Human Resources Committee on Oct. 27th, 2006

[Steve Mantis]

That's a very good question. It really speaks to the role of the federal government in this area.

In order to design programs that are effective for people with disabilities, it's key to involve those people in the design of the program. The United Nations commission that was looking at people with disabilities actually has a book on this. It says that you need to ensure that representation that is accountable back to the group is involved in the process.

In fact, the federal government did this twenty years ago. They had a Department of the Secretary of State that would fund community groups on a range of issues. They would provide $5,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 to allow those groups to meet together to develop their positions and have a democratic process so that they could participate.

In fact, all the funding for community groups with people with disabilities has been cut, except at the national level. It's good that this funding is there, but what's out is the grassroots participation, so the national level loses touch. We're really asking the federal government to look at this and say that it will support these community-based groups.

This is the other part where the social identity is important. Many of our members aren't going to go back to work. What can they do that gives them some self-esteem? They can participate in the democratic community process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Mantis.

Mr. Crawford, then Mr. Collins, and then Mr. Rae.

Could we have quick answers? We don't have much time.

[Cameron Crawford]

Funding cuts are never welcomed by any organization. From my point of view, the problems with the funding actually began more than a decade ago. In about the mid-1990s, disability organizations started to feel the pinch in a major way. The pinch became more like a crushing—it was just awful—beginning in about 2000. It has become very difficult for disability organizations—and I would include those at the national level—to function.

The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada is down to three staff. The Canadian Council on Social Development has been laying people off. At CACL, there is hardly anybody there. Roeher is virtually gone. It has been a very difficult funding environment for at least a decade, so more cuts are never welcomed.

But I think there is a broader, longer-lasting problem here that has to be addressed as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We have about a minute and a half left. I'll go to Mr. Collins, Mr. Rae, and Mr. Caplan. You'll be the last three for that one.

[Robert Collins]

Thank you.

People at risk and vulnerable people need assurances that programs and services will be there to support them. When they see cuts, they think they're next. Therefore, they're not prepared then, and they are then more reluctant to access the services that are still on the ground.

Employers want the guarantee that there is long-term support, that there is a response if somebody they've hired gets into difficulty. There's uncertainty about the opportunities fund. There's perhaps a lack of implementation of the voluntary sector accord that was meant to have a planned, full process of engagement of the voluntary sector. All those things have put our communities at a level of uncertainty about future development that does not allow for planned, full, sustained help and/or...[Inaudible--Editor]...not only serving the people we're trying to serve, but also the employers we're trying to serve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Rae for thirty seconds, and then Mr. Caplan for thirty seconds.

[John Rae]

The cuts are scary. In a democracy, there is a need for citizens' groups. For our community, the court challenges program has been an important part. It's one thing to have rights, but we have to be able to enforce those rights.

When you think about it, persons with disabilities submit more cases to all human rights commissions than any other group in our society. A program like that is therefore really important, and it has been important to our community. We need that program to continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Rae.

We'll have a last comment from Mr. Caplan.

[Marvin Caplan]

I have two brief points. Yes, I agree with what Mr. D'Amours said, but I started off by saying there's only one taxpayer. The question is how you maintain this craziness of reduced taxes. We all want social services on the European scale and taxes on the American scale, but that doesn't work.

One of the things we should be thinking about is replacing many of these programs with some sort of negative tax so that we can see that we're doing things fairly.

The other point is that, from the point of view of a fiscal conservative, one should understand that there's one taxpayer. While the federal taxes may be going down, the responsibilities for those same costs are now being borne by provincial and municipal governments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Caplan.

We're going to move to Madam Bonsant for seven minutes please.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I understand what you're saying, Mr. Mantis. My brother also lost an arm when he was 18 years old. He was listed as disabled on his driver's licence, but from a tax standpoint, he was not entitled to a credit because he wasn't deemed sufficiently disabled. He had problems finding a job and was always told that he couldn't be hired for insurance purposes. It's not like he was applying to drive a bulldozer. He was a white collar worker.

Mr. Crawford, as far as budgets cuts are concerned, as Mr. Caplan was saying, they all affect the same taxpayer. However, as I see it, tax revenues allocated to non-governmental organizations, whether for disabled persons or for some other purpose, represent an investment. If we don't put money into rehabilitating people, we'll be paying to keep them locked up. Building prisons is not a solution. These individuals are entitled to a life.

I know of mentally disabled persons who hold down jobs. However, they may be so severally disabled and because of time constraints, they may not be getting the attention they need from people.

If you had the same operating budgets as you had in 1993, before the Liberals started to slash program spending, could you hire people to properly supervise disabled persons working in an industrial setting? Would that help you promote the development of mentally or physically disabled persons?

[Cameron Crawford]

I think the community-level organizations have been feeling the pinch for many years. It has not been easy for them to make available the supports that people with intellectual disabilities require.

In some provinces the situation is a bit better than in others; there is just more money and the community organizations are better funded. Overall the feeling has been over the past decade or so—and it's sort of gotten more intense—that it's getting tougher and tougher to make these supports available.

I agree with you that without the practical assistance from people working at the community level, these individuals with quite complex challenges will be sidelined entirely from the community, and then they're either going to fall into institutions, which is not a good idea, or they're going to end up disproportionately on social assistance. The money will be spent, but it'll be spent for the wrong reasons.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I see. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Mr. Mantis, did you want to comment?

[Steve Mantis]

Yes, I'd like to follow up.

Working at the national level and learning from our representatives from Quebec, I think we can learn a lot from the process in Quebec, where they have a philosophical system that says citizens have an important role to play in the community; and the government, the collector of the taxes, has a role to play in supporting that community involvement. We see that some of the groups get funded because of that principle. As a result, there's a more vibrant community, more debate, and more discussion on some of these issues.

I think we can learn from folks in Quebec, and I would like us to move in that direction a little more.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

I would like to give an opportunity to Mr. Rae.

[John Rae]

I appreciate your understanding that a lot of programs are investment in people. Unfortunately, people who are in the programs are often the first to get cut, and we saw that recently.

I was in a meeting recently where someone quoted Forbes Magazine. It said that the wealth of the wealthiest 500 people in this world is equal to that of the poorest 416 million. What that says clearly to me is that while there is only one taxpayer, there needs to be greater emphasis on wealth redistribution. Part of that wealth redistribution needs to be aimed at our communities.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Ms. Bonsant, you have...

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

No one else wishes to comment?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Is there somebody else who wants to answer?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I want to give everyone an opportunity to speak their mind, because we've met with many different people. Since you're here, take the time to say what you have to say. The Conservative government in office has to listen to you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Fine.

Mr. Collins.

[Robert Collins]

The services in our community are very thin on the ground. There is a need for sustained funding to be able to support services to include people. The lifetime cost of income support for an individual must be considered in terms of their ability to participate compared with the capacity of the social income system. We need a much higher level of national income security, plus the ability to participate in society. I am talking about support for those who can participate, not a blanket participation.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Ms. Frache.

[Pam Frache]

I think the services are incredibly important. The budget cuts announced at the end of September will produce a definite impact in the form of court challenges, literacy funding, and youth employment programs. The unemployment rate among young people is over 21%. Yet we have a government that's going to reduce the funding that actually creates jobs for young people. This reduction of funds, combined with the $1.3 billion cut to training and literacy programs, amounts to $2 billion worth of cuts in money that would have helped some of our most vulnerable citizens.

I'm extremely concerned about the impact of these cuts. I'm particularly worried about how this is going to affect the long-term stability of Canada. Right now we have a resource export boom that's being driven in Alberta, but those natural resources aren't being stewarded to create jobs across the country that everybody has access to. While corporations are making record profits, we have a situation in Canada where the gap between the highest- and the lowest-paid people is growing. How is that possible? There's something wrong with the trickle-down theory. It simply hasn't ever worked.

I'll just end by saying we don't need to worry about having a competitive corporate tax rate at the moment. Our corporate tax rates are actually lower than those in the United States. So the question is distribution and how to accomplish it.