Human Resources Committee on May 7th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, and thank you for your presentation.

We'll now go to Marie White, who's last but not least by any stretch of the imagination, out in Newfoundland.

Thank you for joining us today. The floor is yours.

We don't have volume, so you may be on mute.

[Marie White, National Chairperson, Council of Canadians with Disabilities]

Does that work?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Perfect. Thank you very much.

The floor is yours, and thanks for joining us.

[Marie White]

Thank you for providing me an opportunity to come here today on behalf of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. I will make an effort to speak slowly, but, coming from the east, it's very difficult for me.

You've heard that people with disabilities are especially susceptible to poverty. The main reason for this is that social policy is homeless. If social policy was not homeless, there would not be people living in Canada on a social assistance rate of below $10,000 a year; we would not have aboriginal people with disabilities living in the state in which they do; we would not have people de-institutionalized, becoming homeless and poor without proper supports; and we would not have people living in an institution, as thousands of people do, in poverty of soul and spirit.

What we have is a national disgrace. The personal, social, and economic costs of exclusion are high—too high to be ignored. A number of national organizations have established a national action plan on disability. What we have devised is a road map. It's a road map for policy-makers to use to improve the lives of persons with disabilities. The main issues are inextricably linked. There is no magic bullet for persons with disabilities. We are a complex group. There is not a simple solution that will solve our ills, but there are many clear paths and roadways that will enable many people with disabilities to be lifted out of poverty.

Our issues include many that have been discussed today. In addition to poverty, there is a lack of access to disability-related supports, unemployment, underemployment, lack of education, gender issues, and federal leadership. If we don't have federal leadership, then we will have nothing. The state of federal, provincial, and territorial relations is absolutely abysmal. If this does not improve, then the lives of persons with disabilities, perhaps the most vulnerable group in this country, will not change.

Action cannot be deemed to be purely long-term. We must have a number of short- and medium-term improvements, and I would like to refer to a few of those. We know that the Government of Canada has jurisdiction over first nations people living on reserve. We know that the incidence of disability among this population is staggering. We believe that there must be action taken to address the shameful lack of support.

Tax is often the first mechanism for addressing social policy. While we believe it is a blunt tool, we know it has a place. We recommend that the disability tax credit be made refundable—initially for low-income Canadians with disabilities—and retained as a credit for those higher incomes for which it would be more of a benefit.

Labour market agreements must include a target for persons with disabilities. However, until we have an appropriate and inclusive way of offering true training and real opportunities for employment, then we suggest that there should be more funding put into the opportunities fund and the multilateral framework agreements.

EI eligibility is fine if you can get a job. If we can improve the lives and employment opportunities of people with disabilities, we suggest that EI reform should be a priority. I spoke about two weeks ago to a standing committee looking at EI reform and women with disabilities, and I stressed in my opening remarks that if you don't have a job then EI is of little consequence to you.

As for the Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, these benefits are important to people who have severe and prolonged disabilities, so we should ensure that those who qualify for that benefit automatically qualify for DTC. We are sick of having to verify that we have disabilities. The executive director of my organization wrote a paper some years ago called “No Miracles Yet”. Disability doesn't disappear. If disability doesn't disappear, then the opportunities to improve poverty are not often found within the population.

It was referenced earlier that the Government of Canada should look at exploring a basic income program. I urge you to look at a paper on this written by Michael Mendelson of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, who has been looking at this in great depth and who, in particular, has a number of issues and arguments in relation to a basic income program.

I would like to reiterate the importance of working with provinces and territories. If we don't have increased access to disability-related supports to allow disabled Canadians to participate and to be full citizens, then, as Rick referenced earlier, Canadians with disabilities can have everything else, but their quality of life will be nothing.

We believe that governments currently are operating in isolation from each other. So now it's up to us to decide where we're going to live based on the patchwork of opportunities available to us. Maybe I should go to Manitoba because it has good home care, or I should go to Alberta because it provides me better income support. It is unreasonable to assume and unfortunate to believe that in a prosperous nation such as ours, this is what we are left to do. It may not be a politically correct topic, but that's never concerned me. The disability community wants and expects the federal government to ensure national standards so that all can benefit from the resources of our country.

I guess I'd like to end on this note: that disability is not a partisan issue. I'm very fond of saying that disability is a totally non-discriminatory activity. It doesn't matter your economic background, your financial status, your culture, or where you live, how you live, where you grew up, or where you were educated, but disability can happen at any time to anyone. If we improve the situation for the lives of people with disabilities, we improve it for many, many people.

We remain committed to building an inclusive and accessible Canada, and we urge this committe to embrace this vision and make significant policy changes to improve the lives of persons with disabilities. No one in Canada should live in poverty.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. White.

We appreciate having here all of the witnesses who have come before us.

We're now going to start with rounds of questioning. I didn't want to limit the witnesses' time because I believe in what they have to say. So I'm just going to ask the committee to work with me as we move forward.

I know that Ms. White has to leave at 12:30, because of a teleconference. Is that correct, Ms. White?

[Marie White]

I do, yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to continue with questioning after that, so that we can—

[Marie White]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

—get in as many questions as we can.

Without any more ado, I'm going to start with Mr. Savage. You have the first round of seven minutes—and I know you're going to split your time with Ms. Bennett.

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

Thank you.

Are we going to have just one round? Is that what you were saying, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to try to get back to another round for you guys.

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

Okay.

Thank you all for coming, and thank you for the knowledge and the passion you bring.

I do want to congratulate the Canadian Paraplegic Association for the initiative they've taken the last couple of years to bring attention to these issues before Parliament. I see that David Hinton is here.

I'll just mention that next year is the 65th anniversary of the CPA, and they're looking to have 65 members of Parliament in wheelchairs next year on this day. I'm sure he will take names starting today. The parliamentary secretary has indicated to me that he'd be interested in doing that.

I think all of you are right in saying that we don't need a lot of studies or a lot more analysis. We know there are things we can do, I think, in fairly short order—social infrastructure items, training items, and on accessibility issues, etc.—to make the situation better for persons with disabilities.

I'm certainly struck by the comments—and we've certainly seen evidence of this before—that we don't have a uniform social infrastructure. Last week we heard from Mike Kirby that the social infrastructure we have, whether it's EI or a number of other things, really doesn't suit people with mental health issues. It's episodic, for example—and the EI system does not suit people with these issues. It seems to me this might be the case here as well.

You've made some specific recommendations, and I'm very pleased you have. You've given us some specific things on disability tax credits and housing. I think we heard Mike Kirby say last week that housing was the number one issue for him, and social infrastructure was second.

What I want to ask you about is the fact that we don't have a national persons with disabilities act in Canada. Would that be a way of bringing together a national strategy that would perhaps alleviate some of the inequities that exist province to province? You are entirely right in saying that if you go from province to province, you find different home care and different income supports, drug coverage, accessibility supports, and some are better than others. Should we have national standards, and how do we get there if that is the case?

I'd ask anybody to respond who wants to pitch in on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Let's start with Mr. Goodfellow, and then we'll go to Ms. Macquarrie and then maybe Ms. White.

[Rick Goodfellow]

Thanks for that question, Mike.

You heard me in my presentation talking about “In Unison”. What we recognized a number of years ago is that, with the devolution of federal jurisdiction to the provinces and territories, it's been pretty much accepted that trying to do a Canadians with disabilities act is going to be very difficult. That was I think one of the primary reasons we looked at putting together the “In Unison” agreement; it was a chance to identify some of those issues that had to be dealt with on a national basis. But we have to have buy-in; we have to have the provinces and territories, because they now have jurisdiction over a lot of this.

The way it was explained to me very clearly when we started that whole process was that it was going to take an agreement like “In Unison”, whereby all the provinces and territories signed on to how they were going to set some of the standards, in order to make it work. That's one of the things we've accepted in the community: that trying to do a national act is going to be really difficult, but that if we can get a vehicle like “In Unison” and get everybody to contribute to it and actually implement it, that's probably what the answer's going to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to go to Ms. White, because I know she only has until half past twelve.

Ms. White, if you'd like to, you may comment as well.

[Marie White]

Thank you so much for accommodating my time issues.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities together with CACL has been looking at the issue of a national disability act for probably two or three years, in tandem with the announcement that was in the Conservative platform some years ago.

It has always been a contentious issue within the disability community, because there are many concerns associated with it, not the least that it will become “the act for you”, if you catch the drift; in other words, that it would solve all ills.

While we recognize that a national act would really only be able to address the issues that are under a national purview, we believe there are many existing mechanisms for moving forward in the multifarious and complex areas of concern for persons with disabilities. Rick well articulated the foundational document of In Unison. There are also a number of regulatory frameworks we think we could use.

I'll give you a couple of examples. Right now there are voluntary codes of practice for transportation in this country. They do not work, as per CCD's seven-year battle with VIA, as per its recent win in yet another court around “one person, one fare”. We believe and have said for years that there should be regulations, not voluntary codes.

The second one, and I can speak to this shortly but with some experience, is this. I co-chair the homelessness advisory committee in Newfoundland and have done for eight years. One of my areas of background expertise is housing. Until the money that is provided through the homelessness partnering strategy, and earlier through NHI, has accessibility and access principles attached, what will happen is that we will continue to spend fantastic, phenomenal amoutns of money, thank you very much, and make investments in housing that is not accessible.

I'm sorry if private industry doesn't like the idea that they should have something imposed upon them, but there should be standards to ensure that something is.

In terms of an act, I would say no; I would say why don't we look at what we have existing and ensure that governments talk to each other?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Ms. White.

We have about 45 second left.

Mike.

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

That in itself is a radical thought, that governments would talk to each other.

I just want to say that we know there are some answers here. This is the committee of Parliament that has responsibility for persons with disabilities. We have in the past had subcommittees that specifically dealt with issues—Mr. Lessard's concern and my concern about things such as how the enhancing accessibility fund is being played out, and other issues of the disability community. I think it's probably time—other members have talked about this as well—that we need to have a subcommittee that looks specifically at these issues.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

And thank you for coming within the time.

Mr. Lessard, you have seven minutes, sir.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to welcome the witnesses and thank them for their contribution.

I especially want to welcome Mr. Goodfellow. Please accept my apologies, I had not recognized you earlier, probably because I was distracted. I went to your conference last fall where I was very well received.

One rarely hears such a clear, concise and concrete presentation. I thank you for that and I also want to thank the chairman for allowing you to go over five minutes. Time constraints frequently prevent us from fully stating our case but I think it was very worthwhile for us to hear you completely.

I want to start with Ms. White's conclusion who said that no one in Canada should have to live in poverty. That sentence means two things. First, we could make sure that people are able to live with dignity because it is up to us to make the right decisions. Ms. Macquarrie has neatly summarized the situation by referring to it being a matter of political will.

I believe you were the one to refer to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that was passed by the General Assembly in December 2006. Canada had approved the Convention but the Canadian government--I am not saying Canada--has not yet ratified it.

I would like to hear the witnesses about this. Do you understand the reasoning of the Canadian government? I know that this is a very significant matter for you, quite properly, but do you know why our government has not yet ratified that instrument?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Macquarrie, please.

[Anna Macquarrie]

To clarify, in 2006 the convention was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the UN. It was open for signature in March 2007. Canada has signed the convention; we have not yet ratified it—it's a two-step process.

I think Canada's ratification of the convention is important for a number of reasons, one being that we were very actively involved in its development. Canada was a leader on really critical issues in the convention, in particular the issue of legal capacity. This convention introduces something known as supported decision-making, which is recognized internationally as a “made in Canada” concept. I think Canada's contributions to the international community in this regard and in a number of regards on the convention could be incredibly beneficial, both for Canada and for other countries.

Domestically, the convention, as I said earlier and actually in a bit of response to Mike's question as well, can provide us with a framework for the action that needs to happen here in Canada. I think the convention in many ways could become what was intended around a national disability act or Canadians with disabilities act. It provides a consistent format that would work well internationally. It puts us at the lead on the international stage. If you have a chance to read the convention when you walk through it, it really identifies that it's not just a rights-based entitlement document. It not only identifies that you have the right to education or the right to health care or the right to legal capacity, but it lays out the where, the why, and the how of those rights not having been realized for people with disabilities.

I think that provides us a really useful tool and can provide a great framework to move forward on legislation here in Canada.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you very much.

I am very aware of this situation. Some of you may already know because I had the opportunity to mention it in the past. I have myself been handicapped for a long time in my childhood. I could only move in a wheelchair or with crutches. I know what it means to be the target of prejudices at school, especially from other children. One never forgets that kind of experience and it makes you very aware.

That being said, there is a crying need. In a statement to the Canadian Paraplegic Association, you referred to barriers to social interaction. You referred to issues relating to access to transportation, to housing and to education. You also mentioned problems with access to recreative activities and to the fact that unemployment rates are higher in the disabled population. However, I have not read anything very specific relating to barriers to employment. I would have liked to hear your comments about this, as well as those of Ms. Brayton's.

Ms. Brayton, I was on the verge of congratulating you. You stated that you came here to make representations but realized that nothing ever changes. We share your anger and your frustration. As Mr. Savage stated earlier, we are trying to make changes and to deal very seriously with these issues but we also have to recognize that nothing changes. That is why my first question was on the United Nations Convention.

Could you tell us what steps should be taken, according to you, especially in the context of this economic crisis, to improve access to employment and to prevent discrimination against women? I would remind people that this discrimination can take many forms in the fields of employment, or unemployment, for example. For a disabled person, this is an additional barrier, and it is even worse for an disabled aboriginal person.

What steps should be taken in the short term?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Drewett, could we have just a quick response to the question?

[Bruce Drewett]

Quickly, I have a couple of examples. We continue to see that when people with disabilities are recruited, a number of them are put on short-term contracts, which immediately creates a challenge in that people don't have the benefits that go along with those types of employment opportunities. So they're really faced with the challenge of having to decide whether to remain on social assistance, where there may be benefits and supports that go along with it, versus an employment opportunity that may be short term and without benefits.

There's also the real challenge of accessible transportation for people. A lot of people can't even get to the workplace once--or if--they do get an opportunity. We need to be able to deal with that type of matter, let alone the challenges that go along with accommodations in the workplace, whether they be physical access types of arrangements, accessible and adapted technology types of arrangements, flexible work arrangements, and so on. We need to take into account the full range of issues in order to ensure that once people are in the workplace they have the opportunity to be successful, to be retained, and to be developed and move on.