[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 7, 1996

.1015

[English]

The Chairman: Could we come to order?

The finance committee is just delighted to have its second round table session here in Halifax this morning. We have people with us who are representing a lot of important institutions and groups.

Because we have so many people, I am going to suggest that if it is at all possible - and I know that you have come with prepared remarks - you capsulize your opening comments in about three minutes. In the past, we have found that gives us a lot more opportunity for discussion and interchange, which is usually more fruitful than just listening to things that we will read anyway if you give them to us.

I would like to start off with June Saunders, who is in charge of the Centre for Women in Business, Mount Saint Vincent University.

June, we look forward to your comments.

Ms June Saunders (Executive Director, Centre for Women in Business, Mount Saint Vincent University): I have six recommendations for the next federal budget in the areas of: interpretation of business information; tuition and education tax credit; start-up funding for women entrepreneurs; child care; elder care; RRSPs.

My first recommendation centres on the interpretation services of all of the business information today. Many information and referral agencies have the knowledge but not the time to interpret the needs of the client. Would-be entrepreneurs want to know the meaning of business jargon, what it takes to be an entrepreneur, and what they can expect when they go to other agencies.

At the Centre for Women in Business we take the time and make the effort to educate our clients through one-to-one counselling, training, networking, mentoring and support. So my first recommendation is to ensure that services such as the Centre for Women in Business continue to be funded.

My second recommendation concerns tuition and the education tax credit. Under the current tax incentives, the tuition and education tax credit may be taken only in the year the course is taken. Often, women entrepreneurs, especially in the start-up phase, do not have sufficient revenue to take advantage of the full amount and the excess may be taken by a spouse, parent or grandparent.

My recommendation is that the limit on the amount that may be transferred should be increased to reflect the current costs and that students should have the ability to carry over unused credits as opposed to transferring them to a spouse or parent. When I mention current costs, tuition does not include the cost of books unless they are an integral part of the course.

Another recommendation I have concerns start-up funding. Women are low risk takers. They thoroughly investigate the risks of going into business and they assume the amount of risk they can handle. But women still have barriers to getting capital, especially women of low socio-economic status.

To address the lack of funding available to women, the federal government, through one of its agencies, should make available small loans of up to $5,000 to women with little collateral or no equity. The payback period should not start for six months. This can be tied to agencies such as the Centre for Women in Business that would be willing to put together an advisory board and oversee the administration of this fund.

The next concern is child care. Child care is costly and often inadequate or inconvenient. In the start-up years of a business, when the financial rewards are non-existent or minimal, the costs of child care are difficult to handle. At present, child care can only be claimed for children who are up to 14 years old. I am recommending that the age be increased to 17 years, because oftentimes women entrepreneurs go on overnight business trips and they have to get somebody in to watch the 17-year-old. I am sure a lot of you here wouldn't like to leave your 17-year-old alone if you were off on a business trip.

.1020

[English]

The Chairman: On behalf of 17-year-olds, I don't agree with you at all.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms Saunders: Of course not...nor your friends.

The next issue is elder care. It's becoming more and more important due to demographics. Caring for one's aging parents is a barrier to entering the workforce as an employee or as an entrepreneur. It is more difficult to find convenient elder care than it is to find child care, and it is more expensive. For the same reasons that tax relief is provided for child care, so should the tax act provide deductions or credits for elder care.

I just have one recommendation and that has to do with RRSPs. Today, a lot of people receive a severance package when they are laid off. It is proposed that a commitment should be made to ensure that RRSP limits are in step with the pension plans at all times, because right now there is a reduction from the 1995 contribution of $14,500 to $13,500 in 1996.

It would be desirable for employees to be able to use the funds they get from their pension plan to invest in a new business venture and not have to pay the tax. This could be done by rolling the funds into an RRSP and permitting the RRSP to loan the funds for purposes of either starting or investing in one's business.

Those are the six recommendations.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Next, from Acadia University, Dr. Marshall Conley, please.

Dr. Marshall Conley (Department of Political Science, Acadia University): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is very pleasant to be here in Halifax. Two years ago I appeared before this committee in Ottawa. It was a cold morning and the atmosphere of the committee was quite chilly.

While I was awaiting our turn today, I was listening to the comments of the members of the committee, and I was quite taken by the very positive attitude of the committee. I think the attitude is one of more than just debt reduction and deficit reduction. That is still a challenge, and we all accept that, but I am beginning to see a much more responsive attitude as to how to deal with these issues.

As a consequence, I am not going to be making a whole series of recommendations, but I will be making some observations about what we can be doing and about the challenges we are faced with in this country.

Let me start by suggesting that what we need is a seismic shift in thinking - if you want, we need a mine quake or, the old term, a paradigm shift. What we are really thinking about is shifting our attitudes about how we are going to deal with the challenges.

Let me share with you some of the ideas that are being proposed and that I think are worthy of consideration, from the social and human sciences and from my field in particular, political science.

It is imperative that we promote knowledge transfer. We have been relatively poor at that in terms of making the link between the university and the greater community.

There are two important examples that we in the social and human sciences are promoting at the moment that might start to make this shift. One of the shifts is in terms of community research and information centres. This is a program that I started to propose some two and a half years ago when I was president of the Social Sciences Federation of Canada.

The community research and information centres - and I think the committee has been presented with some information about this by other interveners at previous times - are basically an attempt to transfer knowledge in the social sciences and humanities to meet the needs of communities. If you will, it is comparable to the offices of technology transfer that some universities have. It is a form of IRAP, the industrial research program that had been in existence for a number of years.

.1025

We see this as a possibility in terms of community groups and local authorities in a whole series of areas where universities and researchers, both undergraduates and graduate students as well as faculty... This is the key. We are finding graduates of universities not necessarily prepared to begin a full participation in the economy as they graduate. What we need to do is have a transition that would take place.

The community research and information centres, or CRICs, would involve local groups and local authorities in issues ranging from studies of environmental impacts of particular urban projects; improving race relations and community health; and developing techniques to improve parenting skills. These are all things that we and our students do research in at the university. By having a community research and information centre program we might be able to make that transition, which is so important in terms of knowledge transfer.

The other program I might mention is one that has just received a pilot project and that is career vision. The idea here is to take young graduates in certain disciplines - in this particular case in the area of environment and health - and have them work in these fields with employers to develop the skill they would need to develop careers in this area. The pilot program is a 26-week program involving six universities across the country.

Those sorts of ideas of linking recent graduates and/or undergraduates with community-based programs is going to be far more effective in the long run than building more bricks and mortar. We have to rethink, I believe, what we are doing in terms of phase two of the federal infrastructure program. Let's do that seismic shift that I was suggesting, putting resources into human development. If we do that we would see a great change and a great benefit.

We need as a country to develop more research in the emerging fields - for instance, the dynamics of international political and economic systems. We have to better understand what's going on in order to compete more effectively. These are revenue-generating in the final analysis, and that's the key on all of this.

The social dimensions of technological change are still not being adequately addressed. We have to provide the resources to promote how technological change is going to impact upon our society.

I will come back later with other comments. Thank you.

The Chairman: Wonderful. Thanks very much, Dr. Conley.

We will now hear from the Nova Scotia Union of Public Employees, Ron Stockton.

Mr. Ron Stockton (Business Agent, Nova Scotia Union of Public Employees): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a brief introduction. The Nova Scotia Union of Public Employees is a small local Nova Scotia union representing mostly municipal employees, including some of those in the mega-city in which you are holding this hearing.

Our members, as you may well know, have been hit particularly hard for better than half a decade now, not just with wage freezes but also with intrusions into their very collective rights, with bans on collective bargaining. They have had their wages not just frozen; they've had them rolled back.

It seems to me that what is happening here is we keep coming around for these meetings, and what we keep participating in is our society doing more of the same. When you think about it, and when you think of those who are governing and planning our economy, the people who are asking us and our members to suffer the pain are the same ones who put us in the position they now say they have to so desperately correct. There's a credibility problem there, folks.

It seems to me there's also a credibility problem because whether you look at it on an individual or a class basis, those in power are not hurting; they're not sacrificing. In fact, wealth is being more and more concentrated in this country in fewer and fewer hands, while more people become unemployed, more children live in poverty, and there are more cutbacks to education, health, and social services. When I refer to people being unemployed, I am also including the underemployed or those in poverty-line jobs.

.1030

One of the lies is that the economy is doing better. The real economy, in our view, applies to more than the rich, the corporations and the powerful. The real measure of an economy is how it affects the least well-off and the least powerful. In that sense, this economy is failing badly, and it certainly appears to be a planned failure.

The other big lie is that taxes are not rising, or that new taxes are not being levied. Aside from the obvious BST in the Atlantic area, which is a direct tax increase for most Nova Scotians, and notwithstanding that the rich will save more on their big ticket items, we see tax increases disguised as user pay, whether that is in education or health care - things as simple as paying to have your kid bussed to school now, or a myriad of other local services where citizens are being nickel and dimed into poverty.

We see service cuts big and small that we didn't ask for and the majority of us would have opposed, had we been asked. We see downloading on smaller, more local levels of government, on families, and on individuals, whether or not we can really afford it.

We can come to committees like this and we can send word back to Mr. Martin and the rest of the government that we can talk about schemes, the information economy, percentages, investment strategies, rationalizations, and deficit and debt cutting. We can talk about it all we like, but for our members and most Canadians it means nothing. Well, I'm wrong on that; it does mean something: it means hurt, pain, poverty and hard times for them, their families, and their friends, and they don't see it ending.

We said it before and we'll say it again. Until we decide that we want and will work for a kind and compassionate caring Canada and community, all the talk and the programs will fail for most Canadians, because we are on the wrong track.

My fear in past years, as I've expressed to this committee, was that we would become a mean society, a society of me-firsters.

The Chairman: I don't want to have to cut you off, but we do have a lot of witnesses, so if I could just ask -

Mr. Stockton: Well, I don't know if I've gone past three minutes, Mr. Chairman, but I just have about another twenty seconds.

The Chairman: Okay, sorry.

Mr. Stockton: My fear in past years, as expressed here, was that we become these me-firsters, in a mean society. Well, my fears haven't been alleviated since we last met. Rather, we are well down the road to survival of the fittest.

The present economic policies, based on wrong political viewpoints, are destroying the soul of this country and the essence of what our ancestors built. We are becoming Canada in name only. When you destroy the soul of the country, you risk destroying the soul of its communities and its individuals and the individual constituents within that community. Then there is chaos, and hell to pay.

I am not very optimistic as I sit here today, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Joan Cummings, from Dalhousie University, Maritime School of Social Work. I understand that you are under some time constraints.

Professor Joan E. Cummings (Maritime School of Social Work, Dalhousie University): Can I be heard? I have a laryngitis problem.

The Chairman: Yes.

Prof. Cummings: I am a faculty member of Dalhousie University, but I am speaking today primarily as director of the NEEDS project. Just as background, that project was jointly sponsored by the Maritime School of Social Work at Dalhousie, the Resource Centre for Independent Living and the Nova Scotia Disabled Persons Commission. It was a substantial research and development project exploring a number of issues related to service delivery, both federal and provincial, to persons with disabilities.

.1035

We did extensive consultation with persons with disabilities around the province and also with program managers and providers of senior policy issues in the disability field, federal and provincial.

The reason I am mentioning this is because we have just completed our study. Since completion of that, the federal task force report on disability issues has come out and we are quite struck by the similarities in many of their recommendations with our own findings. We just want to highlight some of the main themes that came out of both of those reports where there are real points of convergence.

I did prepare a brief, which I have left with your committee, and what I will do today is simply name the five themes -

The Chairman: We'd appreciate that.

Prof. Cummings: - that came out and then perhaps in discussion we could come back to some of the recommendations within those.

The first thing that persons with disabilities want to be assured of is a continued strong federal leadership role in relation to disability issues. We do not want to disappear into a black hole. We are a very marginalized group. In earlier discussions I heard people talking about people who are at the bottom of the heap. Well, you cannot get much more bottom of the heap than the disability population, who have a very low labour force participation rate, a very low average income. Half the women in Nova Scotia have an average annual income under $5,000, which will give you some picture of the kind of poverty in which the disability population is living.

Much of the marginalization from the workforce has to do not with their disabilities but with the failure to be able to access the kind of support that will allow them to be functional in a job. Our consultations really stressed more strongly the need for the federal government to take a strong leadership role in relation to disability issues to try to help develop additional standards around those.

I will leave the rest of the recommendations within that and we can talk about them later.

The second major theme that came out... Because I have both a visual and a vocal disability, I have asked someone to come and prompt me because I am not good with Braille. I haven't conquered that.

The Chairman: I am absolutely no good at all.

Prof. Cummings: Well, I'm worse.

The Chairman: Maybe you could, without commenting on them, just give us the other four recommendations.

Prof. Cummings: Okay. I will name the four themes. I will get Rick to read those off for me.

Mr. Richard Williams (Honorary Professor, Maritime School of Social Work, Dalhousie University): The other theme is the importance of continued viable partnerships between the federal government and the disability community. In particular, with the end of the participation of persons with disabilities program, the loss of resources for community-based disability groups is of significant detriment and it is a budgetary issue.

The urgent need for effective measures to increase labour force participation. Largely, this brief and the NEEDS report endorse the positions of the parliamentary committee.

There is a specific budgetary issue with the VRDP that we would like to read out, just because it has to do with the numbers. Through the NEEDS project across Nova Scotia, there was extremely strong support for the VRDP, the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons program, under HRDC. The NEEDS project strongly recommends that VRDP be maintained and strengthened as a visible cost-shared program.

In our research we found VRDP to be highly appreciated by the disability community. In fact, it was the only program that had this kind of overall -

The Chairman: I will give you lots of time to come back to the commentary on this. I think it would be helpful to everybody here if we could get the main recommendations on the table.

Mr. Williams: All right.

The third area is the need for direct federal involvement in providing a flexible and coherent income support system for persons with disabilities. Most of the provinces are looking at integrating federal and provincial income support programs targeting persons with disabilities. We want to endorse that direction.

.1040

There is the obligation of the federal government to address effectively, through the tax system, the other measures to offer substantial disability-related costs, particularly around employment issues.

The NEEDS project endorses the recommendations of the parliamentary committee.

The Chairman: All of us are familiar with the excellent work done by that committee.

Could we go to the Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities, Linda Stiles, please?

Ms Linda Stiles (Chairperson, Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities): LEO is a disability-controlled organization that advocates on behalf of all disabled Nova Scotians.

We would like to thank the members of the committee for the chance to address you on issues that affect many disabled throughout the country.

The need for national standards.

The social safety net is not one of those items that should be developed solely to the level of the provinces. There must be national standards to maintain these levels. The Standing Committee on Finance has a role to play in assisting the communities, persons with disabilities, to achieve renewed federal leadership on disability issues and a welfare state that does not discriminate against persons with disabilities.

The most helpful role this committee can play is to remain fully informed of the perspective of the disabled community, to ensure that government initiatives do not have an adverse impact on persons with disabilities and to support the continuation of the innovative programming at the community level that has been developed by persons with disabilities to promote immigration and independent living.

There should be national standards to govern the Canada health service transfer. These would include the provision of support on the basis of need. When determining the eligibility for services, it is necessary to look beyond the individual's resources and take into consideration the requirements the individual has to enable him or her to become fully integrated into society.

Appeal mechanisms.

Individuals must have the right to appeal services or materials that have been denied them.

No workfare.

Social assistance transfers are to cover basic human needs to enable people to live full, functioning lives, not be paid for labour as in the case of the marketplace, a totally different concept.

Adequate support levels.

According to Stats Canada, 67% of disabled Canadians live on under $10,000 per year, well below the poverty level.

Portable services.

All Canadians need to be able to move from one part of the country to another and still receive the support they need to pursue employment, education and family responsibilities. The services must go with the individual, not with programs that vary from province to province.

Federal ministers for disabled individuals.

It is a need for the above services to be fully portable and to ensure that the rights of disabled Canadians are respected. The league feels there needs to be a minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities.

In view of the fact that 15.3% of all Canadians have some form of disability, that disability cuts across gender groups, all equity groups and all provinces, it is essential that these Canadians be represented at the federal level.

I am keeping this very short. We want to take the opportunity, again, to thank you for letting us present this.

The Chairman: Don't thank us. We are thrilled to be here.

John D'Orsay, please, from the Nova Scotia Confederation of University Faculty Associations.

Mr. John D'Orsay (Executive Director, Nova Scotia Confederation of University Faculty Associations): Thank you. The first thing I want to do is answer the question you put to Mike Bradfield about reserve ratios.

Every country, except Switzerland and the United Kingdom, has reserve requirements. I say that without endorsing his other specific policy position on that.

Secondly, I want to note that this again, as it is for many other people here, is my third occasion in this forum and this consultation, for which I am grateful.

.1045

I want to note how much we have changed the circumstances of the country and the options available to the government in the last two years, a range of policy options that were not available, and argue very vigorously that options that were not available two years ago are available now. In particular, you can see it in the fall in interest rates. We are in a position now, with the current account surplus and the level of the government borrowing requirement, that we have a potential for more sovereignty over our interest rates and our policies in that area.

As you have noted many times this morning, with one third of the federal government expenditures currently being on interest rates to service the debt...and you lower the interest rate substantially and get them down to somewhere near the growth rate of GDP. You are also creating a lot of room in a built-in tendency toward balancing the budget and, possibly, a budget surplus. Assuming that you can hold the course on those interest rates and keep that environment in place, that gives you those additional options.

What do you do in that environment? One of the things I wanted to specifically respond to was the outcry of ``Hey, it is time now to cut taxes''. Part of the thread in that line is when people say that no government can spend as well as an individual, so let's put the money back in the pockets of individuals. I want to say that it is simply not true that individuals can ever generate the returns and benefits of something like the granting councils, the National Research Council, or the other programs that support basic research.

You recalled already today that the committee's report out of Lunenburg recommended that there should be strategic, continued support for the granting councils. I did have a discussion with Paul Martin in May in which he said that cutting to the granting councils was a mistake and was something that ought to be corrected. I really urge the committee to take that up again vigorously as a strategic initiative that the country has to be engaged in.

I know you noted at the end of the last panel the comments on biotechnology and those technological areas where research is brought up. But we also have to have support for other areas, many of the areas Marshall Conley was referring to: the whole issue of the impact of technological change and understanding that; the issues of area studies - understanding the world better, understanding other people's languages better and understanding other people's histories. Those are all areas we have to continue moving on.

It is not just in the research area that collective spending is better than individual spending. It is certainly the case that individuals can never generate the returns and benefits that an adult literacy operating program could, by bringing those with less than grade 12 up to that level of education routinely.

It should not be a question in front of us of making jobs for the undereducated. We should be raising the educational attainment level in order to better integrate people with that background into an emerging labour force that is demanding a higher level of education.

The third area is that it is simply not true that individuals have sufficient incentives to invest in post-secondary education. I have done extensive work on the rates of return for individuals versus government investments in university education. The rate of return to the government is higher and the social rate of return is higher than the individual rate of return. Those are things you have to address.

I realize the last two things there are not within federal government jurisdiction. I will therefore close with this, because it is an important point. This is the question of how you are designing your social transfer programs to the provinces and whether it is important to design those programs so that the provinces are responsive to some goals, like reducing poverty, increasing educational attainment and improving health - not just that they are there.

On that side, the last budget had an important advance in putting the floor under the CHST. But we still need a better mechanism for allocating those funds or force the provinces to be responsive to them.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, John D'Orsay.

From the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union, President David Peters, please.

I want to thank all of you for sticking more or less to that three minutes. I know it is very difficult, but you are wonderful to do it. Politicians certainly could never do that.

David Peters, please.

Mr. David Peters (President, Nova Scotia Government Employees Union): Not being a politician, I will certainly try to do that.

.1050

First of all, I would like to encourage you to continue this type of forum for gathering your information rather than forcing people to go to Ottawa or whatever, because this does give a much broader community the opportunity to share their ideas and opinions with the committee. So thank you for that.

I have left copies of my report, so I'm not going to read it. I will try to summarize it, but I do want to articulate the recommendations.

Basically, the first part of our presentation dealt with our concerns about the apparent downloading onto the provinces and the effects of that, and some of the effects we see here in the province.

I do want to share with you and the other participants an experience that NSGEU has had during the past year. Since early spring we've held a series of community media conferences in a total of six communities around the province. The idea of these sessions started as a way for our members who were affected by the changes to talk about what is taking place with the services they deliver.

However, the sessions quickly expanded to include a cross-section of municipal, business, health, education, church, women's centres and community agency representatives. Almost without exception, these leaders told us that government funding cuts are clearly creating serious difficulties for the continued operation of municipalities, health and educational services, small businesses and community agencies. This is not just a case of less dollars for operations but literally our social infrastructure deteriorating and massive impoverishment occurring.

These are the recommendations we would suggest you carry back or consider when you make your final recommendations.

On the obsession with the debt and deficit, while it is critically important to the future of Canada, the obsession we the ordinary people seem to see has to stop or turn a corner. We have to address the serious social and human costs of government's policies on regions, communities, families and individuals. The real threat to the future unity and viability of this country is not from Quebec sovereignists but from the continuing federal efforts to cut massively its social spending and force provincial and municipal governments to pick up the slack.

As we see it, this is not a time for further significant cuts to social programs, nor is it a time for the federal government to abandon its role to contribute to the advancement of youth, women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal persons, visible minorities or immigrants. Now more than ever we need a federal government not just prepared to speak the words but to actively work toward eliminating poverty, racism, sexism and many other forms of injustice.

As was so powerfully stated by the Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice this year, in our society if a parent denies a child food, clothing and social security, it is considered child abuse. But when we, through our governments, deny over 1.25 million children the same, it is simply balancing the budget. We are very, very concerned about that.

We would ask you to press for increased federal funding and national standards and federal enforcement capability for social programs such as medicare, education, training and housing; otherwise we're going to end up with ten medicare programs across this country, and that will do nothing for the unity of this country.

We would like to see the federal government now put as much emphasis on job creation as it has up to this point on deficit reduction. We would like to see clear goals, targets and strategies and an analysis. In the last federal budget there was not even the mention of projected unemployment rates.

As recently stated by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops when they were in Halifax on October 17, which was the international day for the -

The Chairman: Could I trouble you to just give us the major points, the major recommendations. I will give each of you lots of time to come back and flesh them out.

Mr. Peters: We would call for a halt to the HST and the national sales tax and instead move to honour the government's election commitment to get rid of the GST and a real commitment from the government for genuine tax reform that makes our income tax system more progressive and would require those who escape paying a fair share of taxes to pay a fairer share.

We would urge the government to commit itself to work with its own employees, communities and organizations across the country to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of public services, not just by looking at one solution, that is to say, public-private partnering and outsourcing and so on.

.1055

As you have already stated previously in a remark, we have to focus on the whole public need. We all have to take a share and responsibility in that and get away from individual greed, which we seem to be focusing on.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Peters.

From the P.E.I. Council of the Disabled, we have Anne Lie-Nielsen and Jessie Campbell.

Thank you for coming.

Ms Jessie Campbell (President, P.E.I. Council of the Disabled): Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to come to Nova Scotia. We realize you were not able to come to Prince Edward Island.

This will be a joint presentation between myself and Anne Lie-Nielsen.

Our recommendations will be an echoing or emphasis of the disability task force recommendations that were put forth before Thanksgiving weekend. There were a lot of recommendations in that report. There were over forty recommendations. There were recommendations on income support, VRDP, and incentives in the tax credit. We hope you have read that report. If you have not, our report will definitely emphasize the areas you will want to look at and what the dollars are and what the obligations of the federal government are. We believe most programs should set aside at least 20% of their funds for people with disabilities.

Ms Anne Lie-Nielsen (Executive Director, P.E.I. Council of the Disabled): There are 53 recommendations in ``The will to act'', the report of the disability task force. Overall, we were very pleased with the report and the majority of the recommendations. We bring to your attention in particular recommendations 41 through 52, which deal with the tax system and how it can help level the playing field for persons with disabilities.

In summary, we would ask that the value of the disability tax credit be increased to offset the effects of erosion because of inflation and that it be fully indexed to inflation.

We also recommend that the disability tax credit be transferred to any supporting person.

The list of people who are able to certify the disability tax credit should be extended beyond medical physicians and optometrists.

The list of items under the medical expense tax credit needs to include all medically necessary expenses, and a portion of personal consumption goods, for example special diet or nutritional items, needs to be included on that list.

The medical expense tax credit should include all medically necessary attendant care provided by family members. This is a cost to the family and should be recognized in the tax system.

We also call for the removal of the $5,000 limit on claims for attendant care expenses. This is a realistic limit for most but not for all. The full cost of attendant care expenses should be recognized in the tax system.

I won't go into all the recommendations. They are included, as I mentioned, in the disability task force report. But one of the major recommendations involves the merging of the disability tax credit and the medical expense tax credit to offset the extra costs of disability fully. We support that recommendation tremendously.

We also urge the committee to consider, given the erosion of support to voluntary organizations across the country and the increased demands on voluntary organizations as federal, provincial, and municipal governments offload onto voluntary organizations, giving serious consideration to equitable treatment of donations to voluntary organizations in the tax system. We recommend they be given the same treatment as political tax credits.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, both of you.

Next, from Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc., Fiona Chin-Yee.

Did I give the name of your organization correctly, Fiona?

Ms Fiona Chin-Yee (Representative, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.): Yes, indeed you did. The fact that I am not a pensioner is maybe a surprise, but I will be one some day, I expect.

.1100

I am actually a member of Option Social Action Coalition, of which Canadian Pensioners Concerned, Nova Scotia division, is a member. None of the board members of the Nova Scotia division of Canadian Pensioners Concerned were able to come today.

The Chairman: We don't mind. We are happy to have you.

Ms Chin-Yee: It is just to let you know that their main spokespersons are out of town. Some of the other women and men who could have presented here were a little reticent to come before this committee, so I said I would come.

I met with the Nova Scotia division board. There were three areas of concern that they wanted me to pass on to you. There was one overriding philosophical piece that they wanted me to tell you.

The three areas of concern are on pensions, the Canada health and social transfer, and the pharmacare drug patent protection act, which should be coming up for review in February of next year.

In the area of pensions, the message from the Nova Scotia division of Canadian Pensioners Concerned is very clear. They are requesting that the seniors benefit plan be scrapped and that the old age security guaranteed income supplement be retained.

The old age security, even though there was a clawback of funds in August of last year from those who are considered to be wealthy seniors, still retains some elements of universality, which has to be seen as one of the overriding, overarching principles of our social network. So one of the basic things was to hold the old age security and guaranteed income supplement.

One of the most important aspects of old age security is that it is an indexed plan. Indexation is of vital importance to all Canadians who are on fixed incomes. We are asking people to retire at earlier and earlier ages, but we know that people are living for longer and longer.

So I would ask all the members of the committee to think of what they earned twenty years ago and imagine -

The Chairman: Could I ask you please to go through the recommendations, because we are not going to have time to go into the reasons for all of them? I will give you all the time you want afterward. I apologize.

Ms Chin-Yee: I must be obviously more like a politician than some of the other people here.

The Chairman: I apologize.

Ms Chin-Yee: I am having a little difficulty with this. I also find it a little upsetting that the people you cut off are the people who don't agree with what you want to do.

Mr. Grubel (Capilano - Howe Sound): That's not fair.

Ms Chin-Yee: That is an editorial comment. You can respond on your time. I am on my three minutes.

The Chairman: Do you know what I would like to do? I would like to give you all the time you want, but you have to recognize you are cutting into the time of other people at the table. It is not our time that we care about.

Ms Chin-Yee: I will be brief.

The Chairman: Please feel free to have as much time as you want.

Ms Chin-Yee: Thank you.

The Chairman: I would like to dispel the cloud that I feel you have cast on us.

Ms Chin-Yee: The issue of universality is important. The issue of indexation for those who are on fixed incomes is of very great importance. The issue of indexation comes up when we look at the effect harmonized sales tax is going to have on those on fixed incomes.

The Canada health and social transfer is the second area that seniors are very concerned about, especially the downloading that is happening from the federal government to the provinces, from the provinces to the municipalities and from the municipalities onto the backs of volunteers, primarily women, many of whom are retired women.

The degree of volunteerism that is being demanded of the community members, especially retired persons, is unacceptable. Two examples of this were given.

HRDC has had cuts to their staff. They are looking for volunteers to help claimants fill out forms.

Revenue Canada has cut staff. They require volunteers to help with filling out tax forms.

The health care system is relying more and more on unpaid labour to maintain services. Even the governing structures of these organizations know that this downloading is on the backs of women, and many of these women are seniors.

.1105

At the same time, the NGOs, as the coordinators of much of the volunteer movement, are losing their core funding. Volunteers are being asked more and more to work directly for government, as opposed to working for the NGOs and local community and service groups.

The third item is the pharmacare bill, Bill C-91, which comes up for review in February of this year. Since that bill came in four years ago, the cost of drugs has dramatically increased.

This is affecting the pharmacare programs across the country. Our pharmacare program in Nova Scotia is apparently $40 million in debt. If the government feels it needs to support the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, then there has to be some kind of program put in place so that the pharmacare programs themselves do not collapse and the increased cost of drugs is not borne directly on the backs of the sick.

Finally, I was asked to let you know that seniors worked to build a good and just society. They feel that we are returning to the old charity model of the 1890s, which means we are going back to the whole area of the poor being asked to pay for deficit-reduction initiatives.

They wanted you to know that this is a very serious issue. They are looking forward, not for themselves, but for their children and their grandchildren, to having a just Canada. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Next is Patricia Doyle-Bedwell, please, from the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Ms Patricia Doyle-Bedwell (Chair, Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women): I am Patricia Doyle-Bedwell. I'm the chair of the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Bridgette Newman is with me. She is the coordinator of the staff.

I understand the time limitation here. I am also under a time restraint, except I am a lawyer, so I might even have a harder time to be quiet.

I gave a copy of our brief to the committee, but I just want to reiterate what has been said. As the chair of the advisory council, I have discovered that the poor, including poor women, are paying for this deficit reduction that has been going on.

This is what we recommend to the committee. When you are working at deficit reduction, there are also high social costs associated with that.

The other thing I wanted to recommend to the committee is for the federal government to stop downloading to provinces, because it is having an impact.

I want to just say this. There are people who are not here today who need to be heard.

I wanted to let you know that there are some examples of the deficit-reduction imperative that have been adhered to by the federal government. I want to give some examples.

First, university tuition fees are rising dramatically. This is reducing access to education for single mothers. Student aid has declined, at the same time, to mothers on social assistance.

The federal government's decision to pull out of training risks the loss of opportunities for eventual employment. Services available under the home care program have been reduced. The shelter allowance in the metro area for single, employable women and men on social assistance has been set at $225 a month, a level that is clearly insufficient to meet basic needs.

Funding for social service agencies, including transition houses and women's centres, has been cut. Parental contributions for subsidized day care have been increased.

In the rural areas, this has even more of an impact. For example, in the Cape Breton area, there is a 21% unemployment rate.

The other thing that I wanted to bring forward is that it is important, as far as downloading from the federal government to the provinces goes and as far as aboriginal people are concerned, to talk about the downloading of services to the province.

What I would like to recommend to the committee is that the federal government honour its responsibilities in providing enough resources so that all aboriginal people can access health care, education and social services.

Simply, the federal government has a constitutional fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people, which means no offloading to the provinces and territories.

.1110

I also support the development of national standards in the area of social services and health care and education. We can't depend on the provinces to come to some kind of voluntary compromise in this area, because as one of the other people said, we could end up with ten different systems. It's not going to do much for unity.

Canadians place a high value on their social programs and we believe there is an important role for the federal government to play in maintaining national standards, encouraging national standards. I'm encouraged that the federal government has met and is continuing to meet its deficit reduction targets. An Angus Reid poll in late October said most Canadians, including those of us in the Atlantic region, wish to have these extra funds devoted to improvements in the social safety net and to job creation. We hope the federal government will listen to the people on these issues.

The HST or BST, whatever it is being called - the first name is probably more appropriate - is going to have an impact on the poor in this province, especially in areas where there is just no other place to go, in power, heating, fuel, and things like that. I would like to bring that to the committee's attention. Our basic recommendation is that the federal government has to start looking at the social cost of this deficit reduction. It has to see that it is creating problems with all people, especially people with disabilities, older women, women in general, aboriginal people, and other racially visible people. There have been high costs to that. We recommend to the government that it look at that high cost and start doing something about it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Since I didn't impose a time limit on Fiona Chin-Yee, I feel I owe each one of you an opportunity before we ask questions to expand on your case to any extent you wish.

There is one more witness. I apologize to the Nova Scotia Disabled Persons Commission.

Ms Nita Irvine (Chairperson, Nova Scotia Disabled Persons Commission): Thank you,Mr. Chairman.

As the chairperson-elect of the Nova Scotia Disabled Persons Commission, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this committee about the human costs that accrue to the disabled community.

First, I want to say that as a sponsor of the NEEDS project on which Joan Cummings reported earlier...their findings are our findings too, and we support that report, a summary of which has been given to you people this morning. I will briefly point out some things in support of most of the major recommendations of the task force headed by Andy Scott in relation to the disabled community.

We agree with the proposals that have already been endorsed. First is the proposal for the continuation of the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program, the VRDP. We very much support the recommendations for improvement in the tax system. We also would support very strongly the responsibility of the Government of Canada for the disabled. However, we are intrigued by the task force suggestion that there be a pan-Canadian approach to dealing with the disabled.

Ms Stiles spoke in her presentation about the number of Canadians who suffer or who deal daily with some type of disability. In Nova Scotia we have the largest percentage of population of any province in Canada of people who find themselves in that position, with over 21% of our population dealing daily with disabilities of one type or another.

.1115

Across the country there are a large number of groups who work with the disabled, and we fully support the task force recommendation that these continue to be funded federally, and that they also be the medium through which programs for the disabled are dispensed, studied and proceeded with.

There are two or three other things I would like to bring out that have not been brought out in Mr. Scott's task force. We fully support the idea of a Canadians with disabilities act. We feel this would be a very important move. We would support a secretary of state with responsibilities for disabled persons. We would support amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act; a short timetable for short-term legislative changes to the Immigration Act, Treasury Board and the National Transportation Agency; and access to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. All are areas in which we need a strong voice.

We can talk about costs. I know that when I heard the announcement of Mr. Scott's task force - I refer to it as his task force since he was the chair - and it said $100 million a year, even as a disabled Canadian citizen I nearly flipped, because the costs are high.

I think we have to understand the human costs that will exist if we don't follow the recommendations of that report. I just want to list these few things in summary. In the NEEDS report - this contains the recommendations of the disabled people of Nova Scotia - with regard to the substantial extra cost of disability and federal leadership in establishing a pan-Canadian system of funding, these extra costs are something we acknowledge. We feel there must be a separation of income support for measures dealing with costs of disability.

We feel there must be indexation of the disability tax credit in 1997 and an expansion of the list of items eligible for the medical expense tax credit. There must be tax deductions for expenses incurred when moving to accessible accommodation. There must be deductible costs of disability insurance for self-employed persons with disabilities. There must be a limiting of retroactive assessment of eligibility for the disability tax credit. We would talk about the treatment of special opportunities grants under the Canada student loans program that are non-taxable and a low-income supplement of up to $1,000 for those eligible for the disability tax credit. All of those things are in Mr. Scott's report.

In closing, I would just say that at the present time we can be penny wise and pound foolish, but the costs of disability in this nation are tremendous. If we don't do something, $100 million a year will look like chicken feed.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Who would like to expand on what they've said?

Mr. D'Orsay, please.

Mr. D'Orsay: Mr. Chairman, I closed with some comments about the design of the Canada health and social transfer. I want to comment on some other programs that have recently been very poorly designed. One of those is the seniors benefit program that is to come into effect in four or five years' time. Here is a program that will in fact undermine the other pillars of the retirement income system - the public savings pension plan and the retirement savings pension plan - in its design. It is designed backwards, and some of the comments have been that there has to be some work to redesign that.

Another one is the question of downloading that has resulted in things like user fees and tuition increases. I know there was a response on that side last year. There was the increase in the tax credit for living allowances, and, naturally, the tax credits keep going up on the tuition side. But then you have to look at whether or not those are equitable. I believe Paula outlined that many women entrepreneurs get an education but can't access those because they have low incomes. There hasn't been any attention paid to the equity aspects of those. For example, the students who borrow most for their education under the Canada student loans program are people from low-income families. They then can't access the tuition living credits because they don't have the taxable income to better themselves and their families. If you're going to have priorities and you're going to target things to lower-income people, you will be working with a tax credit for the interest on the student loans and those types of things, rather than general tax credits.

.1120

Finally, the other area I wanted to raise was the issue of... If Mr. Martin is right - and this again goes back to his comments about now having all these changes to the social programs and economic interventions that give shape to government - and he now wants to turn to some things on a smaller scale or pay closer attention to a level of detail like that of tax expenditures, again we have to come back to the idea of revamping the tax expenditure program to make it support knowledge-based changes, to make it support human-resource-based strategies, rather than focusing on problems that we had in the past and on economic development strategies we had in the past.

The next thing is about raising financial capital and about some of those tax expenditures for the dividend tax credit and that type of thing. They should be reviewed and eliminated in this environment. If you are able to create this low interest environment, you have less reason to continue those programs and you ought to be moving in that direction.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. D'Orsay.

Who else did not have ample opportunity to...? Is there anybody I cut off who would like to expand on what they said before we go to questions from members?

Yes, Joan Cummings.

Prof. Cummings: I just wanted to make a couple of points around labour force integration for persons with disabilities. There are a number of measures proposed here, but one of the real problems for people with disabilities is that they have such a precarious role in the labour market.

A lot of people do not qualify for UI, or what is now EI, and that is mentioned in the report. We're concerned about those people and their ability to access the kinds of training and supports they need to get back into the labour force. So we do think there needs to be a fund or moneys created specifically for that group who are not EI-eligible, but who do need various kinds of supports to get back to work, such as the various activities that will be available to people who are EI-eligible.

The other thing I want to say around this is that VRDP is a really important program for people with long-term employment potential. VRDP was frozen at whatever level it was at in 1994 - I think it was $168 million. In Andy Scott's report it is proposed that it remain at that, but that$28 million of that - it comes to 17% - be redirected to research and development. From what we heard from our people as we went around, VRDP is already grossly underfunded given the need that exists. So while we do strongly support the need for research and development, we do not agree that the money should come from what is now going to direct service to individual people with disabilities who benefit from the VRDP program.

Those are just a couple of points I wanted to add around that.

The Chairman: Thanks very much, Joan Cummings.

Dr. Marshall Conley.

Dr. Conley: This is more a plea than anything. One of the problems with a committee of this nature is that as it travels the country, everyone it meets has their own very specific, limited concerns.

Like most of the people around this table, I'm a volunteer of some 25 years. I am uncertain whether Canada's international commitments have been identified as a concern, but it seems to me that we are seeing a demand for cutbacks on our international commitments as well. I would make a plea to the committee that all of the claims against our limited resources in this country do not come at the expense of our international relations.

.1125

I have spent the greater part of my volunteer life volunteering outside of Canada or on behalf of Canada, and I have found that we have provided fabulous leadership. We have to continue to look at how we can provide leadership rather than saying we are going to cut that commitment. That is an important one, and it also has links to what I was saying earlier in terms of socio-economic progress depending on a steady stream of new ideas. Innovation, not merely technology, is what we are talking about.

The support is not for science and technology in themselves, but for the nature of the innovation that takes place as a consequence, both nationally and internationally.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Conley.

Who else feels that I short-changed them?

Ms Chin-Yee: I don't feel that you short-changed me, but if I might, I would like to remind everybody that we all have a disability in one form or another, and with the aging population in Canada, I think we can forecast an increase in the level of disability. The $100 million forecast on programs and services is indeed peanuts. We would all be well advised to get the best programs and supports in place that we can - programs and supports that not only ``take care of'', but programs that enable full participation and inclusion in society.

We like to refer to people without disabilities as temporarily able-bodied. We encourage you to keep that in mind. You may need these programs and supports one day.

Prof. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment. I also did not feel I was short-changed, but I was just concerned that Linus's blanket was going to go home before I got my turn!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: I am not sure you really needed him. You have been articulate.

Does anybody else have a comment?

Could we limit questions and answers from each member of Parliament to five minutes?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Do we have 30 minutes left?

The Chairman: Thirty minutes, but there are five members, which means that you have 5 minutes each, and there will be some time remaining for our witnesses to make a brief summary and for us to take leave of them.

Mr. Laurin: I am willing to cooperate, Mr. Chairman, but since I gave up all my time during the first round table session, I hope that I will meet with some understanding for this second round table and that I will be allowed to ask my questions.

I would like to make a few comments first.

I notice that women are very well represented on this second round table. I believe it is the first time that they are in the majority.

Second, I am surprised that there is such a large number of people with disabilities in Nova Scotia. Please, excuse my lack of knowledge; can someone tell me why there seems to be many more people with disabilities in Nova Scotia? Ms Irvine mentioned, I believe, that 21% of the population had a disability of one type or another.

Is that a cyclical problem or are there more people with disabilities in Nova Scotia because life is more difficult here? I would like to be given that information.

[English]

Prof. Cummings: There is no one answer, I suppose, but one of the big answers is that with high structural unemployment, the relatively high cost of living and the relatively low resources for employment support, people who are able-bodied tend to go for employment elsewhere, so I think we tend to have a greater concentration of persons with disabilities. There are probably multiple reasons.

Ms Irvine: I would just like to follow that by saying that perhaps it is because people love to live in Nova Scotia...

However, I want to correct an impression I may have made, sir, with regard to the fact that we are higher than any other province. That rate is very high in other provinces too. We just have the highest rate of disabled persons.

.1130

I also would not say it has to do with the education system per se, but perhaps over the years accessibility to literacy and education in the province have not been helped... When we're talking about disabilities we're talking about many types of disabilities. We're talking about those who have disabilities or challenges mentally, physically and in many ways. Those are all lumped into the figures, but the point is that they all need support.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Is your definition of the term ``disability'' more wide-ranging than the one used by the government or the other provinces? When one refers to people with disabilities, one tends to think mostly of people with physical or mental disabilities. If we were to use the same definition, would we still find that there are more people with disabilities in Nova Scotia?

[English]

Ms Irvine: Yes, sir.

Prof. Cummings: Yes, we are using the Statistics Canada figures. They're not Nova Scotia figures. They were collected as part of the census data. It's the Statistics Canada definition, the same one that is used across Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I would like to know how to qualify the situation. Are there more people with disabilities or are their disabilities more serious in Nova Scotia than elsewhere? Are people here, relatively speaking, more severely disabled or is the nature of their disabilities more or less identical? Is the proportion of severely disabled people vs. people with only a slight disability higher than in other provinces?

[English]

Prof. Cummings: Statistics Canada divides the disability definition roughly into the level of impairment and the type of impairment. Our figures show a distribution between those categories in Nova Scotia that is approximately the same as the distribution between those categories in other provinces, although our overall proportion is somewhat higher.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, since you asked not to go over 5 minutes, I hope that you will allow me a few questions on the second round. I would like to come back to the presentation by Ms Saunders, who made some excellent suggestions.

The Chairman: You had enough time to speak now.

Mr. Laurin: Thank you. Ms Saunders presented some suggestions rapidly, including the possibility of using one's RRSP to invest into a business. You referred to using the funds from an RRSP should someone want to start their own business. You would want them to be able to use that money just like someone may now use an RRSP to build a house, for example. Is that right?

[English]

Ms Saunders: I was suggesting that they could roll the pension plans they get when they leave work into an RRSP. They could then borrow from their RRSP without having to pay the taxes you would have to pay if you were cashing in your RRSP. They could use this to start up their business or to expand their business. So yes, it's a similar program. Right now they have to pay taxes if they take the money out of their RRSP.

The Chairman: Merci, monsieur Laurin.

Mr. Grubel.

Mr. Grubel: Thank you very much. I listened with great interest. The impressive recommendations for the stock report...I expect that to be on my desk when I get to Ottawa. I look forward to reading it. I have no specific questions.

The Chairman: Oh, Herb, it's so disappointing not to hear from you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: We're very pleased that the finance committee is joined by a member of Parliament for Nova Scotia. Geoff Regan has come back from Ottawa especially to be with us this morning.

Mr. Regan (Halifax West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I had hoped to be here early this morning, but we had a vote last night in the House so I ended up having to stay longer than I would have liked. It would have been nice to be home last night, of course.

.1135

The Chairman: I can understand that. We really enjoy being here in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Regan: I can see why. You have good taste.

A couple of witnesses talked about a human resources development strategy as well as a job creation strategy.

I'd like you to expand on what you feel the government should be doing in its next budget in those two areas. How should we be going about improving job creation and human resources development?

Dr. Conley: Let me start off.

I introduced a couple of concepts from the social and human science perspective, working with HRD.

It seems to me partnerships are the answer. We hear that from the Government of Canada, and we also believe that strongly. We have to make the links we haven't been making. The encouragement from government has to be not only to business, where there has been incentive, but also to the universities, to provide an opportunity for the universities to better utilize the talent within the university.

That involves students, faculty and the university itself and linking those three components with the community and with industry. That linkage is a really important one, and it has to be in that context of partnership, which is a broader context than we have seen in the past.

Ms Lie-Nielsen: My personal observation is that everybody I know in the social service sector is overworked and underpaid, and there's certainly no shortage of work to be done in the social service area.

We need to start looking at mechanisms such as decreasing the hours of the work week, job sharing - work arrangements that enable more people to participate in the labour market.

This also could be a benefit for persons with disabilities who may not be able to work full-time but would still like to participate in the labour market. We need to be taking some creative approaches to it.

As I say, everybody I know who is in paid employment is overworked, and we have this huge fund of people out there who are not working. We need to be looking at mechanisms to share the work.

Prof. Cummings: You asked about two things: job creation strategies and human resources development strategies. I'd like to underscore some comments that were made about human resources development strategies.

I work in a university. I'm in social work. It's very clear to me that students, or our students at least - we tend to attract students who are not high-income people - are finding it harder and harder to access university because of escalating tuitions.

Some earmarked money to deal with that kind of problem would have an impact. It certainly would have an impact on people with disabilities, who, in addition to the regular classes of university, have all those extra out-of-pocket expenses that go with just having a disability. If you don't have the support you need, you simply can't do the work and you can't be successful.

In terms of job creation, it is important to think very seriously and creatively about new approaches to community economic development that take advantage of what is to be offered in particular regions and that don't concentrate on further subsidizing large corporations but rather on subsidizing and providing attractive tax incentives to the smaller initiatives, where people will work and stay in a region such as this, not come here, exploit us and then fly to another part of the world when they've made their fast buck.

.1140

For persons with disabilities, community development initiatives would be quite important. Often people with disabilities will find it difficult to access established places of employment simply because of a whole range of barriers that exist, whereas if they were in a position to engage in some entrepreneurial work with some financial assistance, that would create a lot of opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Of course along with that there would need to be the appropriate supports to enable me or anyone else with a disability to simply function - me, for example, in the sighted world. It is a very sighted world. I have certain barriers I have to overcome, and they all cost me money, every one of them.

I'd like to tell you a small story around that. A few years ago I wanted the university to provide me with a silly little scanner so I could read text, and of course they had to justify this. I was asked to justify my expenses in a year, so I brought in $28,000 of receipts for out-of-pocket expenses I was paying just to be able to work.

I got my scanner with $6,000, but the reality is that for people who have these kinds of out-of-pocket expenses, unless there are clear tax concessions that are real and that do account for these extra expenses of disability, it's not going to be possible to engage in community economic development, it's not going to be possible to go to university and it's not even going to be possible to take a bus to work unless there's successful transportation.

So there's a whole range of supports that really need to be put in place for persons with disabilities.

I would end by saying it is very short-sighted not to do this. Think of the enormous loss of productivity because people are sitting at home. Why? Because they don't have a wheelchair, a bus, a visual aid or whatever they need. They could be out working.

The other initiative needed in terms of employment is some kind of support for workplace adaptations, because in these tough times and in this economic climate, employers just don't want to take on the expenses of adapting workplaces. They shy away. They assume it's going to be a great big financial headache.

Without the kinds of incentives that would make employers eager to employ disabled persons and provide the adaptations, it's not going to happen.

The Chairman: Thanks, Ms Cummings.

Ron Stockton.

Mr. Stockton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to comment on Mr. Regan's question about potential for job creation strategies. We can talk about a lot of things, but what we're seeing is a lot of anti-strategy, I guess, or getting rid of jobs.

One important sector not to forget in thinking of job creation, perhaps the most important, is the public sector. As we've cut the public sector we've seen more small business go belly up and we've seen the economy go down the tubes. It's important.

There are lots of services to provide in this country, and we've heard many of them talked about here today. We can do that very effectively and efficiently in the private sector, and I'm prepared to argue with anybody, when we have the time, about whether that can be done better by the public sector or by the private sector. My view is it can be done better by the public sector.

Those public sector jobs, which are generally a bit more stable and perhaps a little better paid, provide enormous spin-offs for communities throughout our country and certainly in Nova Scotia, because it's the people who have those ordinary public sector jobs who spend the bulk of their income right in the community.

It stays right in their community. It doesn't get spent on a Florida condo. It gets spent in the store next door. It gets spent on the fridge when the person builds or buys a new house. That's a real economic plan, not just slash and burn.

I recommend strongly that you take back to Mr. Martin that he reverse some of the government's policies of the past and begin to take a serious look at job creation with a public sector initiative.

The Chairman: Thanks.

Thanks, Geoff Regan.

Dianne Brushett.

.1145

Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I ask my two brief questions, I would just like to reply to Mr. Stockton's comments.

In recent surveys throughout my riding here in Nova Scotia 97% of the respondents to my question on whether the government should continue with its strategy of deficit reduction to generate an economic climate where we can grow...the response has overwhelmingly been that we are on the right track and we should continue on that track. That is Nova Scotians saying that.

I have two brief questions for Dr. Conley. When he talked about knowledge transfer and career vision, I was quite impressed by the thought of developing this centre where we could talk about parenting, getting out of that poverty cycle, helping single parents and race relations - all the transfer of how to live in a more equitable society for all Canadians.

I wonder if you would put a cost beside that; say what this would cost the Treasury of Canada if we should implement it.

The second point is to Nita Irvine or Joan or anyone in the disabled sector. Is the definition for a disabled person...? You are asking for a national standard for disability for the tax credits and so on that come out of the report recommendations. I must tell you I am very much in favour of looking at this, because some people live on $10,000, and to take away that $1,000 disability tax credit has to my mind just been abominable. I would like for us to reinstate some of these things, but can we standardize the definition of what is a disability, so it is equitable again and we do not have hordes of people coming in on the system to take advantage of the so-called tax credit or whatever else we might be able to implement?

Dr. Conley: I don't have a specific figure, because it depends on how large you make such a project. I visualize 25 university centres across the country. Depending on the number of people involved, as I have suggested to you, this is more of an initiative from the social or human science perspective, where they tend to be much less costly because there is not the need for laboratory equipment. The costs are relatively minimal. I can provide you with a breakdown if I create one for you, and I will do that. I will send that to the committee.

Mrs. Brushett: Please. Thank you very much.

Ms Campbell: About the definition of disability, the World Health Organization does have a definition of what a disability is and what it includes, but I am sure the national organizations, especially the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, would be more than happy to give a definition of what disability means. Any organization would be more than happy. We can provide that in our written report to you.

A disability is something that limits you in your normal daily function in everyday living.

Ms Lie-Nielsen: I don't think you are going to have hordes of people wanting to self-identify as having a disability, particularly with a lack of appropriate supports in place.

Mrs. Brushett: No, but we have to look at the money that would be removed from the treasury, money we would forgive or forgo; it would not come into the treasury if we did such-and-such. It's part of our role. We know with disability pensions, for example, we do have increased numbers moving into that sector repeatedly. It is something we have to evaluate.

Ms Lie-Nielsen: On the disability pensions, there are a number of reasons for the increase in the number of people on CPP disability pensions. Part of that is structural. It has to do with what is going on elsewhere in the economy and the use of the disability pension as an early retirement program for a number of persons. The increase in the number of CPP disability pension claimants can be readily explained. There was a catch-up provision in place to allow for people who had previously been disqualified. There isn't a tremendous increase in the number of people with disabilities in the population in general. The CPP increase in disability claims is a structural matter more than an increase in the actual number of persons with disabilities.

.1150

Prof. Cummings: There is one thing about the increase in the CPP disability calculation that I wanted to comment on. One of the reasons so many people are on CPP is that the private insurance companies have been able to require their insured people... If I'm insured with an insurance company and I have a disability, I have to apply to CPP first and then the insurance company will top that up.

It does strike me that it would be possible, through some regulatory mechanisms, to prevent private insurance companies, which I don't think are living at poverty levels, from drawing all this money from the public purse and to in fact pay out from their own coffers.

The Chairman: Linda Stiles.

Ms Stiles: In response to Mrs. Brushett, we do have a definition of what a disability is. If you would permit our executive director, who is here right now, he would be able to tell you exactly what it is.

The Chairman: I am going to suggest that maybe Mrs. Brushett could meet with him afterwards to go through that specific definition. Would that be okay?

Ms Stiles: Sure.

Ms Irvine: Could I raise one point?

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Ms Irvine: As you know, over the past year there has been a great deal of publicity about the fact that there has been a reassessment done of a number of people who have claimed disability benefits under the Income Tax Act.

In the task force report, Mr. Scott is recommending that the form that is required in order to have that kind of tax credit should be reviewed together with the disabled community, in accordance and consistent with the statutory definition. So there is a statutory definition of what is a person with disabilities. He also recommends that those assessments that have been going on, which reassess doctors' and optometrists' assessments, should cease.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Brushett.

We are running out of time. Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we are under some time constraints here so I will put a short question to Ms Saunders.

An issue we've heard raised several times - not yet here with this panel, but I put it to you since you are involved with women in business - is the availability of capital in small quantities, $5,000, $10,000 and $20,000 loans that you can't get from the bank because they are too small for them to administer. What kind of experiences are you having with women in terms of accessing the smaller amounts of capital that are needed to seed the small businesses that become the medium and large businesses of this country?

In addition, are you finding or having any luck in getting poor women into business in any kind of way?

Ms Saunders: That is probably the biggest challenge women have in starting a business. Some of those who come to us - and we have seen thousands in the past four and a half years - just want $500 or $1,000 to start a business and they have absolutely no capital whatsoever, which is very unfortunate. That is their biggest problem. There are some programs around, such as Calmeadow, which had to do with peer lending, but not everybody wants to be part of a peer group.

Some people use their credit cards to start a business, but a lot of women don't even have a credit card, because women have never been taught to accumulate assets. They don't have access to capital or equity, so that's a major problem in starting a business. We see this every day at the Centre for Women in Business. They just need very small amounts.

That is why I recommended that if we did have a micro-loan fund in place, we could set up an advisory board at the Centre for Women in Business to administer that fund. It has been proven that women are twice as successful in business as men. Research indicates that after five years twice as many women are still in business. Women take longer to start a business because they do more research. They like to be very aware of what they're getting into before they start a business.

.1155

At the Centre for Women in Business, over the past four years we have helped 250 women start a business and we've helped 450 maintain their businesses. These women have hired 500 employees, so you can see that the Centre for Women in Business has helped create 1,100 jobs in the past four years we have been open. But there's still so much more we can do, and this micro-loan fund is the biggest obstacle we come up against.

Mr. St. Denis: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Ms Saunders, when you referred to child care programs, you suggested that children up to 17 years old be admissible to those programs. I will remind you that, at the Economic Summit that took place recently in Quebec City, it was also proposed that the age be raised, but only to 16.

I don't know if the situation is similar in Nova Scotia, but since school attendance is mandatory for children up to age 16, if we were to raise the limit for admissibility to child care programs to 17 years, would we not be running the risk of having to cover child care expenses for children who no longer go to school and who, in fact, should not take advantage of such services? If they no longer go to school, their parents are under no obligation to put them under someone's care. Don't you think that setting the limit at 16 years would go far enough?

[English]

Ms Saunders: The problem - just from speaking to a lot of parents - is that they don't want to go away on business trips and leave their 17-year-olds at home without somebody paid to look after them. There's just too much opportunity for their peers to put pressure on the young person at home to have parties and invite friends in. That's one of the biggest problems women face when travelling on the road.

This is the recommendation that came to us, that it be raised to 17. A lot of students are still in school at the age of 17, in grade 12.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Wouldn't you agree with 16 years?

[English]

The Chairman: How about 21?

I would like to offer each of you the opportunity, if you so choose, to tell us in 15 seconds the single main message you would like us to take away. Would you like to start, June Saunders?

Ms Saunders: I was very pleased to be invited to come here today and be given the opportunity to present my views. I really feel Canada has a great future, that we have so much to be proud of and there's so much we can do. I really feel there's a spirit of cooperation developing as we're getting older. We're starting to realize that we're all going to end up in the same place, so let's help each other get there.

I really like the idea of you going around the country and getting input. It makes us feel we are contributing and that there is something we can each do to help each other.

The Chairman: Dr. Conley, 15 seconds.

Dr. Conley: Technology innovation and knowledge transfer are more than words. We really have to make them work. It's not enough for the government or ministers of the government to say this is what Canada has to do. We actually have to put some resources into it, because the pay-back is very substantial, as I suggested earlier.

The Chairman: Ron Stockton.

Mr. Stockton: I think what we have to keep in mind is that people are more than simply human resources. They're people, and that's quite different from a resource.

I think the government needs to have a review of its attitude and approach to the whole program. I think Mrs. Brushett's question to her constituents is indicative of the wrong approach; you defined the question so that really I'm surprised 100% of the people didn't agree with you. The failure of your question is that deficit cutting won't create jobs; it won't fix the economy. You need a new approach to the whole thing.

The Chairman: Ms Stiles.

Ms Stiles: The only comment I'd like to make is that I hope this standing committee takes all of our concerns back and really looks at them without putting them in a file that says we'll see you next year.

The Chairman: We will see you next year, anyway.

John D'Orsay.

.1200

Mr. D'Orsay: The first thing was the question of the social programs and the need to support the social programs. That brings you to the question about developing economic interventions that are going to promote growth and enhance equity and equality. The basic thing on that, in my view, is that you have to look more systematically at knowledge-based strategies for doing that.

I think it comes back even to the example Mr. Laurin gave. The school-leaving age is 16. Well, the school-leaving age was set at 16 how many years ago, and how appropriate is that as the current age for education? How appropriate is that as a standard nowadays? I think Linda's approach to that goes to the realities.

The Chairman: Jessie Campbell.

Ms Campbell: There are two things I would like to say. I hope the committee is aware of the recommendations of the disability task force. I also hope, although you may not be aware of those recommendations, you will put them into action. We do not want these to sit on a shelf. We want action, and we will pinpoint what action we want the government to take.

Although we come from P.E.I. and I don't know what other organizations you have in P.E.I., you did miss a golden opportunity by not going to P.E.I., because we are representing only people with disabilities. We do have empathy for people such as students, senior citizens, and aboriginals, and their issues. We want to make sure you are aware of the fact that there are human costs to the reductions. That is fine for now, but you will pay for it in five or ten years' time.

A final comment. It's about the Canadian jobs strategy. One thing I have noticed is that the educational institutions need to work more with employers to determine what is needed for education. If you are looking at hiring somebody, you don't look at what they have in education and work experience; you should look at where they can be in six months' time with on-the-job training. You should provide programs... If the person has an education and has the qualifications... If he can't get a job because he can't go to a university, you should look at where he can be in six months.

A good example is those students who are going in for teachers and who cannot get a job as a teacher. They have to go up north or they have to get into another category altogether.

Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity.

The Chairman: I'm glad you came in, Jessie.

Anne.

Ms Lie-Nielsen: Ditto.

The Chairman: Brilliant.

Fiona Chin-Yee.

Ms Chin-Yee: From the Canadian Pensioners Concerned, I would like to reiterate the whole issue of universality. Social programs need to maintain universality so we can maintain a reasonable gap between the rich and the poor and not expand the gap between the rich and poor.

Again, I would like to make one comment on job strategy, which Geoff Regan asked about. I think the investment needs to be in training. We are a society in transition, and education is the key to our future. Without education, without educating our children and constantly educating people in the workplace, we will be in serious trouble. So the investment needs to be in education. We need to have a department of education at the federal level to overlook post-secondary education especially, and training, on a national level. We should not leave it solely to the provinces.

The Chairman: Nita Irvine.

Ms Irvine: I would just like to agree with Ms Saunders about the age of 17. As an educator of 42 years, mainly with teenagers, and also as a woman who has been in the world of work for a great many years, I would certainly agree with her on the need for the extension of the age to 17, because teenagers do need that supervision. It's part of what is wrong with the juvenile problems we are having in our country right now.

I also have one little note to add to my previous presentation. Please get this task force recommendation activated. Don't let it lie on the shelf. Make sure it's activated. Many of the things in it are pertinent for now and we need to get it acted upon.

The Chairman: The last word goes to you, Joan Cummings.

.1205

Prof. Cummings: Thank you. I'm going to use a little bit of my 15 seconds to say thank you to the committee for this opportunity to raise some issues.

If I had to say just one overriding theme that I think is important, it is to continue to set a role in relation to disability issues and the continued fiscal capacity of the national government to equalize opportunities for persons with disabilities and give them access to the Canadian economic and social mainstream.

The Chairman: Thank you, Joan Cummings.

On behalf of all members, we're very pleased that you have come out today and discussed issues with us.

I'm very pleased personally to have had as a permanent member of our committee Dianne Brushett, who is from Truro, as you know, and I'm just delighted that we are joined today by Geoff Regan, and by our colleague -

Ms Clancy (Halifax): What's her name?

The Chairman: - Mary Clancy, who everybody knows, not only in Halifax but across Canada. Thank you both for joining us today. I know it was tough for you to get here.

In terms of what we've heard, June Saunders, I want to compliment you on the program. I've heard about it from other sources too, and I'm a big fan of the university of which you're part. Your suggestion for expanding the tuition and education tax credit to a carry-over provision, we've heard before, but I think it's one that has gained a lot of acceptance here. Your start-up funding using severance pay going to an RRSP and being able to loan it out is a very interesting concept for women. Access to capital for all small businesses is a big, big issue for us. It's an excellent idea.

Dr. Conley - people say, Peterson, you'll never be a politician because you have ideas but you don't know how to express them - when you talk about seismic shift and mine quakes, I'm just going to get into your mode of thinking and I'm sure we can shake the world up. Talking about knowledge transfers and community linkages, I thought it was very complimentary what you were saying, and John D'Orsay, about the support for...you weren't talking necessarily about the hard sciences but the social sciences, the international affairs, and not only what technology is but how we apply it and use it in our lives.

That really gets down to the funding for SHRC, in many ways - the social sciences. You're the first people we've heard from on that issue this time. I have the feeling they might be giving up a little bit, but I'm glad we've heard an eloquent plea for the social sciences and issues such as adult literacy and what they can do for our productivity, because all of these have a very direct input into our economic future.

David Peters has gone. I thought he put it very well when he said the debt is very important but don't be obsessed by it. We've heard some very important pleas around here dealing with ways we can now look at other possibilities perhaps.

We've heard from Fiona Chin-Yee, who wants us to reinstate the old age security and the GIS, get rid of the clawback for seniors, and index it, which was not done before. I guess what that would mean today - and I wish we'd had some debate on it but we didn't - is that there would be no clawback of the old age security unless your income was over $53,000 or your joint income as a family unit was over $106,000. I hope we'll have more input on that.

There are some seniors who feel it's very unfair to have any clawback whatsoever. Then there are other seniors who say, well, maybe at $106,000 in family income we're among the top 2% or 3% of incomes for Canadians and maybe we can afford to forego some of the pensions we had previously counted on. So these are difficult choices, but...

We have heard an incredibly articulate plea on behalf of Canada's disabled people from Joan Cummings, Nita Irvine, Linda Stiles, Jessie Campbell and Anne Lie-Nielsen.

.1210

You talked about preserving the VRDP and expanding the medical tax credit as it applies to Canada's disabled people for attendant care, for special dietary needs and for other things like that.

We have heard from a lot of you, including the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, about the need for an ongoing strong federal role.

I detect that you don't like the fact that we have had to withdraw from funding a lot of these programs that are within provincial jurisdiction but where we stuck our little fingers into the spending power in order to attempt to create some national standards. We have had to cut back enormously, and some of these spending programs have suffered. We realize that. They will bottom out, because this committee last year recommended that there be a floor on the cash component of the CHST transfer, and Mr. Martin set that at $11 billion. That will start to go up in a few years' time.

Meanwhile, there isn't a great deal of leverage left...well, there's a lot of leverage left when it's combined with the CHST. It's a minimum of $11.5 billion per year to attempt to create some national standards. Whether the provinces are going to be amenable to that sort of thing is another issue, but you've given us testimony as to what you consider to be the significant role of the federal government in creating these standards.

To those of you who have talked to us so eloquently and forcefully about the disabled, we're very proud of the work that was done by Andy Scott and his task force. It was hard-hitting and it was direct. I think the first effort we ever made at this was David Smith's task force, which published Obstacles back in 1981. It's time to update that.

I think Andy Scott will go down in history as having made an important breakthrough. We will be judged on how much of that report we implement.

On behalf of all members of Parliament, many thanks to you for a very important discussion.

We are adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page