometimes they have short-term employment but it doesn't last for a long time. It's part of a special initiative or project a private sector company is undertaking. It might be a federal, provincial, or municipal government work program and they're brought into employment for a period but that employment ends. Meanwhile they've lost their income source from social assistance and there is a fairly long process to get that back in place. It becomes cumbersome and to them it presents a barrier.

The second most significant reason cited is interesting. It relates to two things. One is a perception that there are simply no jobs available, but more importantly, that there is inadequate training. That's surprising to some of us, who think a lot of training programs are available in this country, but the majority of those training programs are not accessible to persons with disabilities, for various reasons.

It is not so much that the physical premises where the training is conducted are not accessible. It goes much further than that. Persons with disabilities require accommodation for training programs. It may be necessary to have sign language interpretation, material available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, or audio cassette. They may need an attendant to assist them during the course of training. They may need accessible transportation to and from the training environment. All kinds of issues relate to making training programs accessible. For persons with disabilities, that is still cited as a major barrier: that inadequate amounts of training programs are accessible to them.

You'll note from this list that it's interesting that discrimination and transportation rank fairly low as barriers. I think that tells us the situation has changed over the decade and we have made significant progress in addressing discrimination. We have things such as the court challenges program and other initiatives that have addressed discrimination from a legal point of view. We have had many awareness- and attitude-changing kinds of activities, such as National Access Awareness Week, that have contributed to a public understanding of the capabilities and potential contributions of persons with disabilities.

So persons with disabilities do not identify discrimination as a major barrier. Often those working in the area would presume that is in fact the most significant barrier, but their perception is not that it is. In fact, often they find that when they begin a job experience, they can show by doing and indicate to employers that they are capable and quickly become valued employees and overcome discrimination.

.1025

Transportation is also seen as being a fairly insignificant or low barrier. It is important to have accessible transportation in moving to and from the workplace. We've made a lot of progress in Canada in this regard. Municipalities know the importance of providing accessible transportation. I'm not suggesting that there's not work to be done in that area - clearly there still is - but it is less of a barrier today than it was ten, or even five, years ago.

Still a major issue for persons with disabilities is level of income. They are an extremely disadvantaged and marginalized population. Approximately 35% of persons with disabilities in 1986 reported incomes of less than $10,000 per year, and only 12% earned more than $35,000 per year. Although these statistics have not been formally updated, they are still fairly valid today. The income level for persons with disabilities is extremely low. Many of them live below the Statistics Canada definition of poverty.

So it's a group that in many respects are unable to buy the supports and services they need, are unable to afford accommodation and access. They're extremely vulnerable and disadvantaged. Certainly, as changes are being made in fiscal arrangements in this country, as there are changes to budgets of private sector businesses, of many organizations, and of governments, this affects the potential integration of persons with disabilities.

So understanding that this is an extremely marginalized and disadvantaged population is key.

There are some important concepts, and at my last appearance before the committee we spent a considerable amount of time in discussing these. My honest hope is that we won't have to do that today. As you continue your work, you'll become fairly familiar with each of the concepts of disability, handicap, and impairment. They are all of importance.

A disability is the actual limitation that is presented or the circumstance that causes the limitation. Let me give you an example. For a person with visual impairment, that is their disability, the fact that their vision is not what we would consider to be at a normal level and that they have a visual disability. So that in fact becomes the disability.

What is a handicap? It is the effect of the disability. In the case of a person who has low vision, the effect is that they might not be able to read normal-sized print and they need enlarged characters to read comfortably, or they might need better lighting or tactile symbols. That is the effect of the disability.

So the handicap is the barrier that is presented by the environment.

The impairment is simply the medical or physiological condition. In the case of someone with low vision, it might be glaucoma, or it might be macular degeneration or some other physiological cause that creates the disability.

It's important to keep these concepts fairly clear.

Perhaps twenty years ago our focus in this country was on impairment and dealing with disability from a medical point of view, looking solely at the issues of prevention and of cause as they relate to the physical body. So it was very much from a medical model point of view. You would not be hearing today from a person with a disability; you would be hearing from a doctor, an occupational therapist, or someone who works within the medical sphere, looking at disabilities.

So it has been a major shift in the way in which we think of disability.

I think that shift came about in Canada largely from the work of this committee. Back in 1981, during the UN's International Year of Persons with Disabilities that started the Decade of Disability, this committee, which was then a special committee of Parliament, published a report called the Obstacles report. I keep a copy by my bedside.

.1030

This report is a watershed document for Canada. Its more than 140 recommendations, put forward by the forerunner of this committee, are what moved our attention, at least for government, away from the medical model to looking at citizenship, to looking at human rights, inclusion, and participation. Many of the recommendations in this report are still valid and ring true today.

I urge each of the committee members to have a look at the report and spend the time to read it. It really is a very important document in the thinking of Canada on disability. I know your clerk can make copies available for you. My secretariat does have copies...if that would be helpful. That and many other reports put out by the committee have signalled the change.

The most important concept here is looking at disability. Handicaps can in fact be removed. The handicap, as I pointed out, relates to the environment, or the effect of the disability. We can change those things. We can provide ramps. We can provide alternative-format materials. We can eliminate the handicap. The disability we can't eliminate and the impairment we can't eliminate, but the handicap we certainly can. The handicap has nothing to do with the individual but everything to do with the environment in which they live.

In dealing with persons with disabilities and the organizations that represent them, this committee needs to be aware of the importance of terminology and language. Terminology is extremely important for the disability community. By using appropriate and right terminology you will demonstrate to the community that you understand these issues; that you are ready and able to treat them with dignity and respect. So while it may seem like a small point, it is a fairly large point in demonstrating that you do understand and appreciate these issues.

Phrases such as ``handicapped people'' are not used, they're not acceptable, because ``handicap'' again has to do with the environment. It does not describe the individual in any way. Instead, we use the phrase ``persons with disabilities''. There it's important to note that the term ``persons'' comes first. It's the individual and everything that makes up the individual that are supreme over the disability. So we always phrase it as ``persons with disabilities''.

A phrase favoured by the media is ``wheelchair-bound''. ``Wheelchair-bound'' is an extremely negative term. It implies that a person is roped or tied into a wheelchair. In fact, I don't know many persons who use wheelchairs and who spend their entire lives in a wheelchair. They move in and out of the wheelchair during the day, many to drive vehicles, many to participate in other activities. The wheelchair is simply a device or tool a person uses. So it is ``person who uses a wheelchair'', rather than someone who is ``wheelchair-bound''.

``Mentally retarded'' is another term that has left our vocabulary now. ``Mentally retarded'' is a fairly negative concept...instead referred to as ``person with an intellectual disability'' or ``person with a mental disability''. The whole negative notion of retardation has, sadly, not left our vocabulary, but it should.

Likewise, we don't use phrases such as ``crippled''. Again, it is ``person with a disability''. Phrases such as ``the deaf'', ``the blind''...again, we refer to ``persons who are blind'' or ``persons who are deaf'', placing the person first rather than trying to treat them as some lump group.

Also important is the term ``physically challenged'', which many people still use and think is acceptable. It has never been acceptable to the disability community. They are not physically challenged. They have disabilities that affect their lives, but they are not physically challenged by those disabilities. They are physically challenged by an environment that does not accommodate their needs. So again, instead of ``physically challenged'' the phrase is ``a person with a disability''.

These are important keys to indicate that you understand issues and are responsive to the community's concerns. It does factor fairly high in their thinking, as it should. The inappropriate use of language leads to discrimination and leads to the creation of new barriers.

.1035

The disability community in Canada is organized into two main groups. Their organizations are either consumer groups or service providers, and it's key that you understand the difference.

The whole idea of consumerism emerged probably first in the United States and was quickly responded to in Canada. Consumerism relates to people with disabilities being involved in and making decisions for themselves.

So consumer groups are organizations that are made up of persons with disabilities. Their organizations, boards of directors and employees may be persons with disabilities, but they will have a majority of persons on their boards or decision-making bodies who are persons with disabilities. That is what we mean by consumer groups, and they do best understand their own needs.

Service providers are organizations that provide services to the disability community but are not necessarily made up of or controlled by persons with disabilities.

In terms of government and I know in terms of the work of this committee, we have always placed the priority on consumer groups, because that is a dialogue with persons with disabilities themselves. It's equally important to hear from service providers, because they do have a central role to play in service delivery to this population. However, our priority remains with the consumer movement and the empowerment of individuals with disabilities.

To give you a little bit of a sense of how these organizations are made up, I've listed only a few consumer groups, and there are many in Canada.

An example is the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, formerly COPOH. Some of you may know it as COPOH, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped. Again, because of what I told you about the word ``handicap'', they have changed their name to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

They're an umbrella organization that is a cross-disability organization. That first slide I showed talked about mobility, agility, speaking and hearing. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities tries to represent that broad range of persons with disabilities. They do have provincial affiliates across Canada, are fairly well organized and are the major umbrella organization.

The Canadian Association for Community Living is the former Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded. Again, because of the language change, they have changed their name. It is a well-organized group, made up of persons with mental disabilities and their families, that provides a wide range of activities dealing with mental disability in Canada.

The Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres is a relatively new organization; it's been around for the last seven or eight years. It provides a network of service centres across Canada that are in fact operated by persons with disabilities themselves. The organization is controlled by persons with disabilities.

The Canadian Council of the Blind is an example of a disability-specific consumer organization. It is blind people themselves organized to form an organization across Canada. There are similar uni-disability organizations for many types of disabilities, such as persons who are deaf or persons who are hard of hearing. Various disabilities will have organizations that represent them.

This is just to give you an idea. All of these are consumer organizations and have an important voice and an important contribution to make to the dialogue.

Service providers then are organizations that provide service to persons with disabilities.

For example, services to persons who are deaf would be provided by the Canadian Hearing Society, among others. Persons who are blind would receive service from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, among other places. The March of Dimes, which many of you will be familiar with, provides service primarily to persons with mobility-related disabilities, but also to a broader section than that. So there's a large number of organizations.

The Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled is an umbrella organization made up of groups that provide rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, so it's another service provider.

As I mentioned, it is important to hear from both sides - the consumer side and the service provider side.

.1040

I also want to point out that despite these organizations there are other interested communities, such as the YM/YWCAs and the boys and girls clubs, and private sector organizations, such as the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Bankers Association. There is a wide community of interest in the disability file. Usually in our work and consultation we try to reflect that broad range of interest by talking to all interested communities.

Next I'd like to turn to the environment that led to the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. It was a unique environment and one very much contributed to by the work of this committee and by others. What was unique about the environment at the time - and the national strategy was officially launched in 1991 but the years leading up to 1991 are extremely important - was that there was a very strong federal role on disability issues at that time. It emerged for many reasons. The United Nations declared the international year in 1991, which led to the International Decade of Persons with Disabilities, and Canada seconded the recommendation for the establishment of a decade and a year.

So Canada already figured fairly prominently in disability discussions. As we have progressed over the years, Canada has very much been seen as a world leader on disability issues. In addition, the Obstacles report that I've referred to, subsequent reports over the years presented by this committee, and the continued attention and profile that this committee has brought to disability issues have been a driving force for the identification of a strong federal role. Many recommendations tabled over the years were positively responded to by the government and clearly identified the federal government as a leader in disability issues. We were looked to by provincial governments, by municipalities, by other jurisdictions and other nations in addressing disability issues.

There were many federal government programs operating related to disability in a wide number of departments. Many of these programs had been operating for a long time, but they were each operating in separate directions, or stovepipes, as we've come to call them in the 1990s, with not much interplay between programs. There was a clear lack of coordination. All of these programs were operating but there was not a clear direction for them. Persons with disabilities who had started to organize in Canada and had made their views known in places such as hearings before this committee made it quite clear that there was difficulty in understanding the large array of programs and in moving between programs that were offered by the government. They had expressed some frustration with the idea that there were stovepipes and that people couldn't move easily between programs or even understand the direction of programs.

There was a lack of coordination. There was no central program or unit in the government to try to pull all of the activities together. There was no way of even measuring federal progress on disability. We knew change was occurring - the statistics told us that and the community told us that - but we didn't really have any sense of how much progress we as a government were making because there was no central point of coordination for disability activities. It wasn't even clear who had the lead on the disability file.

As a result, again, of recommendations made by this committee, in the early 1980s the government appointed a Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons with Disabilities and clearly identified the then Department of the Secretary of State as the central point of coordination on the disability file. The minister responsible was to become an advocate in cabinet for disability issues. That put some sense of direction in terms of where the coordination was going to come from, but there was a real need before that for coordination, and even after there was a minister responsible there continued to be issues around the coordination of the large number of government programs.

There was also a lack of a shared vision. Programs were operating because they had been set up to operate, but there was no clear thinking of what they were trying to accomplish. Some of the programs were based on the early medical model and had not yet addressed a participation, citizenship, or human rights point of view. So there was no clear sense of direction or common vision for why these activities were being operated and what they were intending to achieve; therefore, there was a lack of accountability. There was really no point where managers had to account for their progress on disability, other than in the broad range of accountability mechanisms that are built into federal program delivery.

.1045

Last, and importantly, there was strong political will, not just at the federal level but also at the provincial level. It emerged as a result of many factors. The disability organizations were now formed. They were advocating in Canada and making their views known, and politicians were becoming aware of those concerns and the importance of them.

People like Terry Fox and Rick Hansen brought a new profile to the issues associated with disability. Politicians became aware, as Terry Fox moved through their communities, or as Rick Hansen later moved through their communities, of the importance of access issues. So many politicians at the provincial and federal levels shared a sense of responsibility on the disability file.

Strong political will was also led by this committee, which certainly continued to remain in the forefront, ensuring that people with disabilities were participants in the process. You consistently tried to place the views of the disabled community on the table for discussion and response.

The standing committee played a key role in another important way. Until the standing committee was established, began hearings, and undertook some fairly innovative work plans, there really wasn't a vehicle or a forum for people with disabilities to make their views known. They were not yet very effective advocates. It was a young movement in Canada and is still very much so compared to other countries.

They had difficulty making their views known in the political arena and this committee provided a forum for them, where they could come and, incidentally, be accommodated in appearing before the committee. This committee was steadfast in having sign interpreters available for committee hearings. It was steadfast in ensuring that people were accommodated in terms of transportation and assistance and that material was distributed in alternative formats. This committee was the first committee of the House of Commons to table its reports in alternative formats. Actually, at the time of tabling, the then chairman of the committee would also present the report to the Clerk of the House in Braille, in large print, and in audio format.

So this committee has been innovative in ensuring that the views of people with disabilities are placed on the table for discussion. That has made a major difference.

This committee also played a key role in calling for a national strategy. Your 1990 report, A Consensus for Action, was a key report where you called for a coordinated agenda on behalf of the federal government, federal leadership with the provinces, and collaboration among federal programs. You also identified the importance of programs working more efficiently through collaboration.

That report also addressed the need to examine federal legislation, identify barriers, and systematically remove the barriers from legislation that impeded the participation of persons with disabilities.

The report was tabled, and in the government's first response it addressed some of those issues and launched a comprehensive review of federal legislation. But this committee was not yet satisfied and tabled another report in December 1990 called Unanswered Questions/Uncertain Hopes. Having evaluated the response to the original report, A Consensus for Action, the committee felt that many of its concerns were still unaddressed and tabled the report Unanswered Questions/Uncertain Hopes. It called on the government to really address the issue of a coordinated, comprehensive agenda on disability. The government's response was to indicate it would be moving forward with such an agenda or what has now become the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities.

.1050

It's quite appropriate now, some five years later, as we reach the final months of the national strategy, that this committee has turned its attention to looking at the contribution of that strategy and the next steps: where we go from here. The committee has indeed been a key player in these discussions.

What, then, is the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities? The national strategy was launched by the federal government in 1991. It's significant that it was launched in Winnipeg, which has become known, I suppose, as the Mecca of disability in this country. Most of the major disability organizations happen to be headquartered currently, or at one time were headquartered, in Winnipeg. I don't know what it is about the Winnipeg environment that causes that, but it has become a centre related to disability. The national strategy was in fact launched and announced in Winnipeg.

It is a five-year program, a five-year coordinated agenda on disability. It brought a budget of $158 million over five years and was the result of a cabinet decision to move forward with a comprehensive agenda of this kind. It was an effort to provide a coordinated set of activities between federal departments and agencies to make progress on such issues as employment and training opportunities.

As I identified earlier, a key barrier for persons with disabilities relates to labour force participation, to the availability of training, so the national strategy attempted to address that. It attempted to provide improved access in such areas as housing, transportation, communications, all of which fall at least in part in the federal jurisdiction. It was a real effort to remove the physical barriers that prevent people from acquiring and maintaining adequate housing, from travelling to and from work, pleasure, other activities...and the communications barriers, which are becoming even more prominent as we move into a high-tech information age.

We also tried to provide a strengthened vision, shared goals, measurable progress. For the first time the national strategy provided a measuring-stick for really knowing what progress was being made and whether we were moving in the right direction.

It was an attempt to work in the area of community integration. Now very few persons with disabilities reside in institutions in this country. People have integrated into their community, and the national strategy has been a part of that progress. Through something called the ``de-institutionalization initiative'' we have worked with provinces to move people, primarily those with mental disabilities, out of institutions and into their own homes or into shared homes in community settings and to provide them with the kinds of supports they need to live independently and to participate in their community.

We've also moved to try to make communities more accessible and accommodating to persons with disabilities. Through the national strategy we have endeavoured to make progress in developing new partnerships. The disability community had not worked very effectively with service providers, with the private sector, with governments at all levels. The national strategy tried to build partnerships that would allow that to happen.

The national strategy recognized there were many important organizations, such as the Canadian broadcasters' association and the association of banks, and tried to bring them into the discussion, into effective partnerships with the community toward progress.

The national strategy also for the first time set out some key goals for federal activities, and there are three: equal access, economic integration, and full participation. By ``equal access'' we simply meant that in areas of federal jurisdiction people with disabilities should have the same opportunity as everyone else to participate and to have access to programs. Programs and services of whatever kind provided within federal jurisdiction should allow for access by persons with disabilities and that access should be equal to that of other Canadians. It is an important principle and an important goal for the strategy.

Economic integration. There was recognition that there were a large number of persons with disabilities outside of the labour force, recognition of the value of bringing them into the labour force, enabling and helping them to make their full contribution as part of the economic fabric of Canada. So economic integration is an important goal of the national strategy.

.1055

It relates to transportation, to employment, to housing, and to allowing people to participate in the economic dynamics of Canada.

On full participation, again there is the concern that persons with disabilities need to be provided with a forum to make their views known, to be able to participate in the decision-making process, whether that's at the political or the service delivery level - an opportunity to input their ideas. To be in control of the decisions that affect their lives is what we mean by full participation, and that in all walks of life, in all activities, persons with disabilities should be a part of those activities.

These goals guided us through the national strategy, provided a framework for our partners to report on their progress, and provided the shared vision that was needed in the environment at that time.

We had a large number of federal partners and agencies associated with the national strategy. These are all organizations that received resources and were part of the game plan, as it were, for the national strategy: Canada Mortgage and Housing, Health Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Industry Canada, the National Library of Canada, the National Transportation Agency, Transport Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat - all working together towards those goals, all receiving resources over the five years of the national strategy to continue programs, to implement new programs, and to participate in the shared agenda.

I want to give you a little bit of a flavour of the kinds of activities that took place in some of these partner departments.

Transport Canada has made tremendous progress under the national strategy. They set about in a concrete and measurable way to provide access to airports across Canada. They involved persons with disabilities and their organizations in assessing air terminals and other terminals to look at how access could be improved.

It resulted in innovative approaches, such as a committee of persons with disabilities who were directly involved with the architects in the design of Terminal 3 in Toronto. Similar activities took place in Ottawa when the airport here was redesigned; persons with disabilities have been a part of that discussion.

Transport Canada also developed and made available something called an assistive lift device, which is a lift to help persons with disabilities to board smaller aircraft. Those of you who are from remote areas in Canada know that some of our aircraft are fairly small. The size of the aircraft does not allow for a direct connection to the terminal and people need to use a staircase in order to board those aircraft.

In the past persons with disabilities were hoisted onto planes like luggage. There was a loss of dignity; there was extreme humiliation for people with disabilities. So Transport Canada moved to develop and make available a special lift device that enables persons with disabilities to board smaller aircraft with their dignity intact. These lift devices are now available in many airports across Canada.

They also moved to ensure that car rental organizations at airports had available, as a requirement, hand-controlled vehicles for rent and accessible vehicles.

They moved to ensure that taxi companies who have contracts at federal airports include accessible vehicles as part of their fleet. At the airport in Ottawa you will see an accessible vehicle almost at all times.

So those are important measures that greatly benefited persons with disabilities.

They also moved to work with bus manufacturers and highway coach manufacturers to ensure that vehicles were manufactured to be accessible and didn't need to be retrofitted later.

Transport Canada certainly has been innovative under the national strategy and has worked effectively with the disability community.

Another key partner organization that is very active in the national strategy is Industry Canada. Industry specifically worked on issues related to the communication needs of persons with disabilities. They moved quickly to set up an advisory group that was representative of persons with disabilities and, with their funding, supported many innovative projects. Projects were supported only when the disability community believed them to be important, believed that they would make a significant contribution.

.1100

Primarily, they worked with smaller businesses to develop products to improve the communications access for persons with disabilities. They contributed to the research and development and eventually to the promotion of those products.

Some of the innovative products they have developed include the first French-language, real-time captioning - a major contribution - and, still under development, a satellite system that allows a blind person to know at any given time what street corner he or she is on by sending and receiving satellite signals.

For use in shopping there are bar code readers to identify products and prices, in which an electronic reader tells what the product is and what its value is. These are now available in Canada.

They have also developed, in collaboration with La Presse and The Globe and Mail, an audio service for newspapers, which provides voice output of the newspaper for persons who are blind. They can access it in various ways so they can receive the daily news at the same time as everyone else.

These are major advances made with little resources and are some fairly innovative approaches to addressing communications needs.

Some of these smaller companies simply would not have had the resources to undertake these important initiatives were it not for the national strategy.

The Department of Justice, although it did not receive a large amount of resources, did undertake some fairly important activities. At the call of this committee, it undertook a comprehensive review of federal legislation to look at all federal statutes that impact on persons with disabilities, to identify barriers existing within those statutes and to try to remove them.

This resulted in the tabling of an omnibus bill that amended six pieces of federal legislation to remove barriers and to require access.

Most notable were significant changes to the Canada Elections Act, which for the first time required that all polling stations provide level access for persons with disabilities unless otherwise approved by the chief electoral officer. The changes also required that graphic logos of parties appear on ballots. This was somewhat controversial. However, for people with low literacy levels and for people with mental disabilities, it's extremely important to have graphic recognition. It's much easier than reading words. For some people that became an important point of access.

Much other facilitation was undertaken in the Canada Elections Act to improve access, but there were six statutes amended as part of the omnibus bill that brought about a process of really looking at legislation for change.

The Department of Justice has also examined the Canadian Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to make changes and has been involved in very effective dialogue with the disability community and with the provinces around those changes. There are provisions in the Criminal Code and in the Canada Evidence Act that relate to the giving of evidence in criminal trials and that involve the whole business of the need to tell the truth, a fundamental cornerstone of our judicial system.

Often, a person with a mental disability is disqualified as a witness because his capacity to tell the truth is questioned by the defence. There are such incidents involving individuals who reside in institutions. I know of one woman who has been raped fourteen times by the same caregiver in an institution, but who has never been able to testify in a court of law against that individual because every time she attempts to testify she is disqualified on the basis of an incapacity to understand the difference between truth and fiction.

Some changes need to be made and proposals are under way. Some progress has already been enacted with regard to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.

The Human Rights Act is another fundamental piece of legislation. The requirement to include duty to accommodate for or to provide reasonable accommodation in the Canada Human Rights Act has been under discussion with the Department of Justice for several years and has been committed to by various ministers of justice. Within the Department of Justice, the national strategy did provide a framework for discussions around disability issues and brought the department into direct contact with the disability community.

.1105

The resources associated with the national strategy were disbursed directly to the participating departments. They received the resources over a five-year period, with allocations in each of the five years.

The chart I have on the screen now somewhat misrepresents the reality. It appears that Human Resources Development Canada received the bulk of the resources. But at the start of the national strategy, Human Resources Development Canada did not exist. There were four separate departments, which now make up that one department. They were the Secretary of State, Employment and Immigration Canada, Labour Canada, and parts of Health and Welfare. They came together to form Human Resources Development Canada. The resources showing here are the resources for that entire group of departments.

You will note from tables the clerk has to provide to you, tables showing the resource allocations, both the original configuration, before there was some reorganization of government departments...and to show you how those moneys were distributed over each of the five years of the national strategy. We are now in the final fiscal year of the national strategy. The resources will not be available beyond this year.

Again, it's important to understand that the resources were directly distributed to partner departments. While they had indicated how they would be undertaking programs and activities in support of the strategy, the resources were given directly to them. Much of these resources was made available to the disability community through project funding in order to participate in the national strategy, in order to demonstrate models and best practices.

We can come back to talk about the resources more fully, if you wish.

The national strategy put in place a number of vehicles for coordination. I mentioned earlier the importance of coordination and how that was part of a driving force behind the development of the national strategy.

Most principal in the coordination was the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat. That is the secretariat I represent and my colleagues represent. It is now situated within Human Resources Development Canada. It has been in existence since before the strategy. It first came into existence during 1983-1985 in the then Department of the Secretary of State. Its principal role in those days was to support the role and activities of the Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons with Disabilities, who was the Secretary of State.

Since then the secretariat has moved into Human Resources Development Canada. It is an interdepartmental means of coordination and certainly was the coordination point for the national strategy. All the reporting activities, the evaluation activities, and the ongoing work of the national strategy were undertaken from the secretariat.

The secretariat tries to operate as a centre of expertise for the federal government on issues related to disability. We try to work with the disability community, with other jurisdictions, the private sector, and various players in disability issues. It is very much the centre point of federal activity.

While we do not have direct responsibility for the activities of other departments and programs, we do try to provide advice to those programs and we try to serve as a conduit between the disability community and the managers of those programs.

Over the years the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat has also worked very effectively with your committee, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to commend your researcher for her ongoing collaboration with the secretariat. It's always valuable to be able to provide you with information you are looking for. It's a role we're pleased to play for you and for others. Certainly I know your researcher works hard at getting the information to serve you best.

In the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat we operate a clearing-house on disability issues that is connected to a number of resource centres across Canada that have collections specifically on disability issues. We maintain a collection of most federal documents that have been published on the subject of disability, and we try to provide advice and answers to Canadians who phone in on 1-800 lines to receive information from the clearing-house.

.1110

We also provide a policy direction for our own department and for other departments on the disability file. We certainly work in the area of information exchange to build new partnerships and alliances and to continue to further the issues of disability.

In terms of the national strategy, resources were given to the secretariat to coordinate the strategy; to put in place as a staff position a coordinator who would have as a full-time responsibility the overseeing of the activities of the national strategy; to provide a vehicle, a forum for reporting; to provide a link with the community and between the federal departments; to have in place a program officer to work directly with federal departments to help them in shaping their programs and activities.

Also established was an ADM steering committee, which met in order to oversee progress on the national strategy. This has been an interesting process, and many of the players have changed over the years of the strategy. In fact, the reorganization of departments brought new players into the discussions. It has been a means of overseeing the progress of the strategy.

The ADM steering committee emerged as a result of what was originally proposed to be a deputy minister's steering committee. We discovered that the deputy minister's steering committee was not the best way of providing coordination in that these individuals were really unable to deal with some of the more complex and detailed issues of program delivery. They were providing more of an overview of activity and it was important to have people who were closer to the front lines involved. The decision was therefore made to establish an ADM steering committee.

The most important vehicle for coordination was the national strategy working group, which was made up of representatives from all of the partner departments. These were people at the manager or director level who came together to evaluate progress and to set the agenda in order to determine the nature of communications in collaboration with the disability community and with others. They have been instrumental in guiding the direction of the national strategy and in providing for its effectiveness. They reported regularly to the ADMs on progress and activities under the national strategy, and really provided the ongoing collaboration between departments. This group was innovative in finding ways of consulting and collaborating with interested communities. They have met many, many times and have been very successful in coming to a common understanding of their work and their activities.

So these three were the principal coordination vehicles for the national strategy. Of course, within each partner department there were other structures, such as the advisory committee that I mentioned in Industry Canada. It was made up of persons with disabilities and they were in fact involved in the decision making in terms of which projects were awarded funding. Models like that existed in various places throughout the partner departments and were another means of coordinating the national strategy.

To give you a sense of what the impacts of the strategy have been in general ways, it did provide a strong, coordinated mechanism for delivering federal programs and services. It strengthened the federal role. It strengthened accountability around providing services and supports to persons with disabilities. It defined the issues, which was really important.

Disability had emerged on the political agenda, on the national agenda, and because it was such a new movement in terms of the consumer movement, it was very important to really understand the barriers, to understand what the issues were. Now, having undertaken the national strategy, we do have a better sense of what the primary issues are and how those issues can be effectively addressed.

The national strategy provided an effective way of distributing resources. It provided leadership with provincial governments. Many provincial governments worked very collaboratively with us throughout the life of the national strategy and they now have permanent programs and activities in support of persons with disabilities.

.1115

It provided some new partnerships and links for the disability community. In fact, in many instances it brought the community together for the first time. Were it not for national strategy resources, many of the consumer groups would not have come to the forefront. They would not have had the resources to establish themselves as organizations, to advocate, to address issues and to participate and, most importantly, to bring forward to us new models and approaches in addressing their issues.

The national strategy has demonstrated new models. We know now what works. We have an understanding of how to make that a part of ongoing program delivery, and I think that has been one of the most profound contributions of the national strategy: the demonstration of workable models and the defining of the issues so that those models can now be integrated into the regular business of providing services to Canadians with disabilities.

The national strategy has also had a significant impact in terms of municipal governments. Many municipal governments have now moved to improve access to community facilities, recreation facilities, and town halls. If you think of your own constituency, you will think of the progress that has been made. Some of that progress was achieved through initiatives under the national strategy, through National Access Awareness Week, and the development of something that was called the Five Star Community Award Program, which actually encouraged municipalities to make progress on disability issues.

So some significant impacts have emerged from this five-year process. We now have ongoing relationships with other federal departments that provide programs. We're in direct contact and collaboration with those programs, and I can assure you that those kinds of collaborative efforts are not necessarily at an end. Certainly the national strategy was the catalyst for bringing us together. Now that this has happened, there is ongoing collaboration and communication between programs.

In terms of the national strategy process, as we reach its close -

The Chair: Mr. Clark, I would just like to interrupt you. You have been doing very well, but it's now been an hour. Would you like to take a few minutes' break?

Mr. Clark: Sure.

The Chair: Maybe we'll take a three-minute break just to give the witness.... Yes,Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: If we're going to take a break, I wanted to raise a question of order.

It may be an oversight, but I think that in the future the disabled persons directorate should bring all its materials and audio-visuals in both French and English. As an agency of the federal government, the directorate is subject to the Official Languages Act. While the audio presentation is being translated simultaneously, the audio-visual is only in English and that is a barrier or a disability for people who don't read English very well.

Under ordinary circumstances, I would have raised this at the beginning, but I didn't want to interrupt the presentation. In the future, however, I will interrupt presentations if materials from government agencies are not in both official languages.

I've been at similar audio-visuals and there have been two screens, one with the English and one with the French. I think this probably is an oversight because I know Mr. Clark is very sensitive to both. He, more than anybody else, is probably sensitive to the ability of people to cope with things that aren't in their own language, in Braille, or whatever.

Mr. Clark: Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the committee member for his concern. In terms of fiscal resources, we have a limitation in having two separate projectors of this kind. But all of this material is available in both official languages, and we will circulate to the committee copies of all the slide materials in both languages. Certainly there are some important issues around terminology in both languages that require separate treatment, but we're certainly glad to provide that information promptly to the committee. A vast majority of all of the documentation we have available in print form is available in alternative format, and it is all available in both official languages.

.1120

So we apologize that the visuals have been in English only. It's a limitation of type size and of projection. We will promptly make copies of the slides available to the committee in both official languages.

The Chair: The chair would like to make the observation, as raised by Mr. Allmand, that I am sure the committee will explore in what way we can be of assistance so that the resources needed to provide two projections in fact will be there. The point raised by Mr. Allmand is over and beyond what will be provided beyond the actual time of presentation, which is a very vital component.

Mr. Allmand, you have raised a very important point.

Mr. Allmand: The problem is that in the directorate they have only one projector. Today I'll approach the Minister for Human Resources Development. There's no reason why they shouldn't have two. It's an absolute obligation of all federal departments to make their presentations in both languages.

[Translation]

I myself am from Quebec. Happily, I can read both official languages, but I know that there are people, not only on this committee but also in the audience, who cannot read the visuals. Normally, I would bring this matter up immediately, but as I am new to this committee, I hesitate to bring this up at the beginning. I do, however, intend to do so in the future.

[English]

The Chair: It's a very important point and we should pursue it.

On that note, I will call a five-minute break.

.1123

PAUSE

.1132

The Chair: I would like to resume. Mr. Clark has yielded to my request to wrap up his presentation in five minutes, knowing that we would like to have him back for another meeting on Thursday.

Please proceed, Mr. Clark.

Mr. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I indicated, I propose to wrap up now in terms of this overview and to entertain questions you may have. At our next session I propose to look at what activities are currently under way in Human Resources Development, which has been the lead department for the national strategy, in terms of future directions, where we think these issues have brought us and where we're going from here, and to give you some general guidance on where I think government activity around disability issues is moving toward. I will save those remarks for next time. So, looking at the future, we will do that at our next session.

Let me say in closing that while the national strategy does sunset in March 1996, its impacts are ongoing. The difference it has made in the nature of our work is ongoing. The partnerships and collaborations that have emerged from the national strategy are continuing, and many of the approaches that have been initiated under the national strategy are being mainstreamed into ongoing program delivery.

As I pointed out at the start of the presentation on the national strategy, your committee was instrumental in calling for the national strategy, and I know your deliberations now on the progress of the strategy will certainly help to set the course in terms of future direction.

The comments I have with regard to how you might wish to proceed.... We have been involved in fairly extensive consultations with the disability community on the national strategy, as have many of the partner departments through their own evaluations of activities.

The community has many important contributions to make to the dialogue around the impact of the national strategy and future direction. I think as quickly as possible the committee should hear from the community who best understands what really has been the overall effect of the national strategy and what directions we ought to move in next. The understanding that would come from the contribution of the disability community will help to shape and guide your future activities.

Having heard from the community, I think it would be appropriate for the committee to next hear from some of the political leaders who have been involved in the national strategy process. Those people carry the responsibility of furthering these issues and I think would have much to share with you on the progress that has been made and the work ahead.

I am happy to provide further guidance in terms of specific witnesses from the disability community to effectively use the committee's time.

.1135

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my overview of disability in Canada and the national strategy. I certainly want to thank my colleagues for their assistance in preparing materials and papers for the committee. I know that we circulated some material last week and again today. We will endeavour to provide you with whatever further material you need and require. I'm open to your questions on any of this material.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Clark, and thank you to your staff.

At this juncture I would like to indicate to witnesses and to colleagues that I have to excuse myself to debate Bill C-64. I would ask Mr. Andy Scott, the vice-chair, to take over for the duration. I intend to be back in about ten to fifteen minutes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): That concludes the presentation. Were there any comments to be made by other panellists?

We will start with the official opposition, for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I want to thank Mr. Clark for his presentation. I don't want to use up any of my time elaborating further on the comments of my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I understood him very clearly and perhaps we will have the opportunity to debate bilingualism in Canada at another time and under different circumstances.

I have a particular interest in disability issues, having worked for five years at the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec. Last June, I was the one who introduced a motion calling for an evaluation of the National Strategy and for a review of the achievements to date and in particular, of future plans. There is still an enormous amount of work to be done to provide equitable, quality services to all disabled persons.

I have several questions, but I prefer to begin with one of a general nature and then to follow up with more pointed questions.

I would be interested in finding out more about the situation of disabled persons from one province to the next, both in terms of the number of disabled persons and of the quality of services available to them. For example, do disabled persons in British Columbia or Alberta receive the same services as disabled persons in Newfoundland or Quebec?

I would also like a breakdown of the sums of money that have been spent under the National Strategy. You circulated a table illustrating expenditures by department or agency over the past five years, but I am interested in the breakdown by province.

Before you respond, I would like to make a general comment. Earlier on, you spoke of the tremendous progress that had been made in the area of services to disabled persons. I admit that if we compare the current situation of disabled persons to that which prevailed in the seventies, we see that considerable progress has been made. However, I feel - and this opinion is shared by a number of groups - that progress has been achieved mainly in areas of benefit to physically disabled persons, such as adaptation, transportation, housing, communications and job opportunities. In these areas, tremendous change has occurred over the past 15 or 20 years.

.1140

However, with respect to intellectually or mentally disabled persons, much work remains to be done. Even today, these individuals must endure very difficult situations. When I say «endure», I am not talking about their illness, but about the conditions which they face in their day-to-day lives. While progress has been noted in the case of persons with physical limitations, I believe this is because they are well represented and can defend their viewpoints themselves. I'm not saying that all of their problems have been resolved, but their situation is without question different from that of persons with a mental disability. I would also like to hear your views on this point.

Therefore, I have two questions. First, what is the situation of disabled persons from one province to the next and how do the figures break down? Second, how does the progress achieved by persons with a physical disability compare to the progress enjoyed by individuals with intellectual or mental disabilities?

[English]

Mr. Clark: Thank you very much for the questions. I certainly am familiar with your career and your own involvement in disability issues. I commend you for your understanding of these issues and for your personal and professional commitment to them.

Let me begin by commenting on the last part of your question, which dealt with progress made in terms of persons with physical disabilities versus those with intellectual disabilities. I think it is true that a large amount of work has been done to address people with physical disabilities or those with mobility limitations. Often those disabilities are more easily understood by the general public. The issues, while they are not less complicated, have a somewhat higher profile in our understanding. We understand the importance of ramps. We understand the importance of curb cuts, of accessible vehicles. I think the public's understanding of those kinds of general access issues is extremely high, so there has been considerable progress on that front.

More complicated is dealing with access and accommodation for people with what we call ``invisible disabilities'', where the disability is not necessarily apparent: a person with an intellectual disability, a person who has a sight or hearing disability. While there has been a great deal of progress on those fronts also, I think the public understanding is somewhat less and the issues of accommodation are a little more complex. The needs that have to be met in addressing accommodation for someone with an intellectual disability are a little harder for people to understand and deal with: things such as job coaches, someone who might actually shadow a person in the workplace in order to provide them with augmented information.

So I think you're right. A great deal of progress has been made on physical disabilities, and perhaps somewhat less on the non-visible disabilities.

About government work and programs, I must say we try to meet the needs of the broad range of the disabled community. Any activity we undertake is not addressed to any particular segment but to all the issues. All our awareness-raising and attitudinal-change activities certainly focus on the broad range of issues and needs of all persons with disabilities, regardless of type of disability. A great deal of progress is certainly yet to be made, and I think your comment is appropriate.

About the level of activity and participation at the provincial level, statistically there is not an enormous difference between the national data and provincial data related to persons with disabilities. We can certainly endeavour to make available to the committee the provincial breakdowns of some of the data that I presented nationally about workforce participation, income levels, etc. All of those data are available and we'd be happy to provide that to you.

.1145

In terms of the kinds of services and programs available, there is a great deal of variance across Canada. I think generally the living needs in terms of income are addressed in all the provinces in a fairly equal way. Where there is more disparity is in the kinds of additional supports and services available; for example, whether there are provincial programs to assist a person in buying a piece of technology or a device to support them to live more independently in their community.

There are various degrees of commitment of provincial governments to employment equity measures, to job accommodation. The kinds of services a person receives are very much related to the community in which they live.

This is particularly true in the field of education - whether mainstreaming is highly promoted within a community and whether the supports are available within integrated settings. Access to higher education, universities and colleges, varies across Canada. Certainly in the more remote areas the availability of service is far lower than it is in urban areas. That is particularly true for persons with disabilities who feel extremely isolated in remote areas.

With regard to expenditures of the national strategy in the provinces, we can endeavour, when we come back on Thursday, to give you a general sense of how the moneys were used to impact on the provinces. With regard notably to funding of projects, we can try to give you some of that data to give you a flavour of how that was done. We have also worked in the territories, through the national strategy and through other initiatives, so we can tell you some of that on Thursday as well.

I'm going to turn to my colleague Suzanne Potvin to comment particularly on services to persons with disabilities in Quebec, which is somewhat unique. I know the member is well aware of those, but there may be other committee members who are not.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Potvin (Coordination Officer, National Strategy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities, Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, Human Resources Development Canada): In Quebec, services to disabled persons are on the cutting edge. They are truly based on the genuine needs of persons and often serve as the basis for policy formulation.

Funds are awarded under the National Strategy to all provinces and territories in the same manner as under other funding programs administered by a department. Each agency or department establishes its very own funding formulas from one province to the next or from one group of disabled persons to another. It is really a matter for each department or agency to decide.

However, I can tell you how the Status of Persons with Disabilities Secretariat operates because we finance many projects with money that goes directly to organizations working with disabled persons.

Among other things, we work with several organizations of parents whose children suffer from disabilities. When we provide support to parents of children with mental disabilities, for example, or to parents of children with a hearing disability, we are helping persons with types of disabilities that are perhaps not as well known.

.1150

We provide substantial funding to associations of disabled persons. We also support coalitions of various associations of disabled persons suffering from motor, visual or hearing impairments as well as from mental health problems, learning disabilities and so forth. We have funded Autism Society projects in, among other areas, Trois-Rivières and Bois-Francs.

As for the budget and the financial resources allocated, the figures vary according to province and territory and according to the number of disabled persons in each region. The amounts also vary from year to year.

Various sums of money have been available from year to year under the National Strategy since its inception. During the first few years, less money was available and consequently, the breakdown of funding under the strategy by province and territory was also different.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much, Ms Potvin, Mr. Clark, andMr. Bernier.

I'd like now to go to Mr. Allmand, who has indicated his interest in the questions.

Mr. Allmand: I haven't had as intense a background in working with disabled people as my colleague from the Bloc has. It has been a number of years since I was more intensely involved with this subject, so my questions might be more basic.

In your presentation you seem to indicate a very broad definition of ``disabled''. You include, of course, people with mental illnesses or mental disabilities. I'd like to know if there is a definition of ``disabled'' somewhere that we can examine. Is it in legislation? Is it in policy? If it's in legislation, is it the same definition at the provincial level as at the federal level? As a matter of fact, is there an international definition that has been accepted by either the World Health Organization or the United Nations?

Secondly, you gave us some very useful statistics on the status of disabled people. I would like to know a few others. For example, I'd like to know the life expectancy of disabled people in comparison to that of the non-disabled. I'd also like to know how disabled people rank with respect to social problems compared to the non-disabled. Is there more or less alcoholism or drug addiction? Also, what is the percentage of disabled people who live alone as compared to in families, either married or with brothers and sisters or parents or whatever?

Lastly, has the growth in government involvement - stronger commitment, the establishment of the disabled persons directorate, the national strategy, legislation since Obstacles, and so on - inadvertently weakened the consumer groups? Because the government is doing a lot more, are they less militant? Has their organization weakened in any way? Have they lost membership?

Sometimes that happens. When consumers get together to lobby strongly and they're successful and some of the things they lobbied for are accomplished and government gets active at all levels, federal, provincial, and municipal, the consumer groups sometimes become weaker because a lot of the people say, ``Now it's being done. We can go back and relax''.

I'm just wondering if it has had that effect.

Mr. Clark: Let me begin with the issue of the definition of disability. There is a definition of disability provided by the the World Health Organization, which of course is connected with the United Nations, and they have endeavoured to define disability, impairment, and handicap.

.1155

I'll just read quickly their definition of disability. It is:

Any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.

A lot of work has been done in defining that further. There is something called the ICIDH, which has a large amount of activity in the province of Quebec. It's the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps.

So a fair amount of work has been done in defining. I would be happy to circulate to the committee the World Health Organization definitions of ``disability'', ``impairment'', and ``handicap'', which I think internationally are the norms in defining it.

Mr. Allmand: Canada has accepted that definition.

Mr. Clark: Yes. In most of our statutes the definitions used in fact relate to the World Health Organization definition.

There are some differences around the world in the way ``disability'' is defined. For instance, in the United States, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons who are victims of AIDS are included among disabled persons. In Canada our approach has been that HIV, or AIDS, can in fact lead to disabling conditions, such as blindness, which is one of the early effects, and that is a disabling condition. We look at the limitation that results.

So definitions do vary. I think our definitions in Canada have been fairly broad and are fairly well accepted right across the country in how provincial jurisdictions use the definitions. There's not a lot of difference in definitions about disability and not a great deal of debate in this country, and the World Health Organization is certainly the leader, along with ICIDH and others.

Your second question related to people who live alone or live with families -

Mr. Allmand: If you don't have those statistics here today, we could get them at the next meeting or a future meeting, but I would like to have them at some time.

Mr. Clark: I'll be glad to provide those in the future. I will tell you that more than 60% of people with disabilities across Canada do reside in households. I don't have at my fingertips the breakdown for with families or without families. I can provide that to you, or will endeavour to do that as much as I can.

Your third question, and perhaps the more intriguing, is on the issue of the disability movement and the organizations in Canada. I think our relationship with disability organizations has been extremely positive and constructive. Unlike some other organizations, I guess I don't, and they don't, think of them as interest groups, because they're not focused on a particular interest. If they have an interest it's equal access, economic integration, and full participation, which are fairly broad perspectives.

Over the years their approach has not been one of militancy. It has been one of trying to bring reasoned debate to the forefront, to try to demonstrate the best practices, and to insist on their own involvement in the decisions that affect their lives. It has been a quiet kind of support of government activity.

They have been extremely critical at times. They're certainly not shy about making their criticisms known. But unlike some other groups...it's always in a positive, constructive atmosphere. When they criticize, they come forward with other approaches that in their mind would be more workable. It's always constructive, and I think you will have found in their presentations before this committee that they have come in with just that kind of tone. I'm happy to say the relationship is fairly positive, and I think that's because they understand the complexity of the issues and they want to be constructive in the process.

.1200

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Regarding Ms Potvin's answer about the breakdown of funding by province, I insist on having these figures by province and by department. You stated earlier that you had these figures for your secretariat, but they should also be available for the other departments. Can you supply us with these figures?

Ms Potvin: Yes and no. Yes, to the extent that we will be able to give you a sound overview of the situation.

Mr. Bernier: I understand.

Ms Potvin: However, in terms of an official assessment of the various initiatives taken under the National Strategy, I don't believe we have comprehensive statistics.

Mr. Bernier: Nevertheless, shouldn't the departments have these figures?

Ms Potvin: Yes, we should have no problem getting them for you.

Mr. Bernier: Good.

I want to come back to two questions that you touched on earlier, Mr. Clark. You mentioned the income available to disabled persons to cover living expenses and you also spoke of their integration into the labour force.

Regarding income, you stated that in 1986, 36% of disabled persons had an income below $10,000. Clearly, the vast majority of disabled persons get by on very modest incomes. However, it is clear that in terms of income, disabled persons fall into several categories.

It's not that I want to draw a connection with the issue of discrimination, but these days, if one must be a disabled person - and I am certain that you are aware of this phenomenon - it is better to be disabled as a result of a traffic accident or work-related accident than as a result of birth, because your living conditions will not be the same. I would like your comment on this point.

Most organizations for disabled persons in Quebec, and indeed across Canada, want specific steps to be taken to compensate a person for his or her disability and for costs to be tied to the ability to function "as normally as possible".

Earlier, you stated that people did not want to return to the job market because they were afraid of losing their social assistance. They are not afraid of losing their social assistance, but rather of losing the social benefits that help them cope with their special needs.

That is the reason why disabled persons are very reluctant about returning to the labour force. They would lose a great deal. As a society, we must ask ourselves whether we are compensating disabled persons for their limitations or for their disabilities?

With respect to the labour force participation of disabled persons, I was somewhat surprised by the results of the survey and the figures which you quoted. Where did you get these figures? Were disabled persons surveyed? I was surprised to hear that they do not really identify discrimination and transportation as barriers to labour force integration.

In my region, transportation is still a major concern. The situation is different in an urban area, but in rural regions, the lack or infrequent availability of para-transit services is a serious problem. Therefore, where did you get the figures you quoted and could we possibly get copies of them?

[English]

Mr. Clark: I'll first go back to your comment about the provincial expenditures under this strategy. We'll endeavour to provide you with what data we have. In cases in which we don't have data, we will contact the department involved and tell them that this committee is looking for that data. We'll try to coordinate that for you and pull it together. So in instances in which we may not have the data, we will certainly call on our colleagues in each of the partner departments to provide it to us.

.1205

With regard to revenue, your comments are extremely valid. Depending on the circumstances of an individual and sometimes the cause of their disability, the revenue available to them may be different. For instance, a person who has become disabled as a result of an accident may have insurance coverage that provides support to them. Individuals who are born with a disability have a separate set of needs. You are right that they move through a different path in terms of the income that might be available to them.

I don't believe we have that data available. I'll investigate that further. But it is interesting to note that in this country still, because of the kinds of insurance programs, social assistance programs and other vehicles for income support, there is a variance that occurs.

Respecting the point you make with regard to labour force participation statistics, the data I gave you is from something called the Health and Activity Limitation Survey, which is a Statistics Canada survey that has been undertaken every five years. The data I provided you with was from 1986. Again, that survey was updated in 1991. Some of the data has been released and is available from the 1991 information. So we can provide you with updated statistics.

That survey is conducted by Statistics Canada. It is a subset of the census process. It follows the census. It is a fairly broad and representative survey. There is certainly urban versus rural data available. Admittedly, I provided you simply with overview data.

There have been publications produced on the survey results. We'd be happy to make those available to the committee so you can look at the broad amount of information garnered from that survey.

Certainly the barriers identified by individuals do vary across the country and are based on circumstance. One may in fact be living independently or as part of a family, or, as you rightly point out, one may be living in an urban environment or in a rural setting.

We will give you more comprehensive tables that relate to all the data. I apologize for only being able to give a brief sketch of some of the important findings, but we'll give you the more detailed information.

Mr. Grose: I have three rather simple questions. I'll try to make them simple so I'll understand the answers.

On workforce participation by the disabled, the question of training came up. From my experience on employment equity, I'm wondering whether or not we're running into a provincial problem there with training. As far as employment equity was concerned, it was considered education. We got into a great thrashing around on that.

The second question deals with the participation in labour force and the possibility of losing income. Because of the source of income for the disabled, are we penalizing people if they do participate in the workforce in a different manner than, let's say, the welfare people, who have finally come to the realization - at least in Ontario - that income will be topped up if people do manage to participate in the workforce.

Third, transportation seems to be a difficulty. In view of the rather severe cutbacks, especially in Toronto, it would seem that we're moving backward on that one. Do you agree?

Mr. Clark: Let me try to give simple answers to what I don't think are simple questions.

First, with regard to training programs, training, of course, is provided from many different points of delivery. The federal government operates certain training programs. Provincial governments do that too. The private sector itself operates training programs. There are various voluntary organizations, and of course there is the world of education itself. So it's very difficult to ensure access across all of those points of delivery.

.1210

In terms of the federal government, we are certainly being proactive in ensuring there is access and accommodation in federal government-sponsored training programs. I'll address that more fully the next time I appear before the committee.

In the previous questioners' remarks there was a concern about the cost of disability, and it relates to training. For persons with disabilities there may be additional costs in participating in training or education opportunities. Those additional costs are specifically related to the disability. They may need an attendant, some sort of special transportation or alternate format materials and there may be a cost that is direct to them.

There are some innovative approaches to dealing with that. For instance, under our own student assistance program, the Canada Student Loans Program, which is undertaken with the provinces, a student can receive a loan to cover the costs of education. A series of opportunity grants or grants available for students with disabilities has now been established to cover their increased costs. We have argued that it should be a grant so their debt load is not increased by virtue of them having a disability. The new provisions of the Canada Student Loans Program now provide for such grants to be made available to students with disabilities. That's a way of addressing the increased costs related to disability, but the wide range of points of delivery of training programs do create somewhat of a problem.

With regard to the national strategy part of your question as it relates to training, again initiatives have been undertaken at Human Resources Development Canada and in other departments to provide training opportunities that are accessible, and certainly to provide training to the general public in understanding disability issues.

You're right that transportation is an issue. I didn't mean to minimize its importance in my presentation, except that persons with disabilities find there has been significant progress in the area of transportation. Your point is well taken that we need to maintain what has been achieved and further the progress. As we are facing an economic climate where other jurisdictions and other points of service delivery are facing cutbacks and need to reduce expenditures, unfortunately persons with disabilities are sometimes the victims of those cutbacks.

In the case of Toronto, it was a decision made by the municipality to reduce the funding for the parallel transportation system. Certainly persons with disabilities have been quite outspoken about that. So transportation remains a need and it certainly remains an area where the disability community is active in terms of advocating for change and improvement. It's very important that when we make progress we continue to maintain the gains we have made.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much.

The next meeting is on Thursday at 11 a.m. I understand Mr. Clark will be back.

There's a steering committee meeting tomorrow evening at 6 p.m.

If there are no other comments or questions, thank you very much. This meeting stands adjourned.