[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.0936 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum.
In conformity with Standing Orders 106(1) and (2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): I am pleased to put the name of Sheila Finestone forward as chair of this committee.
The Clerk: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I declare Mrs. Finestone duly elected chair of the committee and invite her to take the chair.
An hon. member: Do we have a speech?
The Chair: No, I don't have a speech.
Thank you very much for this democratic process. I really look forward to working together on issues of interest that we will find we have in common.
[Translation]
These are issues that we will certainly be broaching as a committee. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to human rights, there is no difference between the political parties, since human rights are at the very root of our values system in Canada.
[English]
I sincerely hope that whatever we undertake to do together we shall do in the interests of human rights. As you probably know, I have a penchant, having just come from an international world conference at which for the first time there was a reaffirmation of women's rights as human rights. What went on beyond that, which is what concerns me the most, is the fact that it was recognized as societal rights.
[Translation]
Societal rights extend to men, to children, to all members of the society in which we live, and live well, I hope.
[English]
I thank you very much. I hope it will be a pleasant working experience for all of us.
Now what am I supposed to do? I've never been a chairman. I have been a vice-chairman.
The Clerk: Our next item is to elect two vice-chairs.
The Chair: Do you proceed?
The Clerk: You proceed.
The Chair: I proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): I have a motion, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Proceed.
Mr. Ménard: I move that Mr. Maurice Bernier be elected Vice-Chair.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I nominate Andy Scott for vice-chair.
The Clerk: We can entertain only one motion at a time.
The Chair: Would you hold that motion, sir?
Can we address the nomination of Maurice, please?
Mrs. Brushett: I have a point of order. Are we addressing the first vice-chair or the second vice-chair at this time?
The Chair: The first. Does it make any difference?
.0940
Mrs. Brushett: Yes, very much so. I think it would be in order to address the first vice-chair at this time and to put this motion forward first.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you wish to withdraw your motion for the time being, until we have designated the first Vice-Chair?
Mr. Ménard: From a procedural standpoint, this does not pose a problem. I can withdraw my motion. It is not necessary to begin by electing the government Vice-Chair, but I don't have a problem with this, Madam Chair. If you want us to hold the motion, we will do so.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Chair, again, as I indicated, I nominate Andy Scott for vice-chair.
The Chair: Are there any other propositions for vice-chair? Do I have unanimity?
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I move that the member for Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead, Mr. Maurice Bernier, be designated second - but always first in our hearts - Vice-Chair.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): Madam Chair, could I call for a recorded vote?
The Chair: On Mr. Bernier's nomination? Yes, I believe you're entitled to do so. Do you want this to be a closed vote or an open hand vote?
Mrs. Hayes: A recorded open vote.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): I have a point of order. What are we voting on, the nomination?
The Chair: The nomination of Mr. Maurice Bernier as vice-chair.
Mr. Maloney: If no other person is running, why do we have to have a vote?
Mrs. Brushett: They've requested it.
The Chair: Have you someone else in mind?
Mrs. Hayes: The problem is only one motion is allowed on the floor at one time. That's my understanding. So because of the procedure we can vote on only one person at one time, but I would like it recorded who it is who supports a Bloc vice-chair.
The Chair: All right, support for Mr. Maurice Bernier as vice-chair.
[Translation]
The Honourable Member has requested a recorded vote on the nomination of Maurice Bernier.
Motion agreed to. Yeas: 7. Nays: 2.
[English]
The Chair: Now what do we do next?
The Clerk: Now we move to the routine motions. All of these motions were adopted by the committee in the first session. They are just to set up a steering committee, to have researchers to hear evidence, to have the proceedings printed. The last one is an exception. We overlooked it in the first session. I've added it.
The Chair: Does everyone have a copy of the routine motions? I'll give you a couple of moments just to look at them to see if there's any concern about these routine motions. Then I'll move for an adoption of these motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): Madam Chair, please accept my congratulations on your election to the chairmanship.
As mentioned earlier, the Official Opposition wants to work closely with all members of the committee and of the government to improve human rights and the status of persons with disabilities.
With respect to the routine motions, I would like to suggest that at the end of the third motion concerning the reduced quorum, the word "official" be added. The motion reads: "one of whom is a member of the opposition." I suggest that the word "official" be added.
Is this clear enough, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes. I thought that was always the case.
Mr. Bernier: We wanted it to be very clear.
.0945
[English]
The Chair: Fine. Thank you. There are no objections?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, I would object to that. I think ``opposition'' would be sufficient.
The Chair: You believe ``opposition'' is sufficient?
Mrs. Hayes: Just commenting on that, I think we're talking about the third item on the routine motions.
The Chair: Yes, we are.
Mrs. Hayes: It would seem to be slightly out of order for only one member of an opposition party to be necessary, as opposed to two, because of the unusual construct of this particular Parliament. Does it not read that a quorum could be deemed present with only one opposition member, even though we have two opposition parties?
The Chair: I don't know how you like your chair to be used, but I'm a consensual manager. I don't know how that will sit with you, but let's try it.
I can tell you that, during the course of many years in opposition, if we had had that kind of a constraint we would have insulted many community groups that came to see us. It was an unfortunate reality, but the other party in the House, which was the NDP at that time, had many committees. They were a small number in the House and they couldn't always cover their responsibilities. Therefore, there was no way in which that would have been a courteous undertaking, and I know that the members of the NDP wouldn't have liked it either.
So, number one, we never had the obligation for two members from the opposition. Number two, we did not determine either that it had to be the official opposition that was present. That's up to this committee. There were Svend Robinson and me, and we took turns when we both had double duty, to determine that one of us would be present if we were having hearings. It was the only way to be fair.
Mr. Scott: I think it would be impossible. I experienced the social security review and, as much as I wouldn't wish it on anyone, the fact is that there would have been all kinds of times when both the Reform Party or the Bloc wouldn't be there and we would have had people waiting in the halls.
It would be wonderful, but because the demands on everyone's time are too great it just doesn't work.
It's in the interest of the people appearing.
The Chair: By the way, this is only to hear witnesses, not to vote motions. The official work of this committee cannot take place without a representation from all interested parties, but I think the respectful undertaking to hear witnesses really demands that we leave the largest latitude for representation. I don't think it should ever take place without at least one member of the opposition.
[Translation]
You wish to emphasize the word "official", Mr. Bernier, but I have to say that this hasn't always been easy. It applies only in the case of public hearings. The important thing is that we show respect for those who come to testify before the committee.
The Honourable Member should not have mentioned the presence of political parties. The important thing is to ensure that witnesses are allowed to give evidence. However, when decisions must be made, it is vitally important that the three parties be represented.
Mr. Bernier: Madam Chair, I understand where you and your colleagues are coming from. We will do everything in our power to be present at all of these meetings. We would have liked to see this specified in the rules, but I understand your position.
[English]
The Chair: On the Minutes of Proceedings, does this allow us to have a larger distribution, if needed?
The Clerk: We can request it if it's deemed to be necessary.
Mrs. Hayes: Is this the definition of a reduced quorum that has existed with this committee in this parliamentary session to this point in time?
The Chair: Yes.
.0950
Mrs. Hayes: Okay, and it has worked.
The Chair: Evidently, it has worked very well.
Mrs. Hayes: I've been part of this committee, and I've certainly tried to hear witnesses as often as I can. I am not now an official member. I'm an associate member, but if it's deemed....
The Chair: The past chairs and executive committees indicate yes, this is how it worked.
Rey, is there anything on here different from before?
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): No, just the part we confirmed. It was how we worked during the last year. The opposition would mean either the Reform or the Bloc. The reason for this, as Mr. Bodnar has stated, is to ensure that witnesses do not come, with expenses paid, to proceedings that then cannot proceed because both parties are not available.
Secondly, if we limit ourselves to only the official opposition it will, I submit, put a tremendous onus on proceedings, which may not be able to proceed with the majority on the government side and with Reform present. It will be a very heavy load to assume on the part of the official opposition.
It was deliberately argued. We agreed it would be either the Bloc or Reform, so witnesses...that part of the process will proceed. It was done on a friendly basis, and that's why the consensus was reached at that time.
The Chair: Okay. Have you all had an opportunity now to revisit the routine motion, and if so, may I ask for an adoption of same?
Mr. Maloney: Are we voting on official opposition or just opposition? Can I clarify? Have you made that just opposition?
The Chair: Yes. He has withdrawn that.
Mr. Maloney: Fine. Thank you.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Is there any other business?
Just a minute. I'm sorry if I sound very uninformed, but is there a regular meeting time normally established?
How does that work, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk: We had been meeting in the past session on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m.
The Chair: Does that meet with everyone's approval? Okay, that's Tuesdays at 11 a.m.
In the meantime, can we call a meeting of the steering committee? Do you call it formally or informally, based on your procedures?
Dr. Pagtakhan, do you register your meetings of the steering committees formally during the course of your routine motions, or prior to the adjournment? Is it part of the formal proceedings, or is it just ad hoc?
Mr. Pagtakhan: No, it's a formal proceeding - the steering committee meeting.
The Clerk: My recollection is it was usually called at the request of the chair.
Mr. Pagtakhan: It was a formal meeting, yes.
The Clerk: Yes, as a formal meeting.
Mr. Pagtakhan: The membership is reduced, so it's easy to call a meeting.
The Chair: Could I ask, if you have a few moments, if any of you have given much thought to - or had the opportunity to give thought to - those areas into which you would like to put your efforts and energies?
I bring to your attention the study you did on the disabled, for which you all deserve a great deal of credit. You will note that, in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Chrétien made note of this study, which you tabled. He indicated there would be a follow-up done with respect to the tax implications flowing from it.
So obviously we would have an interest in ensuring that is followed through. That's one obvious issue, because you all put so much effort and energy into it.
I wondered, however, if we might go around the table and see if anyone else has any ideas. Before I ask the steering committee to meet, perhaps you would like to share your point of view with us for the steering committee's guidance.
Yes, Sharon.
.0955
Mrs. Hayes: I have a point of order. Again, I'm just a substitute on the committee, but as this did not appear on the agenda and we don't have our regular members at the table at this time, could I ask that this discussion, and perhaps the first meeting of the steering committee, be postponed until it is part of an agenda?
The Chair: No, if I may cordially overrule you in that regard. I merely asked for some ideas from those who are in the room. It doesn't have to be an agenda item. You don't have to participate if you don't want to. I can close the meeting and then ask you to stay. I would just like to hear what you have to say because we have the two vice-chairmen here.
I don't intend to run this like a ramrod. I really want to hear what you have to say so it can be taken into consideration. I don't think that in any way....
Sharon, you were on this committee before. You may have some ideas; you may not have some ideas. It doesn't hurt just to listen.
So no, I don't agree.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Madam Chair, I have a few points that I would like to discuss.
A while ago, you mentioned the reference in the budget speech to changes that should be made to tax deductions for persons with disabilities. Of course, our committee will be studying these changes.
You also mentioned that in December, we reported to the House on the National Strategy on the Economic Integration of Persons with Disabilities. If I'm not mistaken, this strategy comes to an end in April. Therefore, it is urgent that the government implement a new national strategy. Naturally, this should be one of our committee's priorities. That's my first comment. There may be other issues that need to be addressed.
I also have a question which may have more to do with research, but since my Bloc colleague, who is also a member of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade committee, is present... Madam Chair, this morning we attended a conference at which Mr. Kielburger spoke to us about the rights of children around the world. His comments prompted me to reflect upon human rights in the world. This is an issue of growing importance. In this era of market and trade globalization, there is mounting evidence that human rights are often being neglected.
In the past, I have had the opportunity to attend several meetings of this committee where we heard from witnesses...
[English]
The Chair: The foreign affairs committee?
Mr. Bernier: No, this committee.
[Translation]
Therefore, we heard from outside witnesses. I believe we heard evidence from a representative from Burma and from other individuals. Should this committee be concerned about human rights from an international perspective?
I have no particular opinion one way or another and I don't wish for us to discuss this matter now, but I would like us to consider it.
That's all for now, Madam Chair.
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): I don't want to answer my colleague's question, but I would like to continue along the same lines.
Could this committee take some kind of action on behalf of Canadians whose rights have been violated outside Canada?
Mr. Bernier: Good question!
The Chair: What type of action do you have in mind?
Mr. Paré: Could this committee express its concern when the rights of Canadian citizens are violated outside Canada?
The Chair: Are you referring to the Canadian who was jailed in Singapore for possession of cocaine and sentenced to be canned?
.1000
That's an interesting question. We can add it to our list and reach a decision together. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Scott: I'd like to see the committee follow our report of last fall with regard to our assessment of the strategy for persons with disabilities. I would like to see the committee charged with the responsibility of viewing as a human rights issue how the community of disabled persons in Canada is faring relative to the negotiations between the federal government and the provinces in terms of the CHST.
It's very important that as we go through this exercise of - I don't know what the word is this week - rebalancing, or whatever it is, what have been national preoccupations and in fact in many cases programs in which we take great pride internationally.... I would think that programs for persons with disabilities are one of those. We need to make sure that those values will be protected in this exercise. I think this committee is appropriately positioned to do that, and it would follow very nicely on our report. That's what I'd like to see the committee do, as a human rights issue, as a domestic -
The Chair: Federal-provincial undertakings for the CHST?
Mr. Scott: Generally, as we are engaged in the exercise of the CHST with the provinces and the federal government and the provinces are rebalancing our relative responsibilities, someone needs to be engaged in that exercise with the perspective of persons with disabilities, which is particularly my interest.
Other constituencies need to have some attention as well: the elderly and so on.
For many of the communities that have benefited from national programs in some fashion or another, really no one else is charged with the responsibility inside government to make sure that those interests are looked after from a national perspective.
I appreciate the reference to a national strategy on the part of the vice-chair. There are values at stake here that need to be protected regardless of how we believe they play themselves out on the ground.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): I concur with much of what Andy has said. I think one of the reasons why we've worked together so well as a committee over the last two years is that we've focused on something that we could actually accomplish, rather than getting into more ethereal discussions of what would really be nice.
Because of the tremendous changes wrought on society as a whole because of the Canada health and social transfer, it seems to me that no group with a national perspective is looking at persons with disabilities, particularly persons with mental disabilities.
As the responsibility for caring for people is devolved more and more to the provinces, we are going to have to figure out some way of getting some minimum standard nationally that we're going to expect provinces to maintain in the treatment of people with disabilities, particularly people with mental disabilities.
The Chair: Would you be interested in the observation that Mr. Scott made?
Andy added the thought - and I believe this very firmly - that the disabled need a voice, but the elderly also need a voice. On the issues of abuse, housing, care, and curatorship - we've just seen an awful lot on curatorship and abuse of curatorship - who speaks for the elderly within our House?
I always look on the House of Commons as being a great big house - like my house only just a little bit bigger, with more rooms and a few more bathrooms. Thank God I don't have to have a housekeeper to clean it up. But seriously, who lives in our house and how do we look after them?
I think that's what you're saying in a sense, Andy.
.1005
And Ian, is that what you concur with?
Mr. McClelland: Yes.
The Chair: You're adding that we go visiting;
[Translation]
when travelling outside Canada. What kind of reception do we get and how are our rights respected? Is that what you mean?
[English]
I'm trying to get a sense of what your concerns and interests are, so when we sit down together in the steering committee we can put some flesh on it and see what we want to do. I think it would be very helpful.
Andy, you just said something that is of great importance to me too. I want to ensure that official language minority communities...when we do transfers, when we rejig and see that provincial-federal areas of concern are addressed, I want to make sure minority communities...because we are essentially talking about minorities. We are talking about the disabled. We are talking about the elderly. I certainly think French outside of Quebec and English in Quebec should be transferred in...when you are doing transferring, you ensure services are given in one of the two official languages. That's something I would like to look at too.
[Translation]
Mr. Bouchard spoke about this last night and we have to ensure that it is included in the transfer of powers.
[English]
You also bring to mind.... In your disabled study - which I really have not read, I will tell you; I'm going to have to read it - did you address the question of social housing?
Mr. Pagtakhan: No.
The Chair: It seems to me the first thing one needs in a country like ours is shelter. We know we have special social housing. We need shelter for people who are poor; low-cost housing. We need shelter for rape crisis centres, battered women centres, les centres de femmes. You need shelters for the homeless.
Does that fall into what you were thinking of, Andy?
Mr. Scott: In a fashion that the issues that are of concern to persons with disabilities, housing -
The Chair: I know they need special housing.
Mr. Scott: - other kinds of support systems...the issues that are of concern to persons with disabilities have a tendency to be issues that are similar to those that are of concern to the elderly, in transportation, in, again, housing.... My own preference would be.... If we build on the report and our interest in persons with disabilities, that has a tendency to create a public policy debate that can be broadened to include other persons in the same situation.
They're not necessarily the powerful people in this country. We're going through great change, and I think we need to address ourselves to their interests, to make sure no one is falling through the cracks in this exercise. That is a very broad group, but persons with disabilities generally share their concerns.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I share Andy's concerns. I have one question about the jurisdiction of the committee itself. Take the case of what was just discussed; the scenario. If we would include the seniors as we study the concerns of people with disabilities relating to social housing, are we concluding that the seniors would like to be called people with disabilities? If not, it would be beyond our jurisdiction. It falls under the jurisdiction of the human resources committee.
We had a similar problem in the past with the concerns of people with disabilities and the bill that went before the human resources committee. At the time it was the choice of people with disabilities to appear before that committee rather than for us to study the issue. So we asked whether we should have a joint committee study. At the time it was too late to do that, so the human resources committee proceeded with it.
.1010
If we will address this issue of people with disabilities, social housing people, the poor, the elderly, women, and all other minorities as a human rights issue, then no doubt it will be within the jurisdiction of this committee. So it depends on how we look at those types of issues so we can assert jurisdiction without encroaching on the jurisdiction of the other committees.
One last point: in the last parliament it was relatively easy, because we had the health committee, which includes, other than health, the status of women, seniors, and social affairs. So we could really have some committee under that department -
The Chair: You mean the last House. You are not talking about this government.
Mr. Pagtakhan: No, not this government. The last House, the previous one.
So the parliamentary committee -
The Chair: But that is not the issue now.
Mr. Pagtakhan: No, it's not. That's why I'm pointing this out, because other committees may be embarking on similar studies.
You're right, Madam Chairman: we do not know who is taking the lead on concerns of the elderly. So the committee may properly be seized with this opportunity, but jurisdictionally this should be thrashed out with the human resources committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: That's right. We will have to discuss respective areas of jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Scott: It is interesting. This is a discussion that we had in the last committee, as well.
It appears to me as if, by virtue of our mandate, we have some jurisdictional responsibility - or opportunity, depending on how you view it - for the substantial issues that affect the lives of persons with disabilities.
However, if you broaden that in the context of our human rights descriptions, then I think we can bring a particular perspective to a whole series of issues that normally are referred to the human resources development committee. I don't want to fight other battles here, but the fact of the matter is that there is a specific human rights perspective that might be lost in the transfer of those issues to the human resources development committee. I think they're charged with a certain approach to things that is different from the approach we're charged with.
The way to get at that debate substantially is through dealing with questions of persons with disability, because that is, specifically, substantially ours. So if we view that as a human rights issue, then we can broaden the discussion and deal with some things that normally might go to HRD - however, deal with it from a human rights perspective rather than a labour market development, HRD, perspective, which is very different.
By doing it through persons with disabilities, we don't run the risk of being vetoed as it is not our turf. Clearly, persons with disability are, but I would like to broaden the consideration just a little bit so that we are viewing this as a human rights issue, not simply a specific persons with disability issue.
The Chair: I'd like to read to you the definition of our responsibilities under this mandate's Standing Orders.
I think we have another responsibility, which I don't want us to forget.
We have a third responsibility, which is a proposition that is on your table, which you can decide either to bring back or not. It is that the status of women report to this committee. At this moment there is no mechanism for reporting for the status of women.
It says here:
- Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities shall include, among other matters:
That report is to be laid on the table within the next two weeks. So we have that obligation as a first responsibility.
Secondly:
- the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian society;
So on the disabled we're okay.
.1015
I think we have to look at this CHRC report to see.... I guess we would be able to pick...I won't say ``cherry-picking'', but that's essentially what we could do, based on our interest as a committee, and I think your steering committee would have to look at it from that perspective.
What is the procedure, Mr. Clerk or Mr. Past-chairman, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, with what was before this committee on the status of women? Where did that get to?
Mr. Pagtakhan: We decided we would look on it as the second or the first agenda in relation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. My recollection is that we have agreed to accept that issue.
The Chair: The rights of the child?
Mr. Pagtakhan: And to have the status of women -
The Chair: Report to this committee?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes.
The Chair: What happened on the negotiations on that with the Canadian heritage committee?
Mr. Pagtakhan: At that point the chairman, Mr. Godfrey, was in agreement, if I recall correctly.
The Chair: Does anybody else have any collective memory?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Wayne, what's your recollection?
The Clerk: I know we did send letters, but I'm not aware what answers we received. I can check into that and get back to you.
The Chair: Would you, please?
Mr. Pagtakhan: I think it was okay, but let's check just to be sure.
The Chair: Are there any additional helpful directions you might want to suggest before I ask the two vice-chairs to sit with me and look at these things?
Mr. Maloney: Madam Chair, I'd be interested in knowing what reports were done by the 34th Parliament, the groups during that period, and I'd be interested in following up on whether any action was taken in any of those areas.
The Chair: From this committee?
Mr. Maloney: From the previous parliament; the 34th Parliament.
The Chair: John, you will be receiving a briefing book this afternoon. It will have a list and outline of all these areas and where the reports are, which I presume would include Equality for All and all those issues, including human rights.
The Clerk: From the 34th Parliament.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Maloney: I'm interested in whether any action was taken; if not, why not; and what action was in fact taken.
The Chair: You feel we should be doing a checklist of propositions made and actions taken or not taken?
Mr. Maloney: I'll wait to see the briefing book, and then I'll comment further.
I have a second point. An annual award is given to a person who has a disability, and it's taken from the coins thrown into the fountain in front of the Parliament buildings. What is the status of that, Wayne? Are we about ready to do something with that again? Is it the Flame Award?
The Clerk: It's the Centennial Flame Research Award.
Before the dissolution of the last session, the steering committee, which is responsible for the award, adopted the criteria for 1996. That material was sent out to the people on our mailing list. We have begun to receive applications for the award. The deadline for applications is March 31. The steering committee has until June, I believe, to select the successful candidate.
The Chair: In the briefing book, will you have the information on the criteria?
The Clerk: Yes, that's included.
The Chair: It would be helpful to know what we're supposed to be responsible for.
The Clerk: That is included in the briefing book, yes.
The Chair: Thank you for your question. It was a very enlightened one. I didn't know anything about it. I think I'm in for a lot of surprises.
Is there anything else anyone would like to discuss?
Mr. Pagtakhan: The issue of whether to create subcommittees or not you may want to discuss at the steering committee again, because it was an issue that kept being discussed. Our decision was not to proceed, but the new committee may want to revisit this issue, in light of the many competing agendas that are before the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much for bringing that to our attention.
The meeting is adjourned.