EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 24, 1995

.1110

[English]

The Chair: We will start the meeting. I welcome all the witnesses and I apologize for being slightly late. I was coming from a symposium of the Federation of Canadian Demographers. I did learn a few things there about definitions of disabilities.

Today we have Ms Marcia Rioux, Sherri Torjman and Mario Bolduc. By common agreement, we would like Ms Torjman to start the presentation. She is vice-president of the Caledon Institute.

Ms Sherri Torjman (Vice-President, Caledon Institute of Social Policy): Thank you very much for having invited me to the committee today to share some thoughts with you.

The Caledon Institute has done extensive work on the Canada health and social transfer and I'd like to talk about that today, especially with respect to its potential impact on people with disabilities. But before I focus my remarks on the CHST, I wanted to talk very briefly about two issues, one of which is the role of the federal government and the second is just a comment about the national strategy.

While I work right now for the Caledon Institute, I've been involved with disability -

The Chair: We'll just suspend proceedings for a few minutes. I'm told the interpretation is not working.

Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Chairman, while we're figuring this out, would it be all right to continue in one language, English? The Bloc is not here and I think we're all proficient in English, at least for the moment, except for Mr. Bolduc who is pretty good.

Mr. Mario Bolduc (Individual Presentation): It's all right for the moment, but....

The Chair: Just give us a couple of minutes and then if it's taking longer, we'll follow your suggestion, with unanimous consent.

Mr. McClelland: Mais Monsieur Bolduc -

Mr. Bolduc: It's okay for the moment, but when I speak, you will have a problem.

Mr. McClelland: No, it's very good actually. I'll speak with you in French and then we'll all have a problem.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to proceed with the...? Can we do that?

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. With unanimous consent on the part of the members, witnesses, and I assume of the public, we will proceed with the English language in the interest of time. Of course, this will be translated eventually anyway.

You may proceed, Ms Torjman.

Ms Torjman: Thank you very much. As I indicated, I will talk about the implications of the Canada health and social transfer upon people with disabilities in particular. But before doing that, I'd like to talk briefly about two issues, one of which is a general question on the federal role with respect to the status of persons with disabilities, and the second is just some comments on the national strategy.

As you know, I work with the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, but I had worked in the area of disability over the past 15 years. I was a staff researcher to the parliamentary committee on the disabled and the handicapped in 1981. As you know, we produced the Obstacles report, which I'm sure most of you have seen.

I'm raising this because I want to let you know what an unbelievable experience it was to work for that federal parliamentary committee. There was a vision as to the role of a federal committee in terms of defending the rights of people with disabilities, ensuring that people with disabilities would be seen as human beings with rights and as citizens of Canada.

.1115

Everybody checked their ideological and political stripes at the door. There were discussions, of course, about mechanisms and different activities, but there was a sense that as members of Parliament, people could really do something with respect to the status of people with disabilities as citizens in the country. There was a sense that the federal government had a very important role to play in this regard with respect to vision, leadership, the human rights framework within which all the other spending takes place, and sharing costs of certain programs in order to ensure there was a fiscal capacity to provide services throughout the country. There was a very strong sense that the federal government and these members of Parliament really had a very important role to play in that regard.

I want to raise that because I think that at this time, certainly we have a different fiscal context. I recognize that, but I honestly believe there is still a very strong role for the federal government to play in protecting human rights and creating a vision. The specific mechanisms may be different - and perhaps we can talk about that - but there is a strong federal role in this regard.

The second comment I wanted to make before moving into the CHST has to do with the issue of the national strategy. There has been a national strategy, which involved a number of federal departments undertaking specific activities with respect to promoting the status of persons with disabilities. Those initiatives are important.

What was truly missing with this national strategy was a vision or a statement of commitment to this national strategy right from the very top levels of government, indicating to all Canadians what the federal government saw as its vision in terms of people with disabilities as citizens in this country. That's really lacking right now. People are looking for that vision and for that statement of values. Right from the top on down, right from the Prime Minister's office, the Privy Council office and ministerial speeches, there should have been some statement as to what this national strategy is, the commitment the federal government has to ensuring that people with disabilities are full citizens in the country. That piece was very much missing in the strategy we saw.

I'd like to focus my remarks now upon the CHST in particular, because this is one area of federal policy that will have a very severe impact on people with disabilities. I honestly don't believe that the full implications of this piece of legislation were understood at the time it was proposed. They are still not understood in terms of what it will mean for those citizens of the country.

I'd like to speak very briefly about welfare, social services and personal supports. Then perhaps I'll lay out what the concerns are and then we can return, if you like, to some of the specific questions.

The concerns we have expressed with respect to the CHST are the combination of welfare and social services pulled together into a mega-block fund with health and post-secondary education. We feel those two components of human services - welfare and social services - will fall to the end of the queue. They're certainly not popular, they're not very well understood, but they're very important to many Canadians, especially to people with disabilities. We're worried about the funding and the financing that will go toward those areas.

Let me turn to the area of welfare in particular. As you know, that's under attack right now throughout the country. Many people are concerned that what we will see in welfare is a return to a categorical program whereby you have to qualify on the basis of some criterion, either some disability or your marital status. For example, you have to be a single parent with a child under a certain age.

.1120

The difficulty is that we feel the categorization will become very stringent. We've already heard that certain provinces are considering reclassifying who is considered disabled. We're very worried that even though people say that persons with disabilities will be protected because they are the so-called deserving poor, the current legislation provides no protection at all. There's no protection. And we'll see that definition of disability change at the provincial level to make it increasingly narrow. It's a very big concern.

The difficulty is that welfare is not the best way to meet people's income security needs. The irony here is that we are defending a welfare system, admitting at the same time that there are far better ways of meeting economic security needs. Maybe we can pick that up in the discussion.

The fact is that's all we have right now, and if that's all we have, then we're going to defend it to the best of our ability. We're worried that there will be no protection for people, no safety net in the country, no guarantee of a safety net. That is very serious given the labour market we see.

We're also worried about the residence requirements. As you know, the CHST builds in a protection. It says provinces cannot put in place residence prohibitions or requirements. They cannot ask that people live a certain period of time in a province before qualifying. But we have heard informally that some provinces do not intend to respect that provision. They're going to get around it by saying to the federal government, we've spent your full transfer on health, post-secondary education and social services and there's no federal money going into that particular component of our programs; therefore, we're entirely free to do whatever we want. So even though we've been reassured that there's no worry about the residence requirement, we know there will be difficulties in protecting that provision.

There will be the loss of the appeals system as well in various provinces, especially for a program like welfare that is highly discretionary. That is a very serious concern.

One of the areas in which I work is calculating welfare rates throughout the country for the National Council of Welfare. It's an annual accounting of the welfare rates in every province. That system is so complicated. It takes a long time. I call it my annual trip through hell to do those numbers because of the complexity. But I know that my personal hell pales in comparison to anybody who has to live on it. If we lose the appeal system the Canada assistance plan had provided, I think there's no protection for people.

There's another area that will affect people with disabilities in particular. The Canada assistance plan required that provinces had in place what was called liquid asset exemption guidelines. In other words, people could have a certain amount of cash and still qualify for welfare. They were allowed to have a certain very small amount of money and still qualify. The guidelines for people with disabilities were always more generous than for other people. This recognized the fact that there were disability-related costs people would incur.

We don't know what will happen now with those guidelines because they will be lost with the withdrawal of the Canada assistance plan. It's possible that provinces will put in place certain requirements where they do not allow a more generous liquid asset exemption. It may sound technical, but it's certainly a very hidden way that provinces would be able to narrow their caseloads.

The area of social services is another area that will suffer when all the funding comes together. Certainly people who can afford to purchase their own attendant services, their own homemaker services, their caregivers, their nannies for their children, will continue to do that. But people who don't have the financial resources will be the ones to suffer.

I'll leave you with a paper we put out very recently on the CHST called ``The Let-Them-Eat-Cake Law''. We feel it is the lower-middle-income people who will suffer as a result. There are many services provided to people with disabilities that had been supported under the Canada assistance plan.

The last point I want to make on this new financial arrangement that will be in place is that most people don't realize that welfare is more than a cheque to people for basic needs. A very important component of welfare is used to provide support for special needs, disability-related needs, technical aids and equipment, or any forms of support people might require.

.1125

We're worried that with the attack on welfare we're going to see throughout the country, that form of special assistance will be tightened severely or may not even be available. We don't know, but we're very worried about that. That special assistance component, which nobody seems to talk about and which gets lost in any discussion of welfare, is at serious risk.

I'll table with you as well a report we wrote called ``CHST Spells `Cost' for Disabled''. It talks very explicitly about the problems with respect to special assistance.

I will stop now. Perhaps in question time we can get into some discussion of what we will do now, or what could be a better arrangement given the fact that the CHST is in place. I just wanted to make the point that I hope you, as members of Parliament of the federal government, see a very clear role for yourself. I hope that in some way we can take some action to offset what I think will be very serious problems arising from the federal initiative.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms Torjman.

For the record I would just like to read a little about the Caledon Institute of Social Policy. It is:

a private, non-profit organization for social policy research analysis and public education. The Institute focuses on such areas as income security, taxation, social spending, employment and poverty.

For the record I should also indicate that Ms Torjman has written in the areas of social spending, the interaction of the welfare and tax systems, social program reform and fiscal arrangements. She has written a series of welfare reports for the National Council of Welfare and she has authored four books on disability-related policy: Income Insecurity: The Disability Income System in Canada, Poor Places: Disability-Related Housing and Support Services, Nothing Personal: The Need for Personal Supports, and Direct Dollars: A Study of Individualized Funding.

As Ms Torjman has indicated, she has also done work for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, the House of Commons Special Committee on Child Care, and the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies.

I thought it would be very important to put this on the record to indicate the perspective you are bringing before the committee.

Now I would like to call on Ms Marcia Rioux, director of the Roeher Institute, Canada's national institute for the study of public policy affecting persons with disabilities. Dr. Rioux is also an adjunct professor of social policy in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University in Toronto. Currently Dr. Rioux serves on the editorial board of a number of journals, including Abilities magazine, European Journal on Mental Disability, and the Tizard Learning Disability Review Journal.

She also serves on the board of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disability. Her forthcoming book, The Equality-Disability Nexus, is an examination of the scientific, social, economic and political factors that have shaped current policy, legislation and jurisprudence, and that in turn shape equality and entitlement in society.

With that introduction, I call on Ms Rioux to please proceed with her opening remarks.

Ms Marcia Rioux (Director, Roeher Institute): Thank you very much. I appreciate being invited here today, and I appreciate the concern I know this committee has for the issues related to disability in Canada.

It's important to recognize that Canada has been seen as a world leader in the area of both physical and intellectual disability because of a number of protections we have built in, including the protection for the rights of people with disabilities in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is also due to the very fine and noble tradition we have in terms of human rights, both federally and provincially, in this country. It is also because there has been a very serious and concentrated effort over the past 30 years to take very seriously the kinds of commitments we make to people who have disabilities in this society.

.1130

Like Sherri, I tend to have a feeling that we're at a particularly critical turning point right now. The opinions and report of this committee will be particularly critical for what will happen over the next 20 years and whether we will continue to be able to maintain the kinds of standards and models we've had until now.

Let me turn to the work we've been doing. Over the last 10 years we have done a large number of policy studies in this field: on income and personal supports, education, literacy, employment, residential services, violence and abuse, and social services - all related to disability. Perhaps the overall impression that can be drawn from those studies is that no area stands by itself. It's a very coordinated set of programs that leads to people with disabilities moving from being dependent on the system to being contributing members of society.

We're now at a point where it's important that we recognize that any kind of segregation of these individual areas will actually lead to greater levels of dependence by people with disabilities. So we're now in a position where the social and economic consequences of separating the funding so that it becomes federal funding for some areas and provincial funding for other areas will have extremely costly social and economic consequences.

I think, like Sherri, that the CHST has the potential to lead governments into a position where in fact the federal government may well be handing funding over to the provinces for spending on disability. If it then in fact goes to disability, it may go in ways that aren't building toward that greater potential for social and economic independence that's so long been a part of the wish of people with disabilities, but that also is simply a logical goal towards which all governments would normally be moving.

It's important to recognize very basic facts about disability. One is that more than 50% of people with disabilities are not in the labour force in this country. It's a huge cost. The jobs available are generally jobs that do not cover the additional costs of disability. Consequently, for people to become competitive in the labour market it's such a personal cost that they can't do it. It isn't a matter of simply being able to move into those positions.

As Sherri pointed out, the Canada assistance plan, the welfare program in this country, not only pays for income of a subsistence level for people with disabilities as it does for others, but it also pays for many of the support services people need to be able to be in the school system, the labour market and in homes of their own rather than being dependent on the state for all their costs.

Because of increased competition in the labour market, it's very likely that without the continuation of some of the particular programs we've had for vocational support for people with disabilities, they're even less likely to get into the labour market than at the present time.

It's clear that provincial governments are slashing income support programs. We're seeing this in three or four provinces now. They're redefining disability to reduce the program intake and retention. We're now going to have a simple redefinition of disability, so people who are disabled today will not be disabled tomorrow or the next day. It's a shell game. It's really important to understand that it's not a shell game if you're the person with the disability. You in fact have a disability. It's not a mythical condition.

If people then receive no support, they're going to become more and more dependent on the systems somewhere. There will be greater pressure on the federal government to reinvolve itself in the fact that we will have people on the streets of our country with disabilities, whereas we have traditionally felt this was a social responsibility.

.1135

If people with disabilities are disentitled from income programs and have poor access to jobs, it's going to become increasingly important for some level of government to increase its support. I expect the pressure will be on the federal government rather than the provincial governments.

Unfortunately with CHST, if the control of those funds is in the hands of the provinces without any kind of strings attached, it's going to be extremely difficult to make sure the whole system is working in a coordinated way toward the kind of economic and social independence we look to have for most people.

Again, with vocational services there has been very little attention paid to the consequences of eliminating VRDP and also of eliminating the support programs within the welfare system that have enabled people to have the kinds of vocational services they need to become employed.

The federal and provincial expenditures on residential support services, which are at present an important component of the CAP welfare program and the established programs financing, are probably in direct jeopardy as there is devolution of the cost-sharing of these particular programs. We're probably talking about more than 50,000 people living in residential services who may have no major form of support once the funding under social assistance and the welfare provisions of CAP, as they exist at present, are removed. This will bring pressure on the families of people who have disabilities.

I step back for a moment to remind you that in the first census done in Canada that included disability, the percentage of people with disabilities was 10%. It has now gone up to about 13.5%, so in fact we have a population with disabilities that is increasing. That includes all disabilities, including seniors. But if there is no vocational and residential programming for people with disabilities, the pressure on families and other informal support networks will become very extensive. I believe those people will also have to withdraw themselves from labour markets to look after this population; that's a really big problem.

There is a new demographics of disability. There are more people with disabilities but there are also more young people with disabilities, who over the past 15 years have gone through the regular school system and therefore are moving toward the regular labour force. In other words, over the last 20 years we've actually reached a point where we're starting to move people into the mainstream system; we're starting to move people into becoming socially and economically independent. These are two important moves. If there are no jobs, once again it's a downward spiral from where we are now that makes little sense in terms of an overall agenda.

One thing about people with disabilities is that generally governments have worked very hard, and this in turn has enabled people with disabilities to work hard to move into the mainstream. If there are no incentives for people to move off the welfare or income support systems and into the regular mainstream, the cost continues to mount.

The cost of a wheelchair this year is higher than the cost last year. Those are costs that become unmanageable. Clearly the way out of that kind of vicious circle is to ensure that we continue to support those programs and to press toward programs that ensure that people have the kinds of supports they need to be able to participate in Canadian society generally.

.1140

The coordination of the various areas is critically important. An employment program by itself will not ensure that people with disabilities become employed. It's absolutely a requirement that we must ensure that people have the supports they need to be able to go to school, the supports they need to be able to take appropriate training, the supports they need to be able to stay in the labour market. If the cost of being in the labour market is higher than being out of the labour market, then people are going to be forced onto social support and away from the labour market.

The violence and abuse increase as families are under pressure, where they simply can't cope any longer and where there is no state support. We see people with disabilities who have no support often ending up in the prison system. The cost of the justice system goes up. The cost of education programs goes up when we don't provide the support for people to be able to be in the regular system and we have to run parallel systems.

At just about every level we can see there are personal costs: costs in terms of the kind of society we have, costs in terms of whether we're meeting the guarantees we have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under human rights acts, and straight economic costs to not maintaining a system in which we continue to support people to be able to move ahead.

The coordination of that system is absolutely imperative. It does not happen if money is handed over without any basic standards to the provincial governments in this country. It simply won't happen. What will happen is that eventually federal costs will go up and there will be increasing pressure on the federal government to be reinvolved, unless we wish simply to let people starve to death.

I'm sure we're going to talk a bit more about some of the solutions we can look at. I certainly think it's worth considering whether it's possible to have a program where we remove income support programs, both income programs and income-in-kind programs. In other words, we take the costing for supports and services, both personal and technological, out of the welfare system and begin to think of those as set costs that people can achieve. Then they could move wherever they could move within the system, either into employment or into the school system or into whatever kind of mainstream they'd like to achieve.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms Rioux.

Now we will proceed to Mr. Mario Bolduc, who has been working for 25 years, both as a professional and volunteer, to help people living with disabilities achieve equal opportunity and integration into the community. He is currently working as a volunteer activist and consultant.

Mr. Bolduc has worked for Quebec's Ministry of Health and Social Services, most notably in the drafting of the Act to Secure the Handicapped in the Exercise of their Rights. At the same time he completed his master's degree in program evaluation.

He has also participated in a far-reaching evaluation program on the response to the needs of elderly persons with functional limitations, a longitudinal research project on the determinance of the social integration and quality of life of persons with intellectual disabilities, and a variety of studies on home care.

Parallel to his professional life, Mr. Bolduc has been involved with a number of groups working with and for persons with disabilities. He was responsible for the programming at the Canadian Congress on Rehabilitation in 1987. He is a founding member of the Canadian chapter of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps, and as such has a voice at the international level. He was vice-chair of the advisory committee on the status of disabled persons in Quebec in 1992.

Mr. Bolduc, you may proceed with your opening remarks, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Bolduc: Good morning everyone. Let me start by thanking Mr. Cole for having invited me to meet with you today.

I would like to begin by making a number of observations.

For the past 15 years, many groups of experts have examined the situation of persons living with functional limitations resulting from an illness or trauma. In fact, filing cabinets are full of policy studies, action plans, strategies and so forth.

.1145

The fact of the matter is that clear progress has been made, even though the challenges remain enormous. In these difficult times, setbacks have occurred in some areas.

There is no need at this time to reconsider major policy directions. Instead, we must forge ahead and concentrate even more on the concrete actions that must be taken to achieve our goals.

A fairly broad consensus has emerged on the goals that societies must pursue with respect to persons with disabilities. These goals are quite simple. We want to ensure that the rights of persons living with disabilities are respected, that they are given equal opportunities, that they are allowed to participate fully in the social, economic and cultural life of their community, that their specific, wide-ranging needs are met effectively and efficiently and that they enjoy the best possible quality of life.

To attain these goals, we rely first and foremost on the existence of a comprehensive series of legal and social measures, policies, programs and services geared directly to persons with disabilities and to their physical and social environment.

Effective implementation of these measures is further conditioned by the socioeconomic situation and by other factors such as attitudes within the community or the level of awareness of consumers.

Personally, I have identified three major problem areas for persons with disabilities. The first has to do with income security, that is a guaranteed alternative source of income or a minimum income for everyone. This is critically important. However, this problem is not unique to people living with disabilities. Income security is a more global issue.

We are confronted with a number of dilemmas. Should we fight to provide income security for all those who need it or should we focus instead on improving income security for persons with disabilities? It is already widely acknowledged that persons living with disabilities should receive more money. Their income should at the very least be equivalent to that of seniors living on a pension. However, the fact remains that this issue raises a number of questions.

Secondly, action is needed on different factors associated with the physical and social environment so that these factors become facilitators rather than obstacles. Action must be taken on all fronts, whether it be in the area of building design, legislation, transportation, communications, labour, recreational activities, attitudes and so forth.

Many initiatives have been taken in these areas in recent years, but a great deal remains to be done.

Thirdly, direct action must be taken at the level of the individual and his immediate environment. Initiatives in this area include specialized rehabilitation for a set period of time when necessary.

.1150

Looking at the longer term, the issue is primarily one of compensating for disabilities in various ways such as providing technological aids, adapting a person's surroundings, whether it be the home, car, workplace or classroom, and in particular providing help in the home, classroom and at work.

This is one area where, in my opinion, action has been the least effective and resulted in the greatest inequality among groups. This has been well documented. Countless studies and reports have been produced in the past 15 years. We have witnessed total confusion and a lack of coordination. We have a multitude of systems which are ineffective, inequitable and very costly. The evidence speaks for itself.

Therefore, in my view, the main priority in the coming years will be to achieve equal opportunity through compensation for costs associated with disabilities. The priority will be to find one or more effective ways of compensating persons for the costs associated with their disabilities, regardless of the type of disability from which they suffer, the reason for it, their age or their income.

In my opinion, such a system must cover a wide range of supports such as home care, technical aids, adjustments to the living environment and special aids in the area of education and work. I believe that such a system could be completely separate from an income security system. I want to stress this point, because having special amounts associated with income security leads to totally ridiculous situations.

For one thing, this kind of system discourages people from working. For another, it means that enormous sums of money are being invested by society to promote the social integration of persons with disabilities and that, just when these persons start to succeed, they are penalized and end up having to pay more. They are penalized financially in addition to having to put up with other inconveniences.

It's so ridiculous that one wonders whether to laugh or cry.

There are different ways that we could satisfy this priority. A number of proposals have been on the table for some time now. Various options are possible. Some talk of a single system which would incorporate all other systems, whether it be those in place for work-related accidents, highway accidents, private retirement plans, veterans and so forth.

While that may be the perfect solution, is it very realistic? I doubt it. A single system would be extremely complicated to administer and would require some political fortitude, something which we are not accustomed to seeing.

Still others speak of a complementary system which would plug the main holes as far as the most disadvantaged groups are concerned. This would be the easiest, most realistic solution, but the danger is that it could perpetuate the inequality that we have.

.1155

There is a third possible solution. Efforts could be made to coordinate and harmonize existing systems. This is an interesting solution, albeit one that would be difficult to implement.

What's left is for us is to select the right approach. The important thing is to ensure that we respect the principle of equal opportunity. However, if we are to respect this principle, persons with disabilities should not have to pay more. That goes without saying.

One of the most neglected areas is home care. We are still a long way off from having a modern, efficient system which would allow people to live under acceptable conditions.

The direct allowance formula is very important as far as this area is concerned and efforts must be made to bring in a system of reasonable allowances similar to what is available in the public sector.

These are the main points that I wanted to discuss. I do have one final comment. I don't wish to get into a debate and I have no preconceived ideas as to which level or levels of government should carry out these initiatives. You can understand that under the circumstances I do not wish to get involved in this debate. However, I must remind you nonetheless that in Quebec, even hard-core federalists feel that the provinces should have responsibility for these areas, at least insofar as Quebec is concerned. Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. McClelland: I very much thank each of you, collectively and independently, for your presentations.

Mr. Bolduc suggested there is one thing we might do at the end of the day if this committee were to accomplish anything. We might accomplish income security or make the distinction for people with disabilities who make the extra effort to earn income for social as well as physical reasons of participating in the workforce, and who find themselves at a tremendous disadvantage because they lose the very support system that enabled them to get the employment in the first place. If for any reason they lose their employment, getting that support back again is a horror story. It becomes a major disincentive because people will not try to get employment. If they do get employment, they become ever more vulnerable than before.

I want to be very clear, if I may, that if you died and went to heaven and this committee did one thing, if we were able to satisfy that problem through the tax system or through income support systems or however it's done, would you consider this to be the most important priority of this committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Bolduc: I repeat that the most basic needs of persons living with disabilities could be met with technical aids and personal supports. Such supports could be assured regardless of the nature of the disability or of personal income. Therefore, I believe this should be separate from income security.

.1200

[English]

Mr. McClelland: I would direct a more general question to everyone. Putting aside the niceties of welfare and disabilities and all that, I think I speak for most Canadians who are not part of the welfare industry. Most Canadians are quite happy to pay taxes, to see that money directed to those who are in need. Most Canadians are not happy to see that money directed at people in want, especially when the grey area between the working poor, which is an ever-increasing number of people, and people who do not participate but take welfare exclusively, is increasingly fuzzy, where there is not a clear distinction between the people who work and those who don't work even if employment is available.

An extension of that is that mixing persons with disabilities with people who are on welfare, which should be temporary, and people who have long-term needs because of disability further muddies the water. Then you muddy the water, at least in my personal opinion, with people who have disabilities that are chronic, systemic disabilities and people who have a problem that they may themselves compensate.

For instance, if you lose an arm it doesn't make you disabled. It makes you terribly discomforted, but you can still use your other arm. Now, I don't know whether that's inaccurate from the disability community or not, whether that's insensitive from the people who are not disabled. So there is a distinction between disabled, someone with a disability....

I guess I have enough on the table now. That is my last question.

The Chair: Does anybody have a comment on the question?

Ms Torjman: You're raising a number of important issues, one of which is the current income security system for people with disabilities. You're absolutely right - it's inappropriate that people with disabilities have to rely on provincial welfare systems. It doesn't make any sense. That's not why welfare systems were set up. You're right. They were intended to be last-resort, residual programs when there was nothing else in place. The problem is there is nothing else in place for many people, and those have become the first-line form of support.

The Caledon Institute has argued that there should be a much better way of meeting the income security needs of people with disabilities. Ideally we would like to see it as a federal program much like the old age security program. I know that in the current fiscal climate this is a very difficult issue. At the very least we would like to see the federal government provide some form of top-up to provincial welfare systems, because they are entirely inadequate with respect to income support.

On the other question about personal supports and how best to meet those needs with respect to personal supports, again it's inappropriate that those kinds of supports are provided through a welfare system arrangement. We should be doing a much better job in that area.

One of the proposals we put forward during the social security review was to move the personal support system out of welfare. We had actually proposed a separate financing arrangement for personal support. We're so concerned about this area, not simply with respect to the current population of people with disabilities but also looking at the demographics of the country and where we're headed. We were arguing that we have to do much better planning in that whole area of disability.

You could do it through a cost-sharing arrangement whereby you give money to provinces to set up a range of supports, and that could be in any number of forms. You could also do this through the tax system, as you suggested, and in fact we do. We have a federal medical expenses credit right now that covers certain items. The difficulty with that credit at the moment is that it's a non-refundable credit, which means it's of no assistance to people whose incomes are so low that they pay no tax. So you're really helping a certain income band.

.1205

The federal government spent $232 million last year - federally-provincially it was $360 million - on the medical expenses credit alone. I'm not saying that group doesn't need help, but you're excluding a large group that could use that form of assistance.

So there are several options. One is a tax credit that ideally should move toward refundability, or a cost-sharing arrangement where you pull out the personal support system from welfare, or even some notional allocation in your CHST that would be earmarked for personal support. Provinces could do what they wanted with the money.

Our own preference is to have a set of standards, and you've heard us speak about that. However, given that we're in a difficult climate, if we can't negotiate that, at the very least we'd like to see a notional allocation whereby you ensure that there is a pocket of money going for that purpose. Right now we have no assurance.

Mr. McClelland: If that income were directed at a specific person through the Canada pension plan - a lot of people are using that right now - and the Canada pension plan were the primary vehicle whereby people got that support, would that be an appropriate way to do it? It wouldn't go to the provinces at all. The Canada pension plan might have a premium attached to it because it's a support system for people, so instead of paying 7.3% we might pay 8.3%. Take the provinces out of it entirely.

Ms Torjman: It's an interesting thought in that you have to be working in order to have some vesting in the Canada pension plan and make some contributions. One of the difficulties for people with disabilities is that they can't get into the workforce in the first place, so that's important to consider.

The second difficulty has to do with the financing of the Canada pension plan, which is employer and employee contributions. If you could convince employers to earmark part of their premium for that purpose, that would be wonderful. The difficulty right now is employers' concern about paying for social costs that they don't think they should be paying for.

So I have no difficulty with it in theory, but I think there would be some problem in practice. I'd prefer that kind of system to be supported through consolidated revenue funding.

Ms Rioux: You're absolutely right. The force right now is toward dependent status for people with disabilities. The drugs they're on and the kinds of personal and technical support they need, all of which are provided through the welfare system in most cases, force people to stay within the dependency of the current welfare system. To move out of that system toward economic security from employment would require a different kind of funding mechanism.

I will table a report that we wrote on what we call a Canadian disability resource program. We looked at a concrete mechanism for setting up an independent mechanism, outside the welfare system, for providing people with the personal and technical supports they need to move into any number of environments.

People are now in a position where the technical or personal supports they get tend to be related to the environment they're in. So they can't necessarily take the wheelchair they get under an employment training program, or the personal attendant they have in their residential service, into the labour market. The disincentives keep pulling people back into the dependency system.

I think there are realistic ways of moving around that and I think it would resolve a major issue. I would support looking at something like that as a federal program.

.1210

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

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

I hope to make it to heaven too, so perhaps I can earn my place here.

I'd like to hit on two levels. First of all is the ultimate vision that we've come to. I would suggest that fiscal parameters might affect delivery systems, even the extent to which we're prepared to reconcile reality to our vision, but they shouldn't affect our vision. I think we should always be aspiring to something. As far as we've come along, surely we don't have to backslide in the course of this. Even if we are prepared to acknowledge we're not doing what we'd like to do, that shouldn't change what we'd like to do. Now I'm trying to figure out what we would like to do and get a reaction.

It occurs to me that where we've come speaks more to questions of inclusion, integration, participation and personal fulfilment. The words perhaps are wrong, but I think you understand what I'm getting at. I don't want to be trite about this either, because I think sometimes we have a tendency to think about all these lofty things and in reality be so far away from that, that it becomes very insensitive. I would seek absolution for the moment.

It strikes me that the problem is the labour market and jobs and the inability of the market to deal with the fact that it is held up in this society as the definer of whether we're in or out. Unfortunately, because of the competing social policy vision that I think is historic, the community of persons with disabilities could either benefit from a broader vision or in fact be harmed dramatically by a broader vision, if you like, because employment is less thought of in terms of persons with disability, in terms of social policy.

There's a model; I don't know what we call it. It's a charity model or something. I'm not sure, but if you follow.... As we try to design programming around dealing with the labour market problem, I think it's very important to always remember how hard being a part of the labour market is to some parts of the community.

I think it's also important - and I'm speaking now to the comment that my colleague Ian made - if we attempt to use the opportunity for a job, and therefore programs are designed to have Canadians contribute because they're employed, for all intents and purposes that's what exists now. You might not be employed because you're unemployed or because you're older than a certain age or because you have a physical thing that precludes you from being employed. But ultimately that seems to be the difference between who contributes and who doesn't.

Can you envision, as an approach to this, a way that a relationship could be found between those who are sort of making it in the system and those who are having more difficulty making it in the system, around that model, with government leadership? Or under the present fiscal situation is it probably more harmful than helpful to pursue that model? I'm asking for direction here, because it strikes me that that's the fundamental problem - whether or not one is working.

.1215

The other element is, what are the things that cause people not to be working? You can make a list. Personally, my instinct is that we go in that direction.

I think maybe the public has bought into the notion that it's the fault of the people who aren't working that they're not working, and I think that's the problem. The system is not designed that everybody work. Consequently, the problem is that this function of the system is now way out of hand. There are too many people. The people supporting the system are getting more and more impatient with how much they have to do that, and the people outside the system are getting less and less as a consequence. The ``haves'' circle shrinks and the ``have not'' circle expands, and it's a no-win situation for either side.

If we consolidate our effort around that notion, that model, what happens to persons with disability?

Ms Rioux: If I can speak to that, I think it's a serious problem. I think the issue around disability is not an issue around...and I don't think Mario or Sherri said employment. I think all of us talked about economic security or income security. We didn't talk about employment as necessarily being the only method of income security.

The distinction with people with disabilities is they have some additional needs. Even if you look at the welfare that people with disabilities get under the welfare system - and they do generally get a top-up on basic needs and get some of their supports through that system - there still is an assumption that their welfare payment is what they get, even though they have needs that are greater than other people's needs. So they're really penalized in a sense for that disability because the actual needs aren't met.

To pull the disability-related needs and supports out of the welfare system would really allow people to be in a position to participate in whatever spheres they participate in, to the same extent other people do.

It is true that in Canada not everyone is employed, and in some places unemployment is higher than in others. Newfoundland has a very high unemployment rate; we know that. But if we had a system that was less irrational, less shotgun, and was actually coordinated, in the sense that we could genuinely determine people's needs and were able to give people the recompense they needed to support those needs, then they could move into the employment market where there were jobs. They could move onto welfare where they needed basic supports. They could move into education and training systems where they needed that. They could move into looking after their elderly mothers or fathers or their children, if that's what they do, which a large part of our population does now. They would be able to play all of those roles, which now they're precluded from playing because they don't have that basic support for their needs.

It isn't just the labour market that's the issue in this case. It's moving across all of those.

I just want to point out now - and again, I will table a paper - that we looked at some of the disability-related supports and the costs of the delivery system in about seven provinces. We were trying to look at what this was costing us in Canada, this kind of irrational system. The expenditures, excluding primary hospital care and excluding income maintenance - so we're talking about disability-related supports - were about $317 per person. That comes out to about $8.5 billion annually. If we pull out the nursing homes as well, it goes down to about $5.6 billion.

It's certainly possible without any additional expenditure to put in place a rational system where we are able to recompense people for their costs. We could certainly reduce the administrative cost of these various add-on systems we've put in place in this country, and provide people with the disability-related supports they need, and then move them into the other systems.

But the answer to your question is that if it's just an employment issue, it's not going to resolve the problem of disability any more than it's going to resolve a number of other problems we have.

Ms Torjman: I wanted to respond to the question because I was wondering whether you were proposing or suggesting that we move toward a social insurance model toward meeting the costs of personal support.

.1220

As you know, we have two major social insurances in the country: unemployment insurance and the Canada/Quebec pension plan. We have come out fully supportive of insurance programs in the sense that we feel it's a fundamental program we should have. Other kinds of programs that are either income-tested or needs-tested or are paid as a demi-grant should come after an insurance program where people contribute.

There are two issues with respect to applying that model to personal supports. The first is that we're seeing a labour market that is becoming increasingly difficult, both in the types of jobs being created and the sufficient number of jobs for people. If you make that program contingent upon labour force participation, I think you'll have difficulty in terms of excluding a lot of people.

There are many jobs, too, that don't have the associated benefits. You also have people who are self-employed, who are not contributing to some of the social insurances like unemployment insurance, or part-time people who get excluded from the social insurances. So there would be a whole set of issues that would have to be resolved.

The other problem is that if you're looking at providing supports for people who are not in the labour market, who are either children or teenagers or seniors, there's going to be a bigger need in that population where there will be perhaps no labour force attachment at that point but they will still require personal supports. That's one of the reasons we've looked at the area of personal supports outside the insurance model or mode of delivery. You have people who are not affiliated with the workforce because of the labour market or because of the demographics as a child or a senior, and they are currently not in that labour market. It's an interesting proposal, but I guess we prefer a tax-based approach to this area.

Mr. Scott: Just to make sure my question was as precise as it can be, it was more on the contribution side than on the expenditure side. In other words, it was more designed to imagine on what basis one would contribute as against on what basis one would receive. Therefore, it's based on a very general notion that if you're working in this country you have it reasonably well. That's a generalization, and I accept that. There are all kinds of working poor and they might have their situation enhanced as well using that model.

That's what I was thinking of, but I was fearful that for the very reasons you mentioned, in terms of those people who most Canadians imagine farthest away from the labour force, it would somehow be very difficult to imagine how they would become included in that model. It isn't to say that one would have to be a contributor in that model to be a recipient in that model. It's much more collective.

Ms Torjman: I understand what you're saying. Fair enough.

There is one related issue and that is whether in fact you'd have an earmarked tax for this purpose. We have never supported the concept of earmarked taxes. I just want to make that clear and put that on the record. We feel there are some serious problems associated with earmarking taxes for certain purposes that are worthwhile, but then there are other purposes that are not. It's just an extension of what you're talking about, but I wanted to make that point.

Mr. Grose (Oshawa): Here comes the guy with the possibly oversimplistic question. It would seem to me that what I've heard here this morning is that governments, in serving the people with disabilities, have overlapping jurisdictions. They are leaving some holes in the system in terms of such things as who pays for what, where the people apply. I know that in my own office people will come to us and we have a tough time sorting out where it is - provincial, municipal or federal.

Having been here for a couple of years, of course, I realize the obvious is not easy. It also strikes me that you're here representing three different organizations, all of which seem to be going in roughly the same direction, trying to serve the same people. Would it be desirable or possible to have greater integration among the advocates?

The Chair: Would you like to comment on this?

.1225

Ms Rioux: One of the things I'd like to comment on is your first point. You're absolutely right that there are overlapping jurisdictions. I think one of the issues around disability policy in Canada is that historically it has really been designed as add-ons to the regular system. The assumption 50 years ago was that people with disabilities would be shut away somewhere, we wouldn't worry too much, we'd give them enough money to live, and hopefully they wouldn't live too long. I think that was genuinely what was going on.

So when you suddenly had to add disability to the welfare system, it did not work very well. When you had to add disability to the employment system, it didn't work very well. When you tried to add disability to the tax system, it didn't work very well. We constantly have these odd pieces that don't fit, plugged onto all these systems.

What a number of people have tried to do - and I think particularly the witnesses you probably had before you today were all people who studied social policy - is to come to an understanding of what all those pieces are. We've tried to look at the income system and what that looks like overall for people with disability and what the employment system looks like for people with disability. We've tried to take those and figure out how, if we tried to put them together, we could create a system that would be rational in terms of meeting the stated needs that people with disabilities have. They were very eloquent in the Mainstream 1992 process in terms of what they wanted, so we know what those demands are. We've tried to take those as a basis and design a system of income and social supports that would in fact meet those needs but also be fiscally responsible in terms of what's possible.

So I think there are variations on what would be suggested, but generally after you've looked at enough of the add-ons to the system and at the impossibility of the tinkering that has taken place for 20 years, you finally realize it is probably time to start again.

One of the political realities we have now is that if the federal government, at least in terms of some set of standards, doesn't meet those kinds of criteria, we could end up very easily with 10 or 12 systems that don't actually meet the needs in the way an overall approach would.

We don't know this exactly, but we're certainly looking at some figures now. It's our view that this can be done without a great deal of additional expenditure. In fact, it's much more wasteful to do the kind of add-ons we've had than it is to seriously consider an overall approach.

I think a huge contribution the federal government has made over the past 15 years is in providing leadership and innovation, and putting in place some programs where it was possible to actually test some of these more rational approaches. I think that should continue.

Ms Torjman: I want to clarify that the Caledon Institute is not an advocacy organization on behalf of people with disabilities. We do research and development in social policy, so the work has been more general. Some of our work has focused on people with disabilities more specifically, to respond to the second part of your question.

But I want to address the issue of coordination, because one of the issues we have looked at is the possibility of splitting federal and provincial roles. What if you had the federal government looking at income security in the country, for example, and taking responsibility for that so that income needs are consistent throughout the country and you move away from welfare provision, and if you had provinces responsible for social services? Would that kind of system work?

I think it could work. I suppose the concern we have in that area is the fiscal capacity of many provinces to be able to provide the personal supports that people need and that will be required in the future. So we have always looked to the federal government to support that fiscal capacity, and we think it's important.

We used to look to the federal government to set standards and assure that certain standards were met. We don't think that will be possible with the CHST arrangement, so there is a concern about that.

.1230

So I think there are possibilities for what some writers have called this separation or bifurcation into income security and personal supports, but I think the federal government still has an important role to play with respect to fiscal capacity. That's why we look to the federal government for that kind of involvement in this area, despite the overlap it may cause.

The Chair: I would like to pose a few follow-up questions. The first one is on fiscal capacity. Does not an equalization-of-payment mechanism address that issue?

Ms Torjman: It does to a certain extent, but my understanding is that equalization has no strings attached and is really for infrastructure - sewers, roads and a basic level of public services. It does not apply generally or was never intended to apply to health, social services and post-secondary education. That's why we have other financing arrangements that were based on different criteria like population and GNP. CAP used to have a counter-cyclical arrangement to take into account variations in the economy. So equalization is intended more for the roads and sewers, that kind of infrastructure, than the social and human service infrastructure.

The Chair: To clarify, Mr. Bolduc indicated that there should be compensation for cost of disability independent of income. Is it independent of one's income or independent of income security?

I'm posing that for this reason: you are to be compensated for a loss, for a disability, because you're not able to provide for the disability yourself, but if one is a millionaire...I want to be clear - is it totally independent of income?

[Translation]

Mr. Bolduc: The answer is yes. Obviously, when someone is a millionaire, this might seem exaggerated, but they are exceptions.

[English]

The Chair: I only want to clarify the concept. If you say independent of income, whether it is extreme in a few, they will be exempted. That exemption could destroy the very concept itself. In other words, we must be very clear on what we want to compensate for. In that case, your submission is that disability, whatever it is, must have a price. If that is your submission, the committee will have to consider it. Is that your submission?

[Translation]

Mr. Bolduc: Personally, I'm convinced that it is preferable to satisfy the most basic needs, regardless of the person's income. Individuals pay taxes on the basis of their income. If a person has disabilities and earns an excellent income, that person is going to pay more tax than someone with a modest income. That goes without saying. Let's not tax disabilities. Let's not penalize a person financially for having disabilities that result in additional costs. Let's work together to share these costs, as we do for the health care system. When someone goes to the doctor, we don't ask him what his income is.

If income were to become a consideration one day, it would be far more logical for us to begin by taking into account occasional, rather than long-term needs. That's logical.

I'm convinced that it is better not to take into account income when it comes to meeting special needs. However, the income of persons with disabilities must be considered for tax purposes, just like everyone else's income is.

[English]

The Chair: I have one last question. Would the two of you agree with his submission?

Ms Torjman: I would agree in theory only, because I don't think we'll have a program in the country that will actually compensate for disability-related costs without looking at any form of income the person might have.

.1235

In the absence of a program that could universally provide that, in the short term I would rather see a more rational system than what we have in place. But if we must have an income-tested system in order to do that, I would support it.

In other words, move it out of the welfare system and out of that income program where it is not appropriately placed, and into a different kind of arrangement. If you must have an income test in order to qualify for that, I could support that if it meant moving toward a more appropriate and rational system.

Ms Rioux: I agree in theory with Mr. Bolduc's perspective, but I think it's important to understand a couple of things. One is that the cost of disability remains the same whether one is wealthy or not. The disadvantage in terms of that cost is that if you make $50,000 or $100,000 a year and have a disability, you're only making $80,000 because you're paying $20,000 for that cost. We must decide whether we want to continue to disadvantage people who have very high incomes. Relative to somebody else in that same position they will have a lower income because they have to pay for the wheelchairs and all the other things.

However, I think it would certainly be possible through the tax system to deal with the tension that people would have about that kind of a system. I think there's an optics problem.

I believe we were asked that question when we put out the Canadian disability resource program. We found out how many rich disabled people there were in the country, but unfortunately I don't have that figure with me. Something around 6% earned over $100,000, and that's employed people with disabilities, so it's a very small number of people. It was less than a few hundred in the whole country.

Mr. McClelland: All of the comments and questions were interesting. To follow Mr. Bolduc's lead on this, just because it's going to be difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. As you say, we have this mess. How do you get it back to zero? Let's just reinvent it.

One of the issues before parliamentarians today is the notion of single tax or flat tax or whatever you call it. This issue is going to come to the fore again, and this might be an opportunity if combining a flat tax.... There are several different proposals around.

If we as Canadians accept that we're not going to watch anybody starve on the streets unless they want to starve on the streets, that as Canadians and as a social value we are prepared to support them so that we don't have people lying in the streets regardless of the reason, that brings in the whole notion of a negative income tax or basic level of income support. If this were achieved so that people below a particular level would pay no tax, and if you didn't reach that level your income would be topped up so that you were at that level, which would be the negative income tax, would it work to have an additional top-up for disabilities?

Of course, not everybody has the same costs associated with their disabilities. For instance, there are people who require caregivers. And part of the necessity of gaining employment is the spiritual, social and human aspects of it.

.1240

Do you think then that this would be a place to start, if we were to have a flat or a single tax with a negative income tax at the lower level, with a top-up for disabilities? I'm asking Mr. Bolduc and you, Sherri, as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Bolduc: Yes, provided that the real costs to each person are taken into account. The costs associated with disabilities are individual costs.

I would add at this time that one often hears the argument that as a society, we no longer have the means to take this kind of approach and that we must, therefore, be more selective.

I have a great deal of difficulty with this. The argument goes that as a society, we can no longer afford to cover these costs and that therefore, we must ask a small portion of this population to pick up the tab. Mathematically, this doesn't work. It's not a question of means, but rather of knowing if as a society we want to meet the needs of our population or if we want to move more towards an American-style system where it's every man for himself. That's the real issue.

[English]

Ms Torjman: I have a few comments on the proposal or thought. First, our organization, the Caledon Institute, has never supported the notion of a flat tax; that's because we think it's a regressive type of tax. So just in terms of how this would be financed I wanted to make that point. We think income tax should be a progressive system and a flat tax would be a regressive form of taxation.

That having been said, the notion of a negative income tax is obviously an interesting one. We've talked at various points in the past about guaranteed incomes, and clearly a negative income tax is one of the ways you can do that.

Again, in theory it would be something we could support. It's something the federal government could provide as a form of income support to people and ensure that it's adequate, ensure that it's consistent throughout the country.

As I'm sure you could imagine, the difficulty with that kind of proposal is cost. That's why the Caledon Institute has always put forward the concept of a child benefit, because we thought that's one of the ways of having a form of guaranteed income while yet being able to contain your costs a little more. Nevertheless, in theory we would very much like to support a negative income tax concept.

The issue is whether you can integrate those personal supports within that as a top-up. I agree with Mario that the difficulty is that it's very individualized, or has to be very individualized. In a system like that you either have somebody who's approving costs or not and you have a top-heavy administrative system, or you have a list, as you do now in the current tax system, and you say you can claim such and such an item. There are limitations to both approaches.

As to whether you could get the personal supports fully included in a negative income tax system, I think you'd have to have a much more extensive and open list if you were going to do that. You couldn't be constrained by current narrow lists.

Ms Rioux: I also think it's an interesting idea. With the caveats that both Sherri and Mario have spoken about, it's important to then be able to individualize the kind of support that's being provided.

My own view is that it's possible. We are doing some work ourselves on that. We are working with the government of Prince Edward Island to design a system where the income for a particular group of people with disabilities would be taken out of the welfare system. So we're trying to design this kind of model.

.1245

We are looking at the development of what we happen to call a support schedule, but it could be called anything...being able to build into that - because we have computers and the kinds of technology where it's possible now - a number of different weighting factors. So it's not simply the old lists you used to have for Veterans Affairs where if you lost a finger it was worth $5 for the rest of your life. There are much more sophisticated ways of doing this. We can actually calculate the amount of time people need and the types of personal support, and balance that out across a system.

My own view is that it is possible to develop that kind of system. It's not an easy system to develop, but we're starting to work on that now to see what it will look like.

Mr. Scott: I have a comment on the question of equalization. As a maritimer I can't let this go. I'm asking this question as a way of getting this on the record.

Equalization was designed prior to any conception of some of the programs that provinces have since been called upon to deliver. Consequently, the reference to roads and those kinds of things I think is historically accurate. I'm sure this may even precede sewers.

In any case, the fact of the matter is that when federal involvement in social spending commenced, it was in reaction to the fact that many of the provinces didn't have the capacity to deal with the programs they were being called upon to deliver. At the same time, it allowed the opportunity for spending power to be introduced. So we had these two coexisting objectives, one being a higher-level equalization and the second being a national vision.

In the context of the CHST debate, it's very important that we keep both of those elements in mind for fear anyone would imagine that if the federal government weren't around, that equalization somehow would offer the kind of wealth redistribution necessary to deliver equitable programs across the country.

Having said that, the finance committee, in its report on Bill C-76 in the spring, specifically said that the federal government should remain involved in the areas it was involved in with transfers prior to CHST, and that in fact spending power amounts should be necessary to enforce whatever that vision is. I'll be as soft with my language as possible under the circumstances. I would welcome your reaction to that, and I wonder if there is any hope in your minds with regard to that commitment or suggestion?

Second, I want to go back to the model - and I'm not going to drag everybody through that again - that Sherri referred to, which had to do with income and the provinces doing delivery. There are people talking about that kind of model. Maybe we are a long way toward that now, if you look at the amounts of money that are transferred in terms of income redistribution. As the income redistribution part stays relatively the same and the programming parts diminish in terms of the federal government, both directly and indirectly through the CHST, we're beginning to get there in any case, whether it's by fiscal imperative or by social policy planning.

To get back to this labour market model, in the event the federal government were prepared to take on responsibility for recognizing how far away from the labour market many people are - be it through training, which is what we are accustomed to thinking about, or I also imagine this would apply to persons with a disability - and to say, what is it that a person with disability needs to compensate for their disability relative to that...?

I don't want to define it narrowly in terms of the labour market. I'd like to think of the broadest possible definition in terms of accessibility, access, integration, participation and those kinds of things. If the federal government took responsibility for that, possibly in that the funding mechanisms would be consolidated revenue, not some contribution program like UI or something, would that offer a reasonable opportunity? Would that waylay some fears that I'm sure you would have about this model, which would mean that the provinces would have to take on more responsibility than they could possibly afford?

.1250

Ms Torjman: The problem is that the provinces, if they cannot afford it, will not take on the responsibility. They simply will not deliver those supports or make them available.

I don't think a federal transfer of money would be necessarily pushing them. It would allow them to provide the supports to people who require those supports to meet the needs of those citizens. So I don't see it as pushing them to do something they can't do. I see at it as enabling them to do that.

As I said before, we had put forward a proposal for a block fund - we had to sort of compromise on that - but for personal supports, so that you ensure your money is spent in that area.

Your comment on the CHST in the finance committee report is interesting. We were delighted to see the finance committee come out and state that there should be federal cash in that formula. It was the briefest report I've ever seen from a parliamentary committee, but it was nonetheless very important. It said that if there is no federal cash in that formula, we lose all the position we have with respect to any conditions.

The problem there is partly the cash and the fact that the amount is being withdrawn. The total amount is falling, as you know. In the first two years, $7 billion will be taken out. But the major problem is the indexation formula, where the current financing arrangement is indexed to GNP minus 3%. What is happening as a result of that formula is that the cash is disappearing over time relative to the cost of living. As the cash disappears, so does the federal say. You've heard the ``no pay, no play'' problem, and that's what's going on.

So we were actually delighted to see that the finance committee had come out and recommended that. The difficulty, though, is that we don't think it will have any effect with respect to welfare and social services. We think it could have an impact on maintaining the conditions of the Canada Health Act that are in place. But with respect to any new conditions for welfare and social services as part of the CHST, we don't think there will be any possibility of having any say in those areas at all. In fact, the way the legislation is currently configured, we lose the conditions of the Canada assistance plan. On even the one condition that remains protected, as I mentioned to you before, provinces have said they will not respect that.

I think it's great that we will maintain some cash for the purpose of the Canada Health Act, but unfortunately, I don't think we'll maintain that clout for the other parts. That is really why we wanted to separate out the welfare and social from the big block. We didn't want them lumped together because we knew they would be the losers in this big game.

The Chair: We have five minutes left. Because our main task -

Ms Rioux: Can I respond very quickly to that?

I may not have understood your question correctly, Mr. Scott, but if you were asking about the implications of the federal government maintaining its role in employment while the provinces were looking after social services and income - I'm not sure if that's what you were asking - it would lead to a fragmented system. That would mean there would be absolutely no possibility you would get any kind of capacity to enable people to move towards the labour market.

Mr. Scott: No, that wasn't. I'll follow it up after.

The Chair: Part of our major term of reference as we embark on this is studies on the national strategy. With the indulgence of the committee, I'd like to pose a question on this.

Has the strategy worked? What elements have failed, if any? What elements can be sustained?

.1255

Ms Rioux: This is a question I don't like being asked. I don't believe there was a national strategy. I believe there was - -

The Chair: You should answer all the questions then.

Ms Rioux: I do believe that some of the money set aside for a national strategy was used strategically. There are two or three examples of that and I think they're important examples. One was the money allocated toward closing institutions. The government put $15 million toward that to use as a block fund, principally in Newfoundland. I think a lot of positive and measurable achievements have come out of that. That was a particularly important piece of the strategy.

In some cases I think the money was used in projects that will require permanent support, which doesn't make them strategic. The point of a strategic fund would have been to provide the kinds of initiatives that in the long term would be able to sustain themselves within existing or future social services.

The other strategic initiative not in the strategic initiative that you're talking about was announced by the federal government in Prince Edward Island two years ago - looking at a new funding mechanism outside the welfare system for people with disabilities. I think those funds are actually a strategic use of federal government resources.

Ms Torjman: I think a number of interesting initiatives were undertaken during this strategy. What was important was that departments were talking to each other rather than acting as separate entities.

But as I said in my opening statement, I think a strategy refers to a whole being more than the sum of its individual parts. A strategy has an overall direction or vision that comes right from the top levels of government. We should have heard about this national strategy in every ministerial speech. We should have heard the Prime Minister and the Privy Council office and members of Parliament speaking about it with commitment. We didn't hear that. Perhaps groups representing people with disabilities did, but most Canadians would not know there was a national strategy under way.

We're currently working on a social partnerships project where we're looking at the ways in which business works with community groups around social and economic well-being. In every single venue, in every forum and conference and parliamentary committee, we make reference to the fact that we're doing this, because it's important. I think the federal government should have done a similar thing. If it does truly have a national strategy to which it is committed, it should use every opportunity to make clear what it's doing. Let every Canadian know what it has done. That's what I think was missing from the national strategy.

The Chair: You spoke of the strategy in division. National strategy - the word ``nation'' is there, and I recall that ``nation'' is defined in terms of the social, economic and political elements within a geography. Would it be the basis for a definition of a vision for people, in this instance with disabilities?

Ms Torjman: Certainly the integration and recognition of social and economic well-being.

The Chair: All of those things.

Ms Torjman: Absolutely, and of citizenship. I think the central theme should be citizenship and human rights, and within that, social and economic well-being as part of full citizenship in a nation.

The Chair: Are there any other comments from the committee?

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get my two cents' worth in on this whole notion of values.

I think our society is being fragmented and torn apart by this notion of rights based on gender, race and that kind of thing. We'd do far better as Canadians if we said that as Canadian citizens we share common values. One of the values that we as Canadians share is how we look after people who are less fortunate then ourselves - Canadians who have disabilities. If we started to speak in terms of values rather than rights, I think it would be far more inclusive and it would be far less divisive within our society. I want to get that out because I'm going to be pushing that.

.1300

The Chair: As the chair, I would like to exercise a little privilege as well and say that right is a value in itself.

Mr. McClelland: Well, okay.

The Chair: But that's something for debate in this committee in the future.

Ms Rioux: I think the suggestion or proposal that Sherri makes, that we begin to look at social well-being in this country, is a particularly important way of thinking about what we should be providing.

In terms of specific social well-being for people with disabilities, the federal government consultations in Mainstream 1992 provided a very clear statement of how people with disabilities themselves viewed what they would see as social well-being. It was a national consultation held by the federal and provincial ministers of social services. I think it was an important contribution to the kinds of values that might underlie a real strategic initiative that covers all the broad areas of life in Canada, both economic and social.

Ms Torjman: To respond briefly to your comment, I think human rights are very important, essential, and that the federal government has a key role to play with respect to setting out and protecting human rights. But you're absolutely correct when you say we also need an expression of values. Federal members of Parliament can play a very important role, especially at this time in our country, in expressing and articulating those values. So I appreciate very much your comment.

The Chair: What you're saying is that the two are not exclusive of each other.

Ms Torjman: Exactly.

The Chair: With the concurrence of the committee members, the chair would impose, but on a voluntary basis, a short - only because of the restriction of time - assignment on the three of you: if you can provide the committee, perhaps in the form of an executive summary, with your individual thoughts reflecting your own experience respecting the national strategy. Do we need one? How shall we craft a new one? What should be there to ensure that in fact it becomes an effective one for the nation in the context of a global strategy? Would you care to accept the challenge, free of charge?

Ms Torjman: Free of charge? Absolutely. Thank you very much for asking.

Ms Rioux: It would be a pleasure. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you.

I call the meeting to a close.