Evidence of meeting #46 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Karen Jackson  Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Laura Oleson  Acting Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will continue our study on the operation and financial support allocated by the Enabling Accessibility Fund for small and major projects.

I want to welcome our two witnesses here today from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. We have Karen Jackson, the senior assistant deputy minister of the income security and social development branch.

Karen, welcome today. It's good to see you back.

We also have Laura Oleson, who is the acting director general, office for disability issues.

Just before we get started, I want to let people know I have to run over to the House to do a speech, in which case I'll ask Mr. Lessard to step in. I will be back afterwards to continue on with the meeting. I'm going to leave it at that.

Karen, I know you have some opening remarks, so we'll have you get started, and then, as usual, the committee will go around the room and ask questions.

Karen, welcome again. Thank you for being here and taking time out of your busy schedule. The floor is yours.

11:05 a.m.

Karen Jackson Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be here today, and as the chair indicates, I am here with my colleague Laura Oleson. We are ready to answer questions on the operations and financial support allocated by the Enabling Accessibility Fund, but if I could, perhaps I'll just start by way of background.

People with disabilities in Canada are indeed a diverse group. Some people are born with disabilities; others develop them later in life. Disability can be permanent. It can be temporary. It can be episodic. Disability really is the result of a complex interaction of health conditions, personal factors, and environmental factors.

We know, from Statistics Canada's 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, that 4.4 million Canadians, or 14.3% of the population, have a disability, with most of them, in fact, reporting a physical disability. In 2001 only 3.6 million Canadians, or 12.4%, reported having a disability. So what we have is an upward trend, one that is not surprising, however, as rates of disabilities do increase with age. We are all aware of the aging population of our country.

Previous Speeches from the Throne and budget 2007 have committed the government to increasing accessibility in the economic and social participation of Canadians, including those who live with disabilities. Canada has further demonstrated this commitment by being one of the first countries to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on March 30, 2007. I would note, by way of information, that over the coming weeks the Government of Canada will be seeking the views of Canadians, particularly those of the disability community, in order to reach that decision on ratification of that signature.

Before I turn to the operations of the Enabling Accessibility Fund, I would just briefly mention a number of other initiatives of the Government of Canada that do support people with disabilities. We have the working income tax benefit, for example, which includes in it a disability supplement. We have the registered disability savings plan, which was, as well, announced in budget 2007.

More recently, as part of the Economic Action Plan, Budget 2009 enhanced the Working Income Tax Benefit, the WITB. Budget 2009 also provided for the Government of Canada to invest $20 million in each of two years to improve the accessibility of federal buildings and $75 million over two years for the construction of social housing for people with disabilities.

These investments are in addition to the more than $9 billion that the Government of Canada spends on disability-related programs and services each year, including: the Opportunities Fund, Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities with provincial governments, the Disability Tax Credit, and the Canada Pension Plan Disability benefit, to name a few.

HRSDC research and analysis reveals that Canadians with disabilities continue to encounter barriers that limit their community activities and prevent them from being employed. Inaccessible transportation and buildings, inadequate support and aids, and social and employer attitudes all create barriers to employment and interfere with social participation. Solutions can be as obvious as a ramp or an accessible elevator, but these solutions are often too costly for a small business or for a community-based organization.

In 2007, the Federal Budget announced $45 million over three years to help all Canadians, regardless of physical ability, participate fully in their communities. The Enabling Accessibility Fund, or EAF, was created to construct or renovate permanent structures and to support small projects that would make facilities fully accessible to all people of varying abilities across Canada. Approved projects were to have strong ties to and support from the communities they serve.

The EAF supports the Government of Canada's overarching goals of enhanced social inclusion, increased opportunities, and participation of Canadians. The objective of the EAF is to promote vibrant communities in which all can contribute and participate, regardless of physical ability, by making buildings, facilities, vehicles, information and communication more accessible for people with varying abilities.

With the Enabling Accessibility Fund, the Government of Canada decided to take a balanced approach that includes support for large-scale models of accessibility and for smaller-scale retrofitting projects in communities across the country to make incremental improvements in accessibility.

Therefore, budget 2007 proposed that projects under the EAF could include participatory ability centres that offer programs to individuals of varying physical abilities. In Canada, there are at present only a limited number of such existing ability centres. These multi-purpose centres range in approach from those that use a rehabilitation or medical model, which focuses on the health implications of disability or injury, at one end of the spectrum to a participation model that emphasizes the social and labour market integration needs of people at the other. Ability centres serve as focal points for a community, strengthening and supporting the integration and participation of individuals and families.

Consistent with the budget 2007 announcement and respectful of federal-provincial-territorial roles here, the government sought to support a couple of flagship projects that could showcase the participation model and that, hopefully, could be emulated over time in other communities across the country.

Under the EAF, as prescribed in the design of the program, these larger-scale capital projects will support enhanced social inclusion, increased opportunities--whether in communities or for employment--and participation of Canadians. In general, the objective of such participation-based centres is to enrich the quality of life of people with varying degrees of abilities by helping them to develop the skills required to achieve their objectives and the knowledge, confidence, and opportunity to live healthy and active lifestyles.

In addition to funding a few large capital projects, EAF provides funding for some small projects related to physical accessibility. These can include retrofitting existing buildings, information and communication accessibility projects, and vehicle modifications. The funding of small projects improves accessibility in many communities across Canada. These smaller projects include, for example, the installation of computers that are voice-interactive and wheelchair lifts in community-use vehicles.

As an example, St. Joseph's Parish in Charlos Cove, Nova Scotia, has a hall. It's a place where there are lots of activities. I'm told weekly dart tournaments are played, fundraisers are held, and the local community access program is located there to allow members access to the Internet. This hall is used by people in the community for many sorts of celebrations. It has accessible parking spots that are already in place, and there's a wheelchair ramp to get into the building. But the hall was without washrooms accessible to people with disabilities. They were too small for wheelchairs and were difficult to move around in for a person using a walker.

This is a project, then, for which St. Joseph's Parish made an application to the EAF in 2008 to renovate its hall by extending the building in order to widen the hallways to the washrooms and bring the washrooms up to date with modern building codes. And with a $35,000 grant, it was possible for the parish to do that through this program.

Specifically, with respect to the funding available and funding allocations, budget 2007 allocated $45 million over three years to this program. In the detailed design, we estimate that one to three ability centres and approximately 250 smaller projects could be funded.

I realize I have a buzzer there, so I'll move on quickly.

Given, though, that the program was limited to three years, a national delivery model was selected here so that it could be established and operating in the least amount of time possible.

Now, with respect to operations of this program, the first set of proposals were funded and announced in September 2008. A second call for proposals for small projects was recently concluded, and assessment of these applications is now under way.

As we did the first time through, we will be looking at the funding of all of these applications using a fair and transparent process of assessing based on merit--those that meet the terms and conditions of the program. They all have to indicate community support. They all have to demonstrate to us how they're actually going to improve accessibility.

We use external evaluators to assist us in the assessment of projects. If there are questions about this, I can go into greater detail about how we use them. We evaluate projects against criteria and program objectives, but also for value for money, feasibility, and cost. Each inquiry for organizations that are not successful in funding is reviewed by program officials, and further feedback is applied to applications.

I will conclude with some figures. There were over 729 proposals submitted for small projects in 2008. There were 87 proposals submitted for major projects. A total of 166 small projects were funded, coming to $5.8 million. Two major projects were funded for an additional $30 million. Over 150 Canadian communities have benefited from these projects. We would anticipate, with the funding to be approved in 2009, that there will be projects we'll be able to support in another 150 or more communities.

With that, I'm more than ready to answer the members' questions.

Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

The Vice-Chair Bloc Yves Lessard

Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Am I to understand that you made the presentation on behalf of Ms. Oleson as well?

11:20 a.m.

Laura Oleson Acting Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Yes.

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

The Vice-Chair Bloc Yves Lessard

I see.

Each party has seven minutes to ask questions, beginning with the Liberal Party. I would ask you to limit yourself to answering the question. I remind you that the purpose of this morning's meeting is to shed some light on how the Enabling Accessibility Fund is managed.

Members have seven minutes during the first round, and five minutes during the second round. Again, I would ask you to keep your responses brief and to stay on point.

You are up first, Mr. Savage.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you.

My thanks to the witnesses for coming today. I know there are lots of things you could be doing in your department, so I appreciate your taking the time.

You will know that this Enabling Accessibility Fund has been somewhat controversial. I congratulate our chair for bringing this to the committee today. I've asked questions in the House, and to say that answers have been lacking would be an understatement. Last year, when the fund was announced, there were a number of articles. One called this program “tailor-made to send cash to Flaherty's riding.” Another said that “critics allege” the program was “geared to Flaherty's riding” and that the finance minister's wife and aide stood to “benefit from $45 million in funding”. A number of people in the disability community are concerned about what has gone on here. What set the two major projects that were funded apart from the ones that were not funded?

11:20 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

In our assessment of the major project applications, we began with the program objectives for those projects. The intention was to try to support either the construction or the expansion of what we call participatory ability standards. These are state-of-the-art, leading-edge standards that are meant to showcase our approach to offering all Canadians, whether with disabilities or not, the opportunity to participate fully in their communities. From those objectives, we built a set of assessment criteria. We had external evaluators in place who assisted as necessary with looking at the feasibility and the costing of these projects. It was on that basis that our program officials put forward recommendations to support the two major projects, after which the recommendations were accepted by the minister.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Could you provide a list of those who applied and were rejected?

11:20 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

Yes, we can. In fact, we've already provided one. At the minister's May appearance at main estimates, she was asked for a complete list of all those who had applied. We supplied the list, and I believe it should now be with the committee.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I don't have that list. I don't know if any of the members have that list.

I'd like to ask you about the criteria. How did they determine this? Was it a point system that determined how the major and minor projects were funded?

11:20 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

There's a couple of phases to it.

The first phase of screening is against the mandatory criteria of the terms and conditions of the program. By that, then, we're verifying the completeness of the application. We're verifying the eligibility of the applicant to actually be eligible for the program.

We move from that to a second phase of assessing against the criterion of whether this is a project, as I said, that is going to be eliminating barriers and promoting accessibility. There were provisions in the criteria around indicating the full support of the community. When you got to that second phase of criteria, there was actually a scoring process used.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Would you be able to provide us with the scoring for each of the applicants for the major projects?

11:25 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

We can provide you with the scoring grid. I would have to check to see if we can give you the scoring of each--

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I'd like to see how each of the major projects, the 89 that were requesting funding, were graded.

Who wrote the request for proposals?

11:25 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

Program officials in the office for disability issues did.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Was there any discussion with any other department, such as the Department of Finance, about that?

11:25 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

Consistent with the provisions in the budget, there were discussions with provinces and territorial governments. There were discussions with the not-for-profit organizations. There were indeed some discussions with other government departments, such as Infrastructure, because of similar programs you find elsewhere. I'm not aware that there were any discussions with officials in the Department of Finance.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Could you find that out for us and send that to the committee as well?

I want to ask about the period of time that was allowed for people to apply. It sounds from what you've told us that it was a fairly detailed evaluation process. That's what you're telling us. Yet the application for proposals was only open from April 1 to the end of April, I believe. Is that normal?

11:25 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

The length of time for calls for proposals will vary from program to program. I think in this case it was a program with a very precise time limit of three years and a lot of interest and a hope that we could move quickly.

I will acknowledge that we did hear some concerns expressed about that time limit. Therefore, for example, in this year, 2009, that period was extended to six weeks. But calls for proposals in any kind of grant and contribution program would range from being open for four weeks, I'd say, up to eight or ten weeks.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

People in the disabilities community have indicated that they just were not able to respond in this period of time for a request for proposals that detailed, which leads to the conclusion that it may have been rigged for a specific reason. Do you have any comment on that?

11:25 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

I don't. I think we could look at the applications that are received and we could.... I don't have the data right here at hand, but there were certainly a lot of not-for-profit organizations within the disability community that did apply and that did indeed receive funding to modify their own structures and buildings.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Okay. I appreciate that you're bureaucrats and I certainly don't question your commitment to persons with disabilities. I'm not asking for a political answer to this. But does it seem a little particular that 94% of funding for any government program would go only to the ridings of members represented by the governing party?

11:25 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

I am aware that this question has been put to Minister Finley. It has been put here and it has been put in the House of Commons, and she has provided an answer to that question.

I'm also aware of the chair asking me to specifically answer only questions, but what I would say is that if you set aside the $30 million that was earmarked for the major projects, for the two, and you look at the rest of the money that was spent on small projects, 43% of those projects are in electoral districts that are represented by opposition members of Parliament and 57% are represented by government members of Parliament.

I think maybe in another answer I can explain a little bit more some of why we think that with the particular case of rural and remote communities.

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

The Vice-Chair Bloc Yves Lessard

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Savage. You went over your allotted time slightly, but the important thing is to get some answers.

With your permission, I would like to use the seven minutes allotted to the Bloc, even though I'm chairing the proceedings. I believe I'm entitled to speak since I am the mover of this motion.

Ms. Jackson, have you managed other funds similar to the Enabling Accessibility Fund?

11:25 a.m.

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development

Karen Jackson

I have and I am currently responsible for the homelessness partnering strategy. There are similarities in the case of the types of projects that we're trying to support. They include capital projects and building of buildings. Another aspect of it is that I am also responsible for the New Horizons program, which is community-based. There's a capital program part to that too, where we're trying to improve facilities for seniors.