Human Resources Committee on April 28th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you. We do have some committee business that we were going to attend to, but that does help. It's appreciated that we know we can go a little bit over.

[John Rae]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right, thank you. Then we'll try to stay with three minutes each.

We'll start with Mr. Savage, please.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

You know, as Canadians, we pride ourselves on our social infrastructure in this country. It's not as strong as we might think on some occasions.

In terms of people with disabilities, in fact, it's an area where we could even learn from our American cousins. Usually their infrastructure is not as strong, but they do have the Americans with Disabilities Act. They do have a stipulation or requirement that I think 1% of federal contracts have to benefit people with disabilities, which I think is a very strong idea.

You've spoken about sickness benefits under EI, and we've heard from a number of people that a lot of our social infrastructure does not suit people with disabilities. We heard from Michael Kirby, in terms of mental health issues, that episodic illness, which you've already spoken about, just doesn't suit the infrastructure we have.

We had a private member's bill a couple of years ago from Mark Eyking to increase sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. The other part of that is to make it more flexible. Whether it's people with mental health issues or people with MS, whatever it is, they can't take them all at once.

Do you have a comment on that? Not only do we probably need to enrich our social infrastructure, but we need to adjust it to the specific needs of people with disabilities.

[Laurie Beachell]

This is the hugely challenging question in this current environment. I'd say to you that the reason our community celebrates the convention is that it was supported by all governments. The federal government and all provincial and territorial governments have said this is the vision for people with disabilities. This is where we go. Our community, frankly, doesn't care who provides the service, but we want the service, and we are very tired of having to try to line up 13 jurisdictions to find a way to move forward and advance the social agenda in this country.

We are very tired of hearing from our community that you now shop around by province according to the type of service you need. If you need good technical aids, go to Ontario. If you need a good income support program, go to Alberta. If you need good home care, go to Manitoba. If you need good services outside major urban centres, go to Quebec. If you need a much more accessible environment, go to B.C.

People are now starting to shop around because there is no coordination. There is no federal-provincial discussion on social policy in this country at the present time, and frankly, this cannot do us any good. If you leave the jurisdictions alone, you leave people in isolation and having to depend upon what exists in Brandon, Manitoba, versus what exists in Kingston, Ontario. We have students who can't travel from one university in one province to another university and get the same level of service. To us, this just does not sound like the Canada we believe should exist.

So I would say to you as a committee, and I say to you as parliamentarians of all parties, disability should be a non-partisan issue, and disability should be an issue that all governments are engaged in. For disability issues to be advanced, there has to be collaboration. If there are silos and isolation, do not expect that we won't be here ten years from now--not me but somebody else--telling you the same thing again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Cannan, go ahead, please.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you very much. Just briefly--I know Mr. Lobb has a quick question--I think each one of us around the table shares your compassion. We all have a story. I spent nine years as a City of Kelowna councillor and six years on a social planning committee. We dealt with the disability access committee. One of the most memorable times was when I met Mr. Rae. I introduced myself as being from Kelowna—Lake Country in the Okanagan, and I had an opportunity to work with a fellow who was with CNIB at the time. I put on the goggles and walked down the street to experience impaired vision. Doing that puts a whole different perspective on your life--understanding the limitations.

As you know, we have just embarked on this study, and as has been alluded to, there are several different studies. We do have some investments, through the labour market agreements or the persons with disabilities supplement, through the working income tax benefit. I wonder if you could quickly share with us whether you feel these investments are working. Have you had some success from some of your members? I know you've suggested some other ideas to expand on that. We're just trying to find out if that's a good base to work with or whether you go back to zero, because as you said, there are challenges with our Constitution. A lot of this is under provincial jurisdiction, and we'd have to change a lot in the Constitution, but we have to work with the framework we have. As far as working with our provinces goes, I know the minister has worked very closely with the provincial and territorial ministers, and we've had some successes, as you mentioned, with the UN convention and others, but there's a lot more to be done. Could you elaborate a little bit in the time we have?

[Michael Bach]

The instruments that are available for the federal government to shape labour market access and supports--the labour market agreements, the labour market development agreements, and the multilateral framework on labour market access for people with disabilities--have potential, but for them to live up to the promise of the convention is going to require stronger federal leadership. It's going to require the federal government recognizing that it's exercising its spending power through these instruments. We believe it can work in a more proactive way with provincial and territorial governments to establish a set of benchmarks for employment-related supports and services and labour market access for people with disabilities that we're not now seeing.

An example is the $200 million flowing through the multilateral framework agreement. As a designated fund it doesn't come anywhere near addressing the labour force exclusion of people with disabilities. Moreover, those dollars are funding the kinds of employment-related services of a very old model. We have dollars flowing through that instrument into sheltered workshops and life skills programs that are not really providing opportunities for people to get into the labour market.

There are some great examples and some good programs, but it has been the case for a long time that the federal government could take stronger leadership in that instrument and in negotiating some targets in both labour market agreements and labour market development agreements for labour market access for people with disabilities.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Go ahead, Mr. Rae.

[John Rae]

It could also make better use of its spending. On contracts for the purchase of technology, if it took the position that it would not buy anything that wasn't usable by all people--current employees and potential employees--that would encourage manufacturers to do a better job of making their technology accessible. If you used the infrastructure funds that were spent and demanded that no new barriers to people with disabilities be created by those sorts of things, that would be beneficial.

So the federal government spends money in various ways that could be used more productively to remove barriers that continue to impede our participation in society and make a positive difference in our lives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much for that.

It is just past 4:30, so I will end this part of our committee meeting.

I want to thank you again for being here and for the information you've provided. We look forward to possibly having you back when we begin our study. Thank you again very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]