[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 5, 1995
.1208 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Order.
We'll continue to hear from Mr. Clark, who made a presentation on Tuesday. We had a period of questions and answers.
I understand that we are continuing now with a further presentation, Mr. Clark. Please proceed.
Mr. Bruce Clark (Acting Executive Secretary, Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. We're pleased to be back before you this morning.
Our remarks will be kept fairly short. I know that you are all pressed for time, and hopefully we can have some time for questions.
Our remarks this morning will focus specifically on two areas. One is the evaluation process that has been undertaken related to the national strategy. When we met together on Tuesday, we provided you with an overview of the national strategy, and now we will move into some detail with regard to the evaluation process and the findings. I know that the committee has a great deal of interest in the evaluations that have been taking place and has heard much about them.
We also want to talk with you about some of the community response to the national strategy, a little bit about the current environment, and then we will be pleased to take your questions.
I will turn things over to my colleague, René Campeau, who will discuss the evaluation process.
[Translation]
Mr. René Campeau (Coordinator, Status of Disabled Persons' Secretariat, Department of Human Resources Development): The evaluations of the national strategy have been commissioned by Treasury Board in the summer of 1991 when the appropriations for the national strategy were approved. It was in agreement with the government policies of the day that required two kinds of evaluations: an overall evaluation of the national strategy and an evaluation of the activities of each of the departments involved in the national strategy.
We proceeded with two series of evaluations. The first one, in 1992-1993, dealt with the mid-term examination of the national strategy. We mainly concern ourselves with the processes that were put in place. At the same time, MOT was reviewing its programs. In 1994 and 1995, we made an end of term evaluation of the overall national strategy and of partner departments and agencies involved.
[English]
My presentation is on the end-of-term evaluation of the overall strategy. This is taken from an interim report that has not yet been finalized.
The data-gathering for the evaluation was based on multiple lines of evidence and the evaluation consulted with 346 individuals from the disability community. It also did file reviews, literature reviews, focus groups, and expert opinions. It also based its findings on departmental evaluation reports and on financial data from partner departments.
.1210
There were challenges specific to this evaluation. One was that the evaluation was undertaken in the fourth year of the national strategy. I think Bruce Clark mentioned earlier this week that the strategy had been announced in September 1991. So between the time the strategy was announced and the time evaluations were conducted, only two full fiscal years had elapsed.
Another challenge is the difficulty in clearly attributing to the national strategy any reported change in the integration of persons with disabilities, because there are so many other players out there and so many other conditions that influence these conditions and changes. Also, with the 1993 government restructuring it has been difficult to determine progress and to track expenditures of partner departments, since responsibilities were realigned between departments, programs were amalgamated, and systems changed.
Nonetheless, the evaluation study was able to address the question of the added value of the strategic approach. It found strong evidence on the process of developing and implementing a national strategy and it presented some preliminary information on the results of the national strategy.
[Translation]
As regards the major preliminary results evaluation in terms of the objectives which were set, the community of people with disabilitites unanimously recognizes that there are many needs which have to be addressed and that a five-year strategy could not meet all those needs.
Eighty-one percent of respondents consider that since 1991 positive changes have enabled people with disabilities to become better integrated into society. The data collected from the study indicate that generally speaking the National Strategy has helped to improve access, to create real opportunities for participation and to promote economic integration.
In this regard, 84% of respondents indicated that there had been significant or moderate progress in terms of real participation. Seventy-nine percent of respondents considered that there had been real or moderate progress as regards equal access to facilities, goods and services. Lastly, 59% of respondents indicated that there had been significant or moderate progress as regards the economic integration of people with disabilities.
In terms of the impact of the National Strategy, significant progress has been noted in areas of activity where departmental initiatives have been taken.
It was noted that there is a better environment for integrating people with disabilities into Canadian society, specifically by better educating the public about issues affecting people with disabilities, about technical and technological improvements and amendments to legislation and regulations.
Significant progress has also been achieved in terms of equal access to transportation, communications, housing and information.
Strong partnerships, particularly with NGOs, have encouraged people with disabilities to become more directly involved in examining problems affecting them.
In conclusion, the number of departmental initiatives reflects the leadership role being played by the federal government, but their long-term impact still remains to be determined.
[English]
The evaluation concludes that the strategic approach was not sufficiently strategic, for four main reasons. First, because of weaknesses in the process of developing the national strategy, departmental components were not designed in a focused way to achieve national strategy objectives, and there was no direct consultation with NGOs in the provinces on how to address issues, which resulted in lesser buy-in and a lesser sense of ownership by the community and the provinces.
The second reason was weaknesses in implementing the national strategy. In the early days the central agencies, the lead departments in the national strategy working group, the managers managing the national strategy programs, were not able to promote, demonstrate, and maximize cooperation and share experience. The 1993 restructuring of government made it difficult for the secretariat to play a major leadership role within the federal government. This was compounded in 1994, when, in the absence of a minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities, the focus was on the social security reform process.
.1215
Also, the strategic approach was weak because there was no accountability framework. There was little requirement for formal interdepartmental accountability other than conducting evaluations. There was no structured process, no incentive for departments to share information about implementation, about expenditures, about assessing processes, about sharing lessons learned. The lead department had overall responsibility for monitoring implementation, but it had no mechanism for ensuring this would happen. It had to rely on moral suasion.
Finally, the strategic approach was weak because of a low-key communication strategy. An evaluation finds that there wasn't sufficient cooperation between departments to situate departmental initiatives within the context of the overall federal programming for persons with disabilities and the disability community had limited awareness and knowledge about the strategy. This limited the chances for groups to work collectively on initiatives and possibly limited opportunities for mainstreaming, this being the integration of persons into Canadian society.
[Translation]
We were able to learn from the design and implementation of the national strategy. Because our population is aging, the percentage of people with disabilities will increase in Canada. Consequently, we will have to address disability-related issues and this will require a commitment by the federal government.
Another thing learned from the evaluation is that they manage to address questions specifically related to persons with disabilities through departmental programs. We must continue these programs and coordinate them at the departmental level.
A coordinated inter-departmental approach must be based on a commitment by all participating departments to contribute to an overall and shared vision of what the federal government would like to achieve in the short and long term.
Consultation and on-going dialogue with all stakeholders are important in the development and implementation of new strategies in support of people with disabilities.
The development of creative and innovative programs is based on a systematic and structured approach towards the monitoring of progress achieved and the sharing of lessons learned.
It is also necessary to develop structured accountability mechanisms. There must be an on-going dialogue with the community of disabled people and the provinces and territories when programs for disabled people are being developed and implemented. This will make it possible to respond to expectations, address priority issues and maximize the effectiveness of such programs.
More weight must also be given to the economic justification of integrating people with disabilities, thus making it possible to promote the long-term integration of people with disabilities into society and ensure the involvment of the private sector in this process.
Partnerships with all stakeholders, including people without disabilities and the private sector, are essential to the success of programs for people with disabilities. In other words, we cannot work in isolation from one another.
In conclusion, the implementation of inter-departmental programs within the National Strategy has taught us that there are enormous obstacles to the effective horizontal grouping of programs given the present context of vertical structures in the federal government. In other words, decisions in departments are always made vertically. Our program is horizontal and affects various programs and departments. It is difficult to ensure horizontality when decisions are taken vertically.
[English]
The following needs were thus identified through evaluation. There's a continuing need to address disability-related issues in Canadian society. There's also the need for continued federal involvement in addressing disability-related issues. This was also highlighted in six departmental evaluations. There's a continuing need for special federal departmental programming to address disability-related issues, and there's a continued rationale for an interdepartmental approach to address the needs of persons with disabilities.
Finally, the evaluation also emphasizes the interrelatedness and interconnectedness of disability issues. This further argues in favour of a continued national initiative in support of persons with disabilities that addresses needs from all perspectives, including all levels of government, all sectors of society, the disability community and individuals with disabilities.
.1220
Mr. Clark: To continue to respond on the community views of the national strategy, we undertook a consultation with the community to assess what the future ought to be, and the new directions in follow-up to the national strategy. We held consultations in 7 major cities and consulted some 32 disability groups.
You should know, Mr. Chairman, that throughout the last decade the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat has very much taken its advice and direction from the consumer movement and from speaking with people with disabilities themselves. As I stressed on Tuesday, people with disabilities themselves best understand the issues and have demonstrated models and solutions that work in addressing barriers. They have the expertise. Therefore our direction is very much taken from the community.
Throughout your study of the national strategy, you could sit here over a number of hours and listen to bureaucrats tell you about the work that has been undertaken. But from my point of view it's the impacts the strategy has made that are far more important. Those impacts are best assessed from the community point of view.
Having said that, I do want to highlight some of the concerns and issues that were raised by the disability community, but I caution you that hearing it from me is not sufficient. These are only the views that were expressed to our secretariat. You will need to meet with the community itself to receive more detailed analysis of the national strategy.
Generally, the community welcomes the experience of the national strategy, because it placed the issue of disability on the national agenda. It brought political attention to the issue and some concerted effort on behalf of a number of federal departments to address the issues of equal access, full participation, and economic integration. However, they will point out that they did not feel sufficiently consulted in the process on the design and orientation of the national strategy and they did not necessarily feel the strength of a partnership in that process.
They acknowledge that they have benefited in terms of resources that were made available to the community to organize and to develop issues and activities further, and therefore the national strategy did provide a key avenue for resources to support the further development of the disability community in Canada. They will acknowledge also that the national strategy brought together a focus of federal leadership, of national leadership, that was instrumental in informing and challenging provincial systems and structures and municipal systems and structures. They will identify that there is still a need for a strong federal role, especially given the current climate.
They have concerns about the accountability of the national strategy. It is their view that managers were not held fully accountable for activities under the strategy and there is a need to design a way managers of programs are accountable in some meaningful way on their progress on disability issues.
They are also concerned that there be a strong vehicle for coordination of federal activities around disability and that there be a clearly identified minister with lead responsibility for disability issues at the federal level.
They also acknowledge that persons with disabilities and the organizations that represent them need to be an integral part of the federal government's activity in the area of disability, at all levels: consultation and program design, policy development, program delivery, and evaluation.
They are also concerned that issues related to disability do not get designated to special initiatives or initiatives that happen outside the mainstream of program delivery. For years the disability community has fought against what I call ``the ghettoization of disability''. In fact, it is their preference, and rightly so, that all federal programs and activities accommodate and meet the needs of persons with disabilities, and that from a policy point of view and from a program point of view the needs of persons with disabilities, as articulated by the disability community, need to be taken into account and formal processes need to be put in place to ensure that happens.
.1225
Mr. Chairman, as your committee turns its attention to consulting the community, in our view there are six or seven main organizations that have been involved in the national strategy in detailed ways and have a strong and demonstrated understanding of labour market issues and other compelling issues of the day with regard to persons with disabilities.
I would just like to highlight those organizations for you. Some of them we talked about on Tuesday.
As I explained on Tuesday, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities - and I note that Laurie Beachell, the executive director, is in the room today - is an umbrella organization. It has cross-disability in its representation. It has had a longstanding relationship with the federal government, for the past twenty years, and continues to be a strong voice on behalf of the community of persons with disabilities.
The Canadian Association for Community Living, an organization representing and working with people with mental handicaps, again is a strong organization that has had a very positive relationship at the national level and has done a great deal of research with regard to economic integration issues.
The Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres is another key organization that actually was supported through the national strategy and currently has operating some 22 independent living centres across Canada. These are managed by persons with disabilities themselves and provide services to persons with disabilities. They have a well-established network and are certainly an important player in this discussion.
The Canadian Paraplegic Association has done a great deal of work in demonstrating the economic benefits of full participation of persons with disabilities. They have done a lot of work in addressing such issues as the federal income tax system and supports and services that can be provided to persons with disabilities. Again, they have had a strong relationship with us over the past number of years.
The Canadian Association of the Deaf and the Canadian Council of the Blind are examples of uni-disability organizations that focus on specific issues, and they also have something unique to bring to this debate.
In addition, there are a number of service-providing organizations that I would encourage should be consulted. I won't speak about those at length. I addressed that on Tuesday. It's important that this committee hear from both sides, from the consumer organizations' point of view and also from service providers, recognizing that persons with disabilities through the consumer movement have the primary source of information and input and it is their views that ought to be responded to in the first instance.
There are also other interested communities that have been involved in the national strategy, many private sector organizations, and we would be happy to provide your researcher with information on those. We suggest that this committee might want to consult with that community, also.
Mr. Chairman, with that we will close our formal comments and entertain your questions.
For the record, let me indicate that a number of questions were asked on Tuesday to which we were unable to respond at the time. We have brought documentation with us to address the majority of those questions and any outstanding issues. We will get that information to you as quickly as possible. Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much, Mr. Clark and M. Campeau.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): I have a two part question.
You've talked about the National Strategy for Canada as a whole. I was wondering whether in your evaluation, you have also looked at the situation in each major region of Canada to show whether persons with disabilities are treated the same throughout the country.
Second, I understand that you are asking for the national strategy to be reconstituted after it has been criticized and evaluated by yourselves. I would like you to tell us more about it.
Mr. Campeau: I will answer the first question and let Mr. Clark answer the second.
.1230
The evaluation was not carried out in a way that shows how the situation of persons with disabilities has progressed in each major canadian region. We focused more on each type of handicap.
Mr. Crête: When the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development was travelling during its examination of social program reform, I found that people with disabilities were treated differently from one region to the next. I am probably somewhat biased, but I thought that the work done by the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec put us ahead of other regions in CAnada.
[English]
Mr. Clark: You're quite right that across Canada there is a great difference in the kinds of services and the way those services are delivered to persons with disabilities. Some of the data we've provided the committee with in a report this morning indicates some of the differences in the regional data in the representation of persons with disabilities in the labour force and various other key pieces of information.
While the national strategy has not focused specifically on provincial delivery systems, I think you're quite right that some unique differences are worthy of note. Clearly the model in Quebec is a unique model for Canada in how persons with disabilities receive service.
I know as you move forward to talk to the community organizations they will have a great deal to say about the differences in service delivery in the various provinces. It does beg the question, however, that some of the differences between provinces do prescribe a need for federal leadership and continued demonstration of best practices and best models. Other provinces need to be aware of the approaches that have been taken in Quebec, and vice versa. There are other excellent models in the country. By sharing those between jurisdictions we can improve the progress of persons with disabilities throughout Canada. Your point is certainly very true.
In the case of the renewal of the national strategy, we have just completed the evaluation process. The evaluation material, as has been pointed out to you, is still going forward to the various committees associated with the national strategy.
Mr. Axworthy, the Minister of Human Resources Development, is strongly committed to disability issues and has been a champion of disability issues for many years. I think he is a good friend of the disability community.
Mr. Axworthy is now assessing the variety of tools within his department and other departments and is exploring the nature of the federal role with persons with disabilities. As we add to that the information on the evaluation of the national strategy, its strengths and its weaknesses,Mr. Axworthy, with his colleagues, will be determining the future direction for a federal role in disability.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There is an independent living centre for persons with disabilities in my riding. What do you see as the future of these centres? I believe that they are now being evaluated. It is probably one of the aspects of the strategy. In any case, what should be the future of these independent living centres?
[English]
Mr. Clark: The issue of incentives is one that is best responded to by the disability community. The point is that persons with disabilities do face a unique set of needs related to the limitations created by their disability. Often the additional cost encountered by persons with disabilities needs to be accommodated in some way. In our view the most appropriate way for those kinds of needs to be addressed is as part of regular program delivery. When we design programs, we should design them in such a way as to make them accessible and to deal with accommodation issues from the start. So incentive programs are not necessary. Instead, programs that do provide equal access and equal opportunity are the direction we want to move in.
.1235
That having been said, we do have some way to go in achieving that. We have found that incentive programs in working with the private sector are extremely helpful. The kinds of changes that have been made to the income tax system to allow private sector companies to write off in a single year the cost of making accommodations for persons with disabilities has been a key incentive. There are other examples like that.
So those kinds of programs do have a place. I think it would be the desire of the community to move to a day when all programs, from the point of design, include addressing the accommodation needs of persons with disabilities as a routine part of program delivery.
The Chair: Ms Catterall.
Mrs. Catterall (Ottawa West): In the past this committee has placed a great deal of importance, which I agree with, on the economic integration of people with disabilities. I think the sooner you have money in this society, the sooner your needs and rights are going to be given the attention they deserve. But I wanted to know to what extent the evaluation may have looked at specific departments and how they're addressing the needs of people with disabilities in their programming as a regular part of their routine.
I could give you an example within what's now Human Resources Development Canada. Did you look at how much in training dollars is going to people with disabilities? The last time I saw the figures they were not encouraging. I think it was about 2% of training dollars.
Second, did you look at how well people with disabilities are being integrated in training programs that are not specifically destined for people with disabilities?
Mr. Clark: Certainly our evaluation has looked at programs in other departments and the ways in which those programs try to address the needs of persons with disabilities, but it looked primarily at programs that received resources and were partnered as part of the national strategy. Not every department in the federal government was, and certainly not every program.
There have been other studies on how programs address the needs of persons with disabilities. They have been conducted by various players, including the disability community, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission has also done some analysis in that regard.
In Human Resources Development we do have data on the number of clients served in various programs. When it comes to direct dollars, often those numbers look discouraging, but it's a very difficult tracking process. First, it requires that individuals have in fact identified themselves as having a disability, which doesn't always occur when a person enters a training program. They don't always self-identify and don't become part of the tracking system. We tend also to track special initiatives rather than ongoing programs, to look at the participation rates.
It also becomes an element of the ways in which those programs are offered. If programs are offered directly from unemployment insurance resources, often the majority of persons with disabilities would be excluded from access to those programs because they don't qualify as beneficiaries under unemployment insurance, not having paid into the plan.
So there are some restrictions in terms of participation. It depends very much on the kind of training program.
This is an issue Mr. Axworthy is very much aware of and is anxious to address, so as many of the training programs as can be available in the department are available to persons with disabilities. He recognizes the extreme human resource potential in this community and is anxious to ensure that as we move forward the various tools within his department do accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.
René, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Campeau: I think you've covered most of the ground.
The Chair: I will interrupt for a moment for a business meeting of the committee, only because our colleague Mr. Crête has to excuse himself for another business function in the House. With the indulgence of the committee I will interrupt the questioning of witnesses and I will proceed with the business meeting component and the adoption of the fourth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): I move we adopt the fourth report.
.1240
Mrs. Catterall: May I ask just one question?
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Catterall: I believe that Mr. Crête wanted to ask a rather important question for our meeting this morning.
[English]
So I would like to ask if the organizations we are meeting with adequately represent those organizations that represent persons with disabilities who are French-speaking across Canada or that provide services to those individuals.
The Chair: I would like our researcher to comment on that.
Ms Nancy Holmes (Committee Researcher): I think organizations that would address that issue have been listed. Certainly it's up to the committee if they wish to add other names to the list.
Mrs. Catterall: Did we do a search specifically to look for organizations?
Ms Holmes: Yes, that was taken into consideration. Also, I think there was input fromMr. Bernier, as I understand it.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: We will resume the questioning of witnesses.
Ms Catterall.
Mrs. Catterall: In the same line, when Bill C-21 was before the last Parliament, one of my proudest accomplishments was an amendment to allow training dollars under the UI program to be used to provide either facilities or services or accompaniment to persons with disabilities to participate in training programs. CECs that I'm aware of seem to be relatively unaware of that provision. The disability groups that I'm aware of are relatively unaware of it. It's not being promoted.
Do you know how much it's being used?
Mr. Clark: I'm not aware of how much it's being used.
I'd be pleased to conduct an analysis of that and provide you with the information as quickly as I can.
One of the issues we have is the need to coordinate communications with the disability community. We often find that some of the progress made, progress in which each of you has been involved in various ways, does not adequately get communicated. One of the roles the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat can play is to coordinate the government activities in communicating with the disability community. It's key that the community should become aware of some of the changes in order to advocate for their inclusion.
But I will look at how those provisions are being implemented in the department and responded to by managers, and I'll be pleased to provide you with that information.
Mrs. Catterall: I always come back to the role of government as employer, because that's an area in which the government can play a tremendous leadership role and set a good example. I'm noticing from the report produced by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday that people with disabilities were one of the groups that were involved in reductions from the public service to a much greater extent than the public service as a whole and to a much greater extent - I think nearly double - than the other employment equity target groups. I'm sure you haven't necessarily had a chance to examine those figures and inquire into some of the background.
One of the witnesses we had before us during the last round we had on the employment equity legislation pointed to the difficulties of getting accommodation within the federal government workplace. Do you see solutions to that? I think one of the proposals that Mr. Schut made to us was for almost an ombudsman type of role, an impartial review of whether the department was adequately accommodating or not.
Have you addressed how the federal government might improve its role as employer?
Mr. Clark: We certainly work collaboratively with the Treasury Board in addressing those issues. I must say that the Human Rights Commission has also been instrumental in looking at issues dealing with workplace accommodation in the federal government and has had a lot of input in terms of helping departments to improve the situation.
.1245
First, about people who are leaving the public service, it does appear the number of persons with disabilities is disproportionately high. There are some explanations for that. I offer these only as my suspicions, because we haven't yet undertaken a complete analysis, since that report was tabled only yesterday. It is our intention to do so.
My suspicion is that because one of the approaches the government has taken to workforce reduction is to provide early retirement incentives to individuals... Many of the employees in the federal government who self-declare as having a disability are, naturally, older workers. As I explained on Tuesday, the incidence of disability increases with age, so the more senior a population, the higher the incidence of disability. So in the numbers of people who are opting for the early retirement incentive there are likely a high number of individuals who in fact have self-declared as having a disability. That is certainly one explanation.
The bigger concern is to ensure that people aren't opting for leaving the federal government because of a perception that for persons with a disability there are not sufficient opportunities within the federal public service. That's the concern we're trying to address collaboratively with the Treasury Board.
There are a number of programs to provide accommodation for public servants with disabilities; to provide them with technologies and supports. There are even provisions to provide such things as individuals to read to someone who is blind or visually impaired so they can have access to information. There are a number of very good programs, in my opinion. We still have work to do to ensure we are maintaining people with disabilities within the federal public service and we are meeting their needs.
I should also tell you that within my secretariat we operate a program that looks at disability management. Disability management is simply that when a person becomes injured in the workplace and that injury results in a disability, there is a need to assist them through the rehabilitation process, but more importantly, to bring them back into the workforce so they are not ending up on long-term disability, which is very expensive, but in fact are able to return to the workforce and continue to make their full contribution.
Four federal departments are involved in this pilot study. We plan to continue to promote the concepts of disability management so we are retaining workers who become disabled as a result of workplace injuries.
Mr. Maloney: I think you said in your presentation there was a consensus that five years was insufficient to address all the problems. Are the existing problems major or minor? What are these problems? Do you envisage or advocate an extension of the national strategy for a further period, and would that be one year, three years, five years, or indefinitely?
Mr. Clark: I think that's called putting me on the spot, isn't it?
About the length of time, what the community was addressing is that the issues that confront persons with disabilities are complex; the issues that prevent people with disabilities from participating in the economic activity of Canada, the barriers that prevent them from entering the labour force, are very complex. They deal with the interplay of systems between jurisdictions, between the federal and provincial levels, and at the municipal level.
To give you an example of the kind of issue I'm talking about, a person who receives social assistance in this country will also receive coverage for their medical expenses. For some individuals with disabilities, their medical expenses could be extremely high. It could be several hundred dollars a month. But that coverage is provided under social assistance.
When they do take employment, as you'll know from your own experience, in the first six months of employment often those benefits are not made available to employees. So while they sign off from social assistance, they lose their medical benefits and do not receive those for some period of employment. That can be an extreme hardship and just make the possibility of moving off social assistance and into an earned-income situation very difficult.
.1250
So the interplay of systems is complex. That's only one of very many examples. So to try to address those in any given time is hard.
In my view, the lessons learned from the national strategy should be integrated into our ongoing business at the national level, we should clearly define the federal role with regard to disability, and we should find ways of ensuring that all federal programs and activities are addressing that in some collective way.
My fear of having continued strategies is that they simply become that and five years from now we'll be faced with the same discussion.
The point needs to be made that as a government we have a responsibility to serve all Canadians, which includes 4.2 million Canadians with disabilities. We define the best way of doing that within our regular program delivery.
However, having said that, I think you can set a strategic direction with some clear, measurable goals that don't necessarily sunset in a period of time but become a driving vision for federal government activity with regard to disability.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Perhaps the irony in the issues we're discussing has to do with the fact that, as technology becomes available, to some extent not all but some elements of the solution of economic integration are available through that technology, but access to the technology is probably not up to speed. So we've got the seeds of the solution but we've identified a new problem.
I would like very much to see this committee, and I guess, in the course of that, your reaction to that problem....
Are we closer to access to the technology than we were five years ago, or are we further away, because the technology is leaping ahead very quickly? What can the government do to put us closer? Did the strategy attend to that, and how was its performance evaluated relative to that?
This is the first question. I think my point is clear.
My second thing is, how do we come with definitions of what constitute persons with disabilities? I'm particularly interested in the questions of environmental or chemical sensitivity and whether that community is considered to be part of the community that's involved in this inquiry.
Mr. Clark: Let me take the questions in the order in which you've asked them.
It is true that we have made significant advances in Canada with regard to technology and how it can improve independence.
One of the organizations that I failed to mention earlier is the Neil Squire Foundation, which has done a great deal of work in looking at how technology can support people with severe disabilities in the workplace and in terms of independent living. They would have a lot to share with you about that.
Access to technology is becoming more approachable as the technology costs are reducing. The cost of purchasing a computer ten years ago was very different from what it is today. However, for many people with disabilities, there is still a need to provide support for the acquisition of technology, and programs are available at the provincial level that do that.
I want to caution you. Sometimes people make the assumption that technology can address all of the barriers. Technology can enhance or change the environment so that some of the barriers are removed, but many of the barriers are systemic. They're part of attitudes. They're part of long-standing traditions or outdated legislation or outdated programs. Those present barriers equal any that can be addressed through technology. So technology is only one of the potential solutions.
.1255
The national strategy addressed technology in a number of ways. Through support to Transport Canada, there were a number of advances with regard to technology that supports individuals in boarding and deplaning from aircraft, which have made a tremendous contribution to the ease of movement for people with disabilities. We have had work done with regard to access to public transportation such as motor coaches and intercity buses, improving the access through technology. Also, in Industry Canada there were a number of projects and initiatives supported by national strategy dollars. I spoke about those on Tuesday, and I refer you to that testimony. There were a number of projects that actually saw the development and distribution of new pieces of technology that have made a tremendous contribution.
So I think the awareness of the potential of technology to remove barriers is becoming familiar to all of us, and certainly to the private sector.
One of the roles that the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat tries to play is to make the private sector aware of the technology that is available.
I'm sorry; can you remind me of the second part of your question?
Mr. Scott: The second question had to do with definitions for inclusion.
Mr. Clark: Oh yes. Thank you.
We use the World Health Organization definitions of disability, impairment, and handicap, and we have provided those to the committee clerk for distribution. That sets out a fairly clear definition of what we mean by disability, handicap, and impairment. Those concepts I also spoke about on Tuesday, and I again refer you to those proceedings.
With regard to environmental sensitivity, the federal government has dealt with that issue primarily through Health Canada. It has seen it in a health context, since most of the issues relate to health and to environment issues.
However, through our secretariat we have worked with that community in a number of ways in addressing the limitations to daily living that are imposed by environmental sensitivity. So we do not exclude that particular interest; however, it has been dealt with primarily by Health Canada, and we continue to collaborate with them.
I'm not aware of whether the national strategy specifically addressed that community at Health Canada.
Mr. Scott: I asked that because when we were doing the definitions on Tuesday, the notion of the fact that the obstruction is in fact environmental occurred to me. It hit me immediately.
I don't mean environmental in a chemical way, but just in the context of obstacles that are, let's say, made by humans.
The same would apply for people who are in a chemical-free environment at home. I have constituents in that circumstance. They have a difficulty only when they're in a non-chemical-free environment. Consequently, it is a human-made obstruction or obstacle. When you were giving the definitions, it occurred to me that it fits into them quite nicely.
The Chair: To pursue the question posed by Mr. Scott about technology, and then the question on disability, it brings a question to me, which is, when we design a national strategy, do we have a comprehensive list of factors to be considered at which the committee could look? You may be able to provide this to the committee, perhaps at a later date.
For example, along that line, if technology is such an important issue today, then that must be taken into account in the national strategy. If the scope and severity and nature of disability play a critical role in relation to allocation of resources, then that must be taken into a design of a renewed strategy.
Would you be able to provide the committee with a comprehensive list of those factors and perhaps indicate opposite each one why such a factor ought to be considered in the design of a renewed strategy?
.1300
Mr. Clark: We could do that. However, we would do it in the same way as I would propose the committee should, which is to consult with the disability community. They understand the issues, and they understand the sense of priorities or the ranking of those issues. So the best source for getting that information would be to pose exactly the question you now have when you meet with the disability community, because their priorities are what need to be addressed, not what I or any of my colleagues may perceive to be their priorities.
I might tell you that technology is a primary issue, but they might tell you otherwise. Their view must be foremost.
So I encourage you to pose the same question to the disability community.
The Chair: In fact, we intend to do that. I intend to do that. But it is always good to have the perspectives of various groups, the consumer groups, the activist groups, the so-called panel of experts, and out of these various views we will distil a national strategy that hopefully will do the best. So that is my indication for that.
For example, you say that we should consult with the consumer groups that we have in our work plan already. However, in view of the lessons the secretariat has learned, in view of the weaknesses the secretariat has identified, and in view of the clear appreciation on the part of the secretariat of the compelling and continuing issues, would it be possible to request the secretariat's perspective as to what you may suggest would be a framework for a national strategy? It is not that it will be adopted by the committee. It is understood that it will be a suggested framework, and of course we can modify, we can introduce another foundation, and hopefully we will again leave a distilled renewed strategy. Is that feasible?
Mr. Clark: We could give some sense of what the compelling issues are and what, in our view, the issues to be addressed at the federal level are. We'll be pleased to provide that to the committee.
Again, I caution you that any perception that we might have needs to be verified with the disability community. After all, we're trying to address their needs. We would be pleased to put something together, but we would ask that you verify it with the disability community.
The Chair: That of course is the plan of the committee, and of course any recommendation from the committee is the responsibility of the committee distilled from the wisdom of everybody.
The last question I have is about the effectiveness of the secretariat, only because I think Mr. Campeau or you raised the issue of a need, possibly, for a lead ministry in terms of policy development, program delivery, program evaluation, and formal process, which obviously will involve utilization or need for or access to dollar resources.
How do you define the effectiveness of the secretariat insofar as a renewed national strategy within the Department of Human Resources Development is concerned?
Mr. Clark: The climate over the past several years has in some ways limited the potential effectiveness of the secretariat. As you may be aware, when the strategy began, we were situated within the department of the Secretary of State, which later was integrated into Human Resources Development. That required us, like many other programs, to reorient ourselves to a new department. That took some time and energy and some focus for us. We have done that successfully, and we are now situated within a department that has many of the key levers that impact on programs and services for persons with disabilities. We are well situated to address the issues at play.
However, there needs to be a cross-government recognition of the secretariat as the centre of expertise and of coordination for disability issues. Certainly that can be achieved through a clear, well-defined mandate for the secretariat.
Also, I guess part of the issue we've had with the national strategy is that resources have been directly dispersed to other federal departments. As you well know, when you don't have any control over resources, often you don't have any say in how those resources are implemented. That limited the effectiveness of the secretariat.
.1305
It's critical that there should be a central place of coordination for federal government activity around disability. That needs to be situated within whatever department is identified with the lead minister, and it needs to be sufficiently resourced to carry out its task.
The Chair: You indicated that there is a need for a clear, well-defined mandate. Can you define one or two areas of ambiguity that now exist?
Mr. Clark: Because disability is a complex issue and is dealt with in many ways, a lot of people are involved in the development of policies that impact on persons with disabilities.
Right now there is no clear mandate requiring that those policies should reach the secretariat for discussion. There's no requirement that proposals going forward to cabinet will be clarified in terms of the secretariat's response to them. There is no requirement that legislative changes and proposals will be vetted through the secretariat.
Often we will hear of provisions in a second-hand way and will try to express our views, but there's no clear mandate for that to happen.
In my mind, those are examples of issues that could in fact strengthen the impact of the secretariat.
The Chair: I have one last question, which in fact Mr. Scott raised in the subcommittee. It is how we can ensure that we have taken into account concerns of persons with disabilities who come from the more urban centres versus those of persons who come from the rural areas.
Mr. Clark: I haven't had an opportunity to review your proposed witness list, but many of the organizations that are made up of representatives of the disability community in fact represent well individuals who live in urban settings and those who live in rural settings.
I would also caution you that there's a need to ensure that you are consulting with the aboriginal community, as the needs of aboriginals with disabilities are profound and also need to be addressed within any kind of national framework.
There's a wide spectrum of needs, and if we had an opportunity to discuss with you your witness list...or if you would even discuss that list with some key members of the disability community, I think they can ensure that you will be getting a broad spectrum of views, which is important.
The Chair: Along that line, has any report or study been done - not that I would like a study to be done today, to start again - giving a comparative analysis of the concerns and priorities of persons with disabilities from those two sectoral geographic areas?
Mr. Clark: No.
A number of reports have identified the concerns and interests of persons with disabilities related to specific issues. We, for instance, have provided you with a report that concerns economic integration and the social security issues of persons with disabilities. It tries to address both rural and urban settings.
The issues associated with disability are very complicated and they ebb and flow over time. The community can provide you with that kind of information. I'm not aware of any one report that's going to give you that.
Mrs. Catterall: May I raise just one question, because I think something can be done while we're on our break and we might be prepared to deal with it as soon as we come back, Mr. Chair.
At our first meeting, in terms of our future agenda, one of the issues I suggested that had the support of all three parties on the committee was that in the new year the committee should look at the Beijing platform for action on women and measure our performance and progress and our plans for equality against that platform.
.1310
One of the issues is that formally, Status of Women Canada is not under the jurisdiction of this committee. I don't think that matters in terms of us doing that, because it's very much a human rights issue. However, it does raise the issue of whether Status of Women Canada should not be under this committee. It is my belief it should be. I've had a preliminary discussion with the minister responsible, who feels it would be a good move. I think it is just a little anomaly left over from the reorganization of the departments that it's not, frankly.
What I would like to request is that we deal with this on the agenda of the next committee meeting, but that in the interim our staff, through a letter from you, perhaps, seek the views of the minister on this and find out procedurally.... As far as I know, what would be required would be an amendment to the Standing Order that lays out the mandate of the different committees, and that would be dealt with through the procedure and House affairs committee. If we could have that prepared and the committee could express its views on it, then we could take other measures necessary.
The Chair: Okay, the chair undertakes to do that.
I thank the witnesses.
The meeting is adjourned.