Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, October 24, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:08 p.m. to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (topic: federal programs supporting sports and recreational activities for children and youth with disabilities).
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. My name is Senator Mobina Jaffer. I am from British Columbia and I am the chair of this committee.
On March 15, 2001 the Senate amended its rules to create a new standing committee on human rights. It plays various roles such as: educating the public; ensuring the proper application of and adherence to international human rights, principles and laws; and ensuring that legislation and policies are properly applied and adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The committee is conducting a study on the federal government's policies and programs pertaining to persons with disabilities and sport and recreational activities. There is emphasis on the needs of children and youth under 25 years old and under Canada's obligation under Article 30(5) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
On our first panel we will hear from the United Nations representative Akiko Ito, Chief, Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We welcome you and thank you for taking the time to be with us today. We understand how busy you are. We look forward to hearing from you, and then we will have questions.
Akiko Ito, Chief, Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, United Nations: Greetings from the United Nations Headquarters in New York. I have been introduced already as Akiko Ito from the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations. I would like to thank Mr. Daniel Charbonneau and his office for their efforts to facilitate our participation in this meeting.
We are pleased to participate in this hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights of the Senate of Canada to discuss the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and general responsibilities to signatory states for domestic implementation. I would like to congratulate the committee for its emphasis on improvement of policies and programs pertaining to the human rights of persons with disabilities in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
By direction, the United Nations has worked closely for decades with governments all over the world — even before the treaty process started — and also with the Government of Canada to advance the human rights of persons with disabilities. For example, Canada played a very important, prominent role at the United Nations during and after the International Year of Disabled Persons 30 years ago in 1981, and in our United Nations Decade for Persons with Disabilities.
Canada has also provided a very strong example to the international community in terms of human rights protection of the rights of persons with disabilities throughout the decade, and after that the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons prompted another important document called the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, which was followed by the recent Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
We have had the pleasure of working with many Canadian nationals, such as the late Mr. Henry Enns and current global leader Mr. Steve Estey, and we also had the pleasure of working with Mr. Rick Hansen, who is a global leader in the area of sports and disability.
May I just go into a discussion concerning the international normative framework of the United Nations for the advancement of the rights of persons with disabilities. As you may know, the work of the United Nations in the field of disability is deeply rooted in its charter, which calls for promotion of universal respect for human rights as well as social progress and development for a peaceful and prosperous world. In pursuing these goals, the United Nations has long recognized the interdependence and therefore is seeking to advance the situation of persons with disabilities. The United Nations has worked toward the realization of universal human rights for persons with disabilities while taking action toward inclusion of persons with disabilities in all aspects of society and development.
The recognition of disability as both a human rights and development issue, together with a growing understanding of the tremendous obstacles faced by persons with disabilities, culminated in the introduction of a United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006 and its optional protocol. The international community, by adopting this convention by consensus, obligated itself to explore the goals and objectives, namely, to promote and to work toward the goal of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The convention, which entered force in 2008, became the first human rights treaty providing a comprehensive normative framework for the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. This convention is the first legally binding instrument to address the rights of persons with disabilities also with regard to recreation, leisure and sporting activities set out in article 30, the subject of your hearing today.
The right to participate on an equal basis with others in recreational, leisure and sporting activities is of critical importance for the empowerment of persons with disabilities. The popularity of sporting activities and the physical, social and economic developmental benefits derived from them make sport an ideal platform and catalyst for fostering the inclusion and well-being of people with disabilities in society and development. Access to and participation by persons with disabilities in sporting activities can dispel negative stereotypes while promoting the rights of persons with disabilities in all aspects of life and development. However, the process of achieving accessibility to recreational, leisure and sporting activities itself requires many barriers including social prejudice to be removed.
The United Nations in line with this commitment has sought to address these barriers together with governments and civil society to promote sport as a tool for inclusive society and development. For example, the most recent activities of the United Nations in this regard was a panel discussion that our department of economic and social affairs organized earlier in June this year on sports for inclusive development, which brought together representatives of the member states from different regions, civil society organizations and individual athletes engaged in sports as a means of empowering persons with disabilities in their communities.
In spite of this commitment of the international community to the convention and the CRPD itself, in many cases the real changes on the ground, including this important right to participate in recreational, leisure and sporting activities, have yet to take place. While some progress has been made, the situation of over one million persons with disabilities around the world, according to the latest world report on disabilities issued by the World Bank and WHO, remains precarious. The majority of persons with disabilities live in poverty and continue to be excluded from mainstream society and development. They still continue to face many barriers, as we know, including physical, environmental, attitudinal and institutional barriers, and these barriers keep people with disabilities from participating meaningfully in society as full and equal members.
At the United Nations, as the deadline for achievement of the millennium development goals in 2015 draws closer and closer, the international community is beginning preliminary discussions on the post-2015 international development framework. This is a time when all stakeholders can seize the opportunity to advance the inclusion of persons with disabilities and to promote inclusion of persons with disabilities and their perspective in all aspects of economic and social development in support of the objectives of the convention.
A high-level meeting on disabilities and development has been currently proposed by the General Assembly for its sixty-seventh session. The high-level meeting would be very timely, providing member states the opportunity to maximize development outcomes for persons with disabilities by 2015 and take steps toward developing a post-2015 disability-inclusive international framework.
As a final word, I would like to reiterate that the real challenge now and the challenge that I understand the Human Rights Committee of the Senate is now addressing is to ensure that the goals and objectives of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are translated into practical action so that we can make a direct impact on the lives of persons with disabilities in their communities at the local, national, regional and international levels.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
I will start with the questions. What advice do you have for governments for making the implementation of article 30 more meaningful and how can it have an impact?
Ms. Ito: I think perhaps implementation of Article 30 could be considered also in relation to other articles. As we just discussed, it is not just about sporting and recreational achievement but also as an empowerment tool that provides a strong basis for implementation of other articles. For example, I just mentioned the panel discussion that took place at the United Nations when there are countries that come to the United Nations and provide us with new ideas as to how to implement this article and what measures have been taken. There is so much mutual learning that we could promote at the global level, but perhaps at a national level similar things could also happen since, for example, in Canada there are so many different initiatives that have been taken in different provinces. Perhaps that type of mutual learning may provide one example of how the implementation could perhaps be enriched to provide more concrete examples as to implementation. Those examples could provide future implementation in different measures and different actions.
The Chair: As you are aware, Canada has not signed the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I would like to hear from you what the significance is of Canada not signing the optional protocol and what impact it would have on Canadians if Canada did sign the optional protocol.
Ms. Ito: Of course, when ratification of the convention takes place, all members are encouraged also to ratify the optional protocol. I would not really go into our interpretation of how this would impact on the Canadian system and what would be the difference without ratifying the optional protocol even though you ratify the convention. The optional protocol provides an individual mechanism that could give concrete examples in terms of promoting human rights' protection. However, again, there are many member states that have different approaches to the steps to ratification.
My colleague from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in New York has joined us. Perhaps we can also ask him, with your permission, to join our discussion here.
The Chair: Thank you very much for joining us. May I please ask that you introduce yourself, tell us a little about your job and then give us your comments?
James Turpin, Human Rights Officer, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: My name is James Turpin. I work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in New York, but I previously worked in the treaties division in Geneva within the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. It is the part of the UN secretariat that services the human rights' treaty monitoring bodies, which are an essential part of each of the human rights' treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I understand that the question related to whether or not it was advisable to ratify the optional protocol at the same time as the convention. Essentially, as Ms. Ito said, this is a question for each state to decide on its own merits.
The reason why the provision that allows the committee on the rights of persons with disabilities to consider individual complaints, which is the principal additional feature contained within the optional protocol, is because some states are ready to take on board the principal obligations of the convention but are not yet at a stage where they are prepared to accept individual communications. Also because the procedure by which individual communications are able to be brought before the committee implies that domestic remedies have been exhausted, this would by its nature mean there is a certain delay between ratifying and getting to a stage where individuals could take those complaints to the committee.
The position of the Office of the High Commissioner would be that we encourage all states to ratify the optional protocol as well as the convention, but it is not essential that they are done at the same time. It is really a question for the state to decide at what point it would like to allow individual citizens to have that right to take, as a last resort, the complaints about the way in which the convention is being implemented to that ultimate body in Geneva.
The essential point is that the optional protocol allows individuals the right to take their complaints to the committee. That additional feature is very advantageous to any state seeking to implement the provisions of the convention to the full because it allows the committee to look at individual cases and give their expert opinion on whether a particular situation that has developed in an individual case is in compliance with the convention or not. Otherwise, the state reporting process is much more general in nature and cannot delve into the particulars of a specific case.
The Chair: Thank you for clarifying that for us.
Senator Martin: I thank both of you for your responses.
Ms. Ito mentioned the challenge for all member states to look at how to translate these goals and conventions into action. As a former educator, I can think of the curriculum in middle schools and high schools in Canada, which includes a lot of information about the United Nations and the good work that you do.
The attitudinal changes that we would like to see in society can happen early on with children, so I wanted to hear from you the kind of work that you are doing with respect to education and making sure that these goals and conventions are translated in a palatable way for the general public, especially through a captive audience in school for the next generation to really change those attitudes. If you would speak to some of those educational initiatives and what you have seen, I would be most interested.
Ms. Ito: Education is one of our priorities in terms of promoting awareness raising, as you just mentioned. At the global level, we have taken action to promote our legislation through the sphere of inclusive education and promoting the rights of persons with disabilities in this field by organizing a number of activities that centred around a second monitoring mechanism, which is called a Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It provides a broad forum of exchanges among not just member states, but civil society and specialists in special education or those who are practitioners in different educational fields.
We have provided a forum for those government representatives and educational specialists, and also our colleagues from UNESCO and the World Bank who initiated this initiative to promote inclusive education two years ago. We have a bringing together of those stakeholders to discuss ways and means that are not bound just by implementation of the convention as part of the legal obligation, but also promote more broadly the idea of inclusive education and inclusive activities in all aspects of our work that we do as countries or as specialists in education. We do use those institution mechanisms to contribute to raising awareness in terms of promoting educational rights for persons with disabilities.
One of the latest events that we organized focused on girls with disabilities in ICT, for example, and educational achievement. We organized this event with colleagues from UNESCO, the World Bank, human rights organizations and also ICT specialists, as well as those who are advocates and practitioners in education to promote the idea that education is a fundamental right for children with disabilities. We have legislative measures to achieve our goal, but what we come across quite often when we have discussions with member states, specialists or anyone is that we need to tackle people's mindset, and awareness raising is so important in that sense. Without people being aware and understanding the importance of inclusive education and of ensuring the right to education by persons with disabilities, and by all children, we will not be able to achieve any development or social goals that we are working towards.
Senator Martin: I wanted to bring to your attention that this session is well timed in that Rick Hansen will be on the Hill tomorrow to continue his trek across Canada to celebrate his 25th anniversary of the Man In Motion tour. Now it is sort of the nation in motion in that people are participating in.
On Wednesday, a cheerleading group will be working with the Canadian Paraplegic Association. Parliamentarians in wheelchairs will be out and about, again to raise awareness. I have seen much of this action in Canada. As I said, education is one of the key areas, in my opinion, in raising the next generation of Canadians, as well as people around the world, to change their attitudes around inclusiveness and disabilities. Thank you for your presentation today.
The Chair: We want to thank both of you, Ms. Ito and Mr. Turpin, for your intervention. I am sure we will be using what you have said in our report. We thank you for making time available for us.
I would like to welcome our next panel from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We have Karen Mosher, Secretary General; Harvey Goldberg, Team Leader, Strategic Initiatives; and Philippe Dufresne, General Counsel, Litigation Services Division. Thank you for making the time to be here with us.
Karen Mosher, Secretary General, Canadian Human Rights Commission: We very much appreciate the invitation. Apropos the previous testimony, I want to further introduce Harvey Goldberg, who was very instrumental in the development of the convention and who spent a lot of time on behalf of the commission in New York in working with the various stakeholders. I will speak, but if there are any very challenging questions about the history or context of the convention, Mr. Goldberg will be pleased to take them on.
[Translation]
Thank you for giving the Canadian Human Rights Commission the opportunity to speak to you today as part of your study of Canada's obligations under Article 30(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
In the short time we have, I would like to focus on participation in sports as a human right.
[English]
I would also note that it is very appropriate we are meeting today, on October 24, which is United Nations Day, the sixty-sixth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations.
In 1948, the UN created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 24 of the declaration enshrines the right to rest and leisure. This was originally seen as a worker's right, intended to improve work conditions. However, we obviously understand, as the UN conventions evolve, that rest and leisure have much broader implications and applications in our society. Enabling all citizens to participate in the cultural, artistic and sporting lives of their communities contributes to more creative, healthy and productive societies.
In terms, though, of international human rights law, the realization of the right to rest and leisure has been slow in coming, particularly with respect to sport and disability. That is why Article 30(5) is important. For the first time, this provision establishes an obligation in international law that requires states to take concrete measures to promote the full participation of persons with disabilities in sports.
[Translation]
To understand Article 30(5) properly it must be looked at within the overall context of the convention.
[English]
It rests on a new conception of the role of persons with disabilities in society. For a long time historically, persons with disabilities have been defined in terms of their disability.
[Translation]
Traditionally, persons with disabilities have been defined by their disability and seen as needing society's benevolence. This is sometimes called the medical-charity model because of its emphasis on how to "fix" disability through medical intervention and good works. On the other hand, the convention sees persons with disabilities as having the same rights as everyone else.
[English]
Therefore, persons with disabilities are people with rights.
[Translation]
Persons with disabilities have rights, are capable of claiming those rights, can make decisions for themselves based on their free and informed consent, and are active members of society.
[English]
They are no longer seen in terms of a particular disability or individual pathology but as full citizens.
The convention does not focus on how to fix people with disabilities but, rather, on how to remove barriers, be they legal, social or cultural, which impair their ability to realize full citizenship. This shift is particularly apt with respect to disability and sporting activity. Too often in sport, people with disabilities have been defined in terms of what they cannot do instead of what they can do. Too often they have been excluded, shunted to the sidelines, or been seen as timekeepers.
Fortunately, this mindset is changing. We all saw — and this committee has heard testimony — with respect to Chantal Petitclerc returning from the summer Paralympics in 2008 with five gold medals. She was seen by all Canadians as a superb high-performance athlete who happened to have a disability, and not the other way around.
The convention, in its broadest sense, touches on all aspects of day-to-day life. It encompasses in one treaty political and civil rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.
All of these rights are held together by a fundamental set of principles: respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy and independence of persons; the principle of non-discrimination; the principle of full and effective participation and inclusion in society; respect for difference, and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity; equality of opportunity; accessibility; equality between men and women; and, finally, respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.
To take a few moments on the specifics of Article 30(5), it is not exclusively about sport; it focuses on recreational, leisure and sporting activities. The use, we think, of the term "sporting activities" rather than "sporting competition" is an important one, because in line with the principle of full inclusion, the article aims to ensure the fullest possible participation in all aspects of sport.
While this certainly includes high-performance competition, it also includes recreation and sports of all types and in all places. The role of persons with disabilities as fans, cheering parents, referees, managers and commentators is also important to ensure that kind of full participation.
Articles 30(5)(a) and (b) articulate a dual approach. Paragraph (a) requires states to encourage and promote persons with disabilities in mainstream sports, and (b) requires states to ensure opportunities for persons with disabilities to participate in disability-specific sports. Paragraph (c) builds on the principles of accessibility, full participation and non-discrimination by requiring that all sporting venues be accessible.
Finally, (d) emphasizes the requirement to ensure that children with disabilities have access to sport, leisure and recreation. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 30, the participation of women and girls also requires special attention.
[Translation]
The inclusion of all these rights in the convention is an important first step. They are, however, of little value if Canada and the other states that have ratified the convention, do not take measures to ensure their full implementation.
[English]
The statement that was circulated said 104 states have ratified. Today, I can update that it is now 105. This convention is now on the path to becoming the most broadly ratified convention in the UN's history and at quite a timely pace.
[Translation]
That is why the provisions of the convention that deal with monitoring are of such fundamental importance. The convention is unique in that it has two separate, but inter-related provisions in this regard.
[English]
That is the monitoring. There is the traditional treaty body monitoring system that you heard of in earlier testimony. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is elected by the state parties to the convention and acts independently as a body of experts. Among other duties, it is mandated to review the initial and periodic reports that states are required to table, and to make recommendations on how to improve implementation.
Article 33 of the convention also provides for a domestic monitoring system in parallel with the international system. It requires states to establish systems to coordinate government-wide implementation of the convention. It also requires them to establish a framework for domestic monitoring of implementation. Perhaps most importantly, it ensures that persons with disabilities and their organizations are consulted with and involved in all aspects of implementation.
Article 33(2) is especially relevant to national human rights institutions such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Pursuant to Article 33, state parties are required to create independent mechanisms to promote, protect and monitor convention obligations. In creating these mechanisms, states are to consider the standards approved by the United Nations relating to the proper functioning of national human rights institutions. These are standards known as the Paris Principles.
The convention does not explicitly require institutions that are Paris Principle-complaint be mandated to carry out independent monitoring. However, it certainly suggests that national human rights institutions are well-suited for this role.
The commission has expressed its interest to the Government of Canada in being designated under Article 33(2), should the government so decide.
[Translation]
I should note that while envisaging a possible role for NHRIs in monitoring the implementation of the convention, this must be in the context of a broader monitoring framework.
[English]
Parliamentary committees certainly have an important role to play in monitoring, implementation and follow-up.
[Translation]
Your committee is to be commended for being the first parliamentary committee in Canada to specifically take on the task of reviewing government programs and activities through the lens of the convention.
[English]
We are hoping that other parliamentary committees, at both federal and provincial levels, will follow your example and encourage a constructive process of dialogue and review regarding all aspects of the convention.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: We appreciate your remarks. Would your co-panelists like to add something to what you have said?
Ms. Mosher: I think they will be happy to wait for questions.
Senator Andreychuk: You did answer one of my earlier questions. In the scheme of negotiations internationally, this convention moved rather quickly. From a Canadian perspective, it seems to be moving in a more timely manner, taking into account that we have federal-provincial negotiations and input. I think you said it was moving rather expeditiously. Am I correct in my recollection of your testimony?
Ms. Mosher: You are, and Canada is to be commended for the leadership role it played in the negotiation and signing ratification of the convention.
With respect to implementation and monitoring — as we said in our release congratulating the government on ratification — we are waiting for further indication and progress, as are other stakeholders. Now the real work begins. It is the challenge of ensuring that rights on paper are translated into the living reality of persons with disabilities in Canada and around the world. That remains a work-in-progress.
Senator Andreychuk: You indicated that you have aspirations of being the authority to monitor and work with this convention inside Canada. That designation has not yet come, correct?
Ms. Mosher: That is correct.
Senator Andreychuk: Why do you believe it would be best centred there, particularly when we are studying children and youth? Much of your work has been adult-to-adult in the employment sector, ensuring equity, fairness and application of our laws in an employment setting. We are concentrating on a particular aspect of children in sports. It seems to me that while you could do the job adequately, there are other places within government that might be more suited to the aspect we are studying.
Ms. Mosher: I do take that point. What we are looking at is the convention in its totality as opposed to individual articles within it. Over two dozen articles in the convention lend themselves to monitoring and follow-up. If we take a more universal or holistic perspective on the convention, we have begun work with our provincial and territorial colleagues through the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies. We have had discussions with the umbrella groups of disability organizations. Out of those two dozen or so articles in the convention, where do people see the urgent priorities? Where do they see the most pressing gaps? Where can we organize ourselves more strategically to move the agenda?
I do take your point. We do not have specific expertise with respect to children or sports. However, the basis upon which we made our proposition to government is with respect to an overall mechanism and framework, a capacity to do research and stakeholder consultation.
Senator Andreychuk: Would you see yourselves using political persuasion for implementation and adherence? Do you believe you would be proposing other mechanisms for implementation in Canada — in other words, statutes or bills before the provincial or federal government — to give it teeth?
Ms. Mosher: As we have said, it is a complex instrument with many moving parts. The different strategies and approaches will be more or less successful, depending on the particular objective we are trying to achieve. I would not set aside any tool that might help us move the yardsticks.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Having come in late, my apologies.
Having seen you are from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, you will well know that there is a private member's bill in around section 13 of the Human Rights Act. One of the comments reported in the press is, "Well, you know, these categories are covered in the Criminal Code so we do not need to worry about it." In looking at it, my sense is it says there are three categories that are not. One of them is women, one of them is the disabled and one of them is discrimination on the basis of age. Do you three have any comments on this private member's bill in terms of the disabled?
Ms. Mosher: I have no comments about the particular bill in particular but it has obviously been a subject of some parliamentary attention. In a previous session of Parliament, we did table a special report to Parliament on section 13. We would be pleased to make a copy of that available. More recently, and our special report pointed to this, there are some deficiencies in the Criminal Code approach, leaving these matters exclusively to the Criminal Code. We do get into that and elaborate on that in our special report.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would like to see that. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question following on what Senator Andreychuk has asked about your expertise in this field. We all have to sooner or later expand our expertise. In the field of sports, especially with persons with disabilities, if you were given this role, how would you look to implement Article 30(5) and what additional resources and what kind of expertise would you require to carry out this job if the government saw fit to give you this responsibility?
Ms. Mosher: If I may, I prefer to answer at the broader level. We have presented a business case to government to support our request for designation. It is a modest one because we are building on existing capacities, so there is not a requirement to do start-up and investment. We do this kind of work with respect to policy analysis, research, environmental scanning, gap analysis, policy and initiative, proposal development. This is an area of expertise for us.
With respect to what additionally would be required to address the issue of children and sports, this is an area where I think we would have to do outreach and thinking. It is not something we have in-house. I would hesitate to put forward a plan without having an opportunity to engage, particularly the disability community. The motto in the development of the convention was, "nothing about us without us." We have begun conversations with the umbrella organizations. This has not to this point emerged as a priority for them in our conversations, so we would certainly take our lead from those organizations and individuals who have the most expertise in this area.
Harvey Goldberg, Team Leader, Strategic Initiatives, Canadian Human Rights Commission: I would just say that the whole conception of Article 33 is to create a constructive dialogue at the domestic level. The treaty monitoring process is far removed from the day-to-day life of countries, so what the monitoring mechanism under 33(2) aims to do is to enable, through a mechanism that might be run by our commission or someone else, discussion about what issues are important in a convention, to hear from experts, to hear from people with disabilities and from governments, and then come to conclusions about how far Canada has gone and how far it needs to go with regard to sport and disability or any other issue.
The Chair: I have always felt that the Canadian Human Rights Commission's job is to educate people on human rights. I really liked the quote in your presentation, "Participation in sports is a human right."
I am sure that is one reason why you have offered to take on this responsibility. I would be interested to hear from you how, if you were given this responsibility, you would promote the concept that participation in sports is a human right.
Ms. Mosher: I think Senator Andreychuk spoke of our expertise in matters related to employment and federally regulated organizations. We do not have the mechanism to speak directly to the curling rink and to the little league coaches' community; that is not our area of expertise. What we can do, though, is equip people who do have those direct contacts with evidence, with research and with the context, and work with our provincial and territorial organizations, some of whom — the province of Manitoba, for instance — have fantastic programs, the education that actually take them into the high schools to build awareness, respect inclusivity and diversity.
Our work tends to be at the federal level. It tends to be with big employers and the public service. I think we again would be more the navigator, the centre of expertise, the data crunchers, to be able to equip the people who are actually better placed to deal with things on the front line and to report back « à l'échelle internationale ».
We can then synthesize on the basis of our consultations and our work in a way that feeds directly back in to give an objective assessment of Canada's performance vis-à-vis our international obligations.
The Chair: I see no other questions from my colleagues. I want to thank you for taking the time to be with us here. We look forward to hearing from you again on this issue in the future.
I would like to welcome our next witness, Senator Kochhar, to our committee today.
Senator Kochhar, this is your passion. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights was recommended for being the first parliamentary committee to take on this task but that credit goes to you. It was your idea and it is known how passionate you have been in making sure that every Canadian has the human right to play sports. We want to thank you for your vision and we look forward to hearing from you today.
Hon. Vim Kochhar, former senator, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators. I am so happy to see all of you and thank you for inviting me back to come to speak to you. I feel very honoured to have had the opportunity to initiate this study when I was still a senator.
It seems a little strange to be sitting in as a witness, but I am comforted to know that your report will shed light on something about which I am very passionate and to which I have devoted over 35 years of my life.
In 35 short years, sports for disabled people have leapfrogged from crippled athlete games to Para-Sports to Paralympics. We have leapfrogged from embarrassment to respectability.
Our medal standing at the 2010 Paralympic Games in Vancouver generated enormous pride among Canadians and all levels of government. The federal government seized the opportunity and elevated the status for athletes with disabilities to a respectable level of funding and recognition.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about provincial governments all over the country. On average, provincial governments spend about 4 per cent of their annual sports budget on sports for the disabled compared to 10 per cent for the federal government. This lack of funding results in a 3 per cent participation of youth with disabilities, compared to 36 per cent of able-bodied kids.
In spite of lack of funding, much progress has been made concerning the way Canadians think of disabilities and para-sports. There is a very strong movement to equate the Paralympic gold medal with the Olympic gold medal and change wheelchair from a symbol of disability to a symbol of freedom for people who cannot walk.
To become a top Paralympic nation, our biggest hurdle is to fix our feeder system by recognizing, encouraging and training kids with disabilities to bring out the very best in them. When I see world-class institutions like Variety Village in Toronto, which serves more than 19,000 kids with disabilities, on the verge of bankruptcy, I feel different levels of government have failed them and failed them miserably.
Looking after our kids and adults with disabilities and providing them with the opportunity to stay fit physically is the best way to save millions of dollars in health care budgets. I would strongly recommend that all levels of government publicize their programs and funds that are available so that people and institutions can access them. It does not make sense to have very good programs and keep them secret — and most of the time, it is a secret.
I would be very happy to participate and assist in finalizing the report on this study.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kochhar, in your new capacity as an individual testifying here. Your message tonight was very much the message you gave us when you wanted the study at the start. You said you wanted to highlight the issue, get on with it and deepen our respect for and inclusiveness of disabled individuals, particularly children, in day- to-day leisure and sports activities in the communities. Is your message today to get on with it and press governments at all levels to continue the work that you have done?
Mr. Kochhar: Absolutely, you are right in saying that although sports falls under provincial jurisdiction, I think the federal government will have to throw the incentives to the provincial governments to join in the plan. The major thing is we have to engage physically disabled kids into activities and physical exercise. If we do not do that, we will pay very dearly later on in the health care system.
Senator Martin: Thank you for bringing your passion to the table once again, as you always have done.
You mentioned in your presentation today the respectable level of funding that is so important. My first question is in regard to the 4 per cent that is designated for disabled sports by the provinces. Of the full 100 per cent, how much of it gets designated to the able-bodied sports? I do not think it would be 96 per cent; there must be some other costs. Could you point out the clear difference?
Also, in your more than 35-year perspective, what were some of the initiatives or things that Canada did well to raise the level of awareness, to improve the accessibility and the inclusivity of disabled athletes and para-sports and so on? What were some of the key things that made that difference to help us look at the way forward and what we need to continue to do? Raising awareness is one of them, I am certain.
Mr. Kochhar: To answer that, we have to take things in perspective. For instance, 10 per cent of the population is people with disabilities. Therefore, when provincial and federal governments dole out money, it is fair to have 10 per cent of that funding for kids with disabilities.
For the first time, after the Paralympic Olympic Games in Vancouver, the federal government came with money and equated kids with disabilities on the same level. Ten per cent of the budget was allocated to kids involved in Paralympic sports. The government is giving $5 million a year, which is 10 per cent of their overall budget of $200 million.
I do not know exactly how much goes to the Olympics, but I would assume that 90 per cent of that sports budget goes to the Olympics and 10 per cent goes to the Paralympics, which I think is very fair.
I must congratulate our Prime Minister for taking that initiative. If you go to any meeting with him, whether it is a caucus or press conference, he will not mention just the Olympics; he always mentions the Paralympics. That is a change for the good, and it will go a long way to help with sports for the disabled.
However, as I said, unfortunately sports is not the mandate of the federal government; it is the mandate of the provincial governments, and we must get after them to come to the plate.
We are working on this. Right now, we have funding of $1 million a year for Variety Village, which was a hard- fought battle. We have no funding from the federal government. That is a feeder system that will keep our podium performance in shape. If we do not have a feeder system, we are done.
Senator Ataullahjan: It is great to see you back here, Mr. Kochhar. As your neighbour, I miss you. I followed you around so I would not get lost in the corridors. You did a great job; I never got lost.
The one thing that stands out is that you talk about fixing the feeder system. How do we fix that feeder system?
Mr. Kochhar: You give funding to the organizations where people are trained. I continue to provide the example of Variety Village because I am very familiar with the organization and I sit on their board. They have 19,000 kids. When they get injured or when they come back from the hospital, you train them to live independently. While you are training them, you discover the kids who have a sports aptitude. If they are very good in sports, you train them, and you can pick out a few who will be ready to participate in the Paralympic Games or attain the best-in-the-world or best-in-the-country level. However, if we do not have institutions like Variety Village, we have no way of training anyone to participate in the Paralympics.
Going into London in 2012, next year, we will see that our medal standing will go down a minimum of 10 to 15 per cent. The reason is that many senior athletes — such as Chantal Petitclerc, who won five gold medals — are retiring. No one is there to substitute her and to take those kinds of medals because we have not paid enough attention to our feeder system.
Senator Hubley: Welcome back. It is always good to see you. You are looking great, and I can feel that energy still going strong.
Do you see a role for the federal government to play in helping the provinces in the development of better programming?
Mr. Kochhar: Again, the programming is not the problem. In order for the institution to survive, they must have programming. If they do not have good programming, they cannot train and help people. Programming is not the problem. The problem is the funding. In order to develop these programs, you need money, coaches and instructors; and you cannot hire them unless you have the funding.
Of the $5.5 million budget of Variety Village, they have been raising 100 per cent of the money to operate. They had to cut down their operations by 60 per cent. They were on the verge of bankruptcy until the lifesaver from the provincial government came in to keep them going. They still need a lot of help in that area.
Senator Hubley: Certainly some provincial governments are better able to support their programming. Perhaps some of the smaller provinces are not quite so fortunate. Do you feel that there has to be a national body to even the playing field?
Mr. Kochhar: This is partially a human rights problem too, if you do not treat your citizens with equality. The Olympics and able-bodied athletes have few problems. Programming in schools has been cut down due to lack of budget, but not to the extent that it has been cut down for disabled people. Everything is not operating on an equal level, and that is when this becomes a human rights problem.
The Chair: I have a number of questions. I will start off by getting your input. As you know, Canada has not signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. What is the significance for Canada not having signed the Optional Protocol?
Mr. Kochhar: I honestly cannot answer that question. I am not very familiar with that area of human rights involvement of the Canadian government.
Senator Brazeau: Welcome home. It is very nice to see you again. I am sure we will continue our ongoing debate about who is the real Indian between you and me; however, this evening is not about that.
You mentioned the importance of putting children with disabilities in sport. If I heard you correctly, you basically stated that provincial governments are either under-spending or they could be spending more in terms of infrastructure.
If the infrastructure for these children with disabilities is not invested in and developed for them, then who should be doing it? If it is the role of the provincial governments because of jurisdictional issues, what can we do at this level to basically make the push in order for that to slowly start to happen?
Mr. Kochhar: It is a federal responsibility too. The federal government has just provided $5 million to build a new ability centre in Oshawa, Ontario. They also have funding for sports centres in Saskatchewan, Alberta and many other provinces. I believe that five sports centres are being funded by the federal government, and those sports centres are the feeder systems.
There are many smaller centres that are not funded at all, and some of them have a long history as to why they are not funded. I do not want to go into the details of that, but it is their responsibility to create the incentives to give people with disabilities equal opportunities. There are many sport centres for able-bodied people, and there are very few sports centres or physical fitness centres across the country for people with disabilities. It is to a great extent a federal responsibility.
The Chair: I have another question for you, if I may. In your view, does the participation of persons with disabilities in sport and recreational activities challenge the social stigma surrounding disabilities and promote equality rights; and if so, how?
Mr. Kochhar: It definitely does. When I started in the movement, for example, there were only three places deaf- blind people could live. They could live in hospital, in institutions, and at home. Thirty years later we have built a home for the deaf-blind with barrier-free independent living. There are training centres as well. These things have not been sought out. The parents have been embarrassed to have kids who are disabled. Now they are coming out of their shell. When someone like Chantal Petitclerc wins five gold medals, she is not a disabled person. She may have physical disabilities but we do not have to look at that disability; we look at the abilities of those people. People are not hiding any longer inside a shell as they used to do.
The media is covering them like they never covered them before. In 1995, there were 35 articles in the whole country in smaller newspapers where the physically disabled athletes came from. In 1996, I organized a marathon for Paralympics and we had a crew of 60 people who wheelchaired all the way from Newfoundland to Victoria. In the 1996 Paralympics we had over 4,000 write-ups in newspapers. That was the phenomenal change that came. We are living in a different environment now and people are respected. Physical disability is not like it used to be.
The Chair: With that in mind, senator, and if there is one recommendation that you absolutely feel that we should have in our report, especially around the issue of stigma, you may not be able to tell us today, but can you help us and say what that recommendation would be?
Mr. Kochhar: Stigma disappears when we Canadians think in a different manner. Now when people see a wheelchair, they always think about disability. When I see a wheelchair, I just see a vehicle for people who cannot walk. It is a transportation mode and there is no stigma in sitting in a wheelchair.
On April 14, we had the Rolling Rampage on the Hill. There were close to 2,500 kids who came to see the Rolling Rampage and for them, those people who raced 10 kilometres in less than 23 minutes, there had to be autographs. People were surrounding them. Senator Martin was there and she herself was in a wheelchair and competed in those things. It was an amazing experience.
Education of citizenship is important, to let Canadians know so they can think about disability in a different way.
Senator Martin: It was a very exciting event, I have to say.
I have a question regarding the intellectual disabilities. When we think Olympics, we say Olympics and Paralympics and, as you say, the leadership of the Prime Minister in recognizing the importance of both. When we also talk about Special Olympics, it seems that in some respects there is a bit of a gap. I wonder if that is something you may speak to. I know you have been a champion of the athletes and those who are physically disabled, but I think there is that gap to fill when it comes to Special Olympics.
Mr. Kochhar: Those are two different elements. With the Paralympics, people go there to win. Winning is the only thing. If you do not win you lose, but for people with intellectual disabilities it is not winning or losing, it is participating. It does not matter if you win. Everyone is a winner when people with a mental disability participate.
When physically disabled people participate, they have to win. They have to climb the podium with that medal. There is only one objective. They have one and only one goal, to win the gold. If they have not done it, they have failed like the Olympians do. There is a huge difference between the two sports.
Senator Martin: I absolutely acknowledge that, but do you think in terms of disabilities and the Special Olympics that there has been good progress in that regard as well?
Mr. Kochhar: Definitely. Senator Munson has done a great deal to bring the intellectually disabled kids forward. He has a fair amount of funding from the federal government and is very actively involved in that.
Actually, the movement started in the United States with the Shriver and Kennedy families, who took a leadership role. In Canada, in the last 30 years, progress has been made. Stigma is not there. Being mentally challenged does not mean a stigma; there is no cruelty about it; they are open. Parents are proud to have those kids and they do the best they can to make their lives more meaningful.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had triplets and one of them is mentally challenged. As far as I am concerned, when I meet them, we treat them equally as a family.
Senator Hubley: I am looking to see what information we have for parents who are perhaps listening and who have a disabled child. You had talked about Variety Village and also about a home for the blind and deaf. Where does that information come from? Is it through the doctors, the medical associations? Where do people find information on these topics?
Mr. Kochhar: I said in the beginning that some of the good work we are doing is the best-kept secret because no one knows about it. When people from the sports department federally came and told us right in this room what funding and facilities and things were available, that was news to me, too, personally, and I tried to dig out everything that is available.
Back in 1984, we brought 222 medals to Canada from Paralympians. We were the second in the world and it was the best-kept secret in the whole country.
The institutions themselves have to do more publicity. There are associations of parents with children with physical disabilities and when they talk to each other they know where the programs are available, they go and participate. That is why, when I said about Variety Village, it is very important that when the parents of physically disabled kids walk into these institutions they are not turned down because of a lack of funding. They cannot expand their program. They can serve 19,000 kids; they can take only 10,000 kids next year, which means 9,000 kids with disabilities will be deprived of the opportunity to participate.
It is the responsibility of the institution to bring out, to advertise, to have stories in the newspapers, in the media. The media have been very slow to have good news stories. If you do something wrong you will make headlines, but if you do something good, it takes a little while for them to catch on.
We have to strive to make sure that all of that news comes out in the open and that people who need the resources and help are given those.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kochhar. You certainly have helped us today, as you did in initiating the study. We want you to know that we certainly miss you on this committee.
Mr. Kochhar: I miss all of you, too.
The Chair: We will now go in camera. Senator Andreychuk moves a motion that staff can stay. May I also have permission to have Senator Kochhar stay because we will be discussing the draft report.
Please stay.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee continued in public.)
The Chair: Welcome to our next panel. From the Government of Alberta, Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Sport Development Branch, we have Mr. Roger Kramers, Director, and Mr. Steven Patrick, Consultant. I want to thank you for participating today and giving us your input on this very important study. I also want thank you for being flexible regarding the time as we have had other challenges.
Roger Kramers, Director, Sport Development Branch, Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Government of Alberta: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will talk briefly about some general policy directions and then Mr. Patrick will talk a little about some of our specific program support we have aimed at disability sport.
The Ministry of Tourism, Parks and Recreation, holds a responsibility for amateur sport in the Province of Alberta. Unique to our province, we also have a Crown corporation foundation that reports to the minister, the Alberta Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation, which is looked after by a board of directors who then set direction and oversee a lot of the funding put out to sport and recreation groups by the ministry.
Recently, the government of Alberta approved the Active Alberta policy for sport, recreation and physical activity. Through a vision of having Albertans enjoy a high quality of life, improved health and wellness, strong communities, economic wellness and personal fulfillment through recreation, active living and sport, the policy will have outcomes in six major areas: active communities; active Albertans; active outdoors; active engagement; active coordinated systems; and an active pursuit of excellence. Over the next 10 years, the policy and program decisions will be based on the context of Active Alberta.
We understand the susceptibility of disabled sport organizations in terms of funding. In 2009, due to a funding reduction by the government of Alberta toward the Alberta Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation, funding to all of our provincial sport and recreation associations was reduced by about 18.2 per cent. Premier Stelmach indicated at that time when the across-government cuts were announced that vulnerable groups would not be affected by those cuts. The disability sport organizations we fund annually were therefore not affected by that funding cut of 18.2 per cent.
I will turn it over to Mr. Patrick now to talk about some of our programming initiatives.
Steven Patrick, Consultant, Sport Development Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Government of Alberta: We currently have numerous funding programs, primarily targeted toward youth, which impacts and influences sport and recreation for persons with disabilities. Annually, we provide funding to the following disability provincial sport organizations: Special Olympics Alberta; Alberta Sports and Recreation Association for the Blind; Alberta Amputee Sports and Recreation Association; Wheelchair Sports Alberta; Alberta Cerebral Palsy Sports Association; Alberta Deaf Sports Association; and the Canadian Association for Disabled Skiing Alberta. In addition, we provide annual funding to the Steadward Centre for Personal and Physical Achievement.
Base funding in 2010-11 to these eight organizations total just under $875,000 with additional project funding of over $160,000. Over the previous three years, over $170,000 in funding has been provided to 17 high-performance para- athletes through the Podium Alberta program. This program supplements funding to athletes who receive athlete assistance through Sport Canada's carding program.
In addition, funding is provided through other means and to other partners. As a result of the Canadian sport policy and priorities for collaborative action, federal funding is provided to us through a bilateral agreement with Sport Canada. Since 2003, we have provided $90,000 annually combined to Hockey Alberta and the Alberta Curling Federation to develop and grow the sports of sledge hockey and wheelchair curling. Two athletes named to the Canada's 2010 Paralympic team were products of this funding.
Through this bilateral agreement, we also provide one-time project funding to provincial, regional and local groups, increasing and enhancing participation in other disabled sports. Recent examples include a total of $73,450 for projects such as providing translators for Alberta Deaf Sports, funding for a sledge hockey team, a Tae Kwon Do program for autistic children, funding sports such as wheelchair fencing, goal ball, para-cycling, disabled sailing and adapted alpine and cross-country skiing, as well as funding for the Canadian Paraplegic Association's outdoor adventure program.
We value this agreement with Sport Canada and have accomplished great things as a result of this bilateral funding. With the current development of a new Canadian sport policy, there exists a further opportunity to build in inclusive language and fund integrated and specialized programming throughout the sports system.
Other federal funding filters down through different agencies. The Public Health Agency of Canada provides funding which is targeted toward the Active Living provincial strategy. In 2010-11, the Steadward Centre was able to access $65,000 in funding toward a transition program to more physically active lifestyles. An additional $20,000 has been allocated this year for a healthy eating program for children with disabilities.
An important factor of the amateur sport system is the integration of the various components — athlete development from playground to podium, the coaching system, facilities, et cetera.
This is a complicated system for able-bodied sports, which already face resource constraints around funding, human resources, et cetera, but more so when you factor in accessibility barriers, specialized equipment, transportation and other issues faced by the disabled community.
In Alberta, we have tried various methods of engagement of the disabled community. In 2006, we provided $25,000 of bilateral funding to the seven provincial disability sport organizations mentioned above to create a recruitment strategy and portal website for these groups. We host a leadership summit every two years for sport and recreation practitioners. At our latest summit earlier this year, we provided targeted educational sessions for incorporating adaptive and integrated programming. We continue to support integrated participation of disabled athletes at multi- sport games.
We have also established a provincial network of eight sport development centres for emerging high-performance athletes, one of which is associated with the Steadward Centre and provides expertise on disability sport to the other seven centres from Fort McMurray to Medicine Hat.
Alberta is proud of our contribution to disability sport in this province. A number of our experts have already appeared before this committee, and we look forward to continuing to work with them to further provide opportunities for disabled athletes in the province.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I will start off by asking you a question. How should the federal government provide help to your programs so that they become better programs? What kind of assistance do you think would help you if the federal government were able to assist?
Mr. Kramers: We have had a lot of good success through the bilateral agreements we have accomplished with Sport Canada under the general auspices of the Canadian Sport Policy, as well as some of the specific work plans with disabled sport and some other targeted areas. The bilateral agreements allow each of the regions in Canada to adapt their programs to what works best within our region.
The Chair: Do you feel that the feeder systems are working? Are provincial organizations in Canada able to develop athletes who will be able to compete at the highest levels? Are the feeder systems working; if not, what is needed to improve the current system?
Mr. Patrick: I think the feeder system is working to some extent. However, like anything else in the sport system, there is room for improvement.
One of the challenges that we find here in Alberta is that we need to develop a more integrated system. I mentioned that we fund eight organizations for disability sport, in addition to 70-plus sport organizations that may or may not have a "para" component. We need to have all our partners working together better. If it is wheelchair basketball, is it Basketball Alberta that takes the lead or is it Wheelchair Sports Alberta? You can ask that question with any of the sports. That is definitely one thing we are working on here to try to increase and improve.
Mr. Kramers: Just to add on to what Mr. Patrick was talking about, I think the system is working. We are seeing athletes who are coming up through our system, participating in Western Canada Games, going on to Canada Games, and having that success at a national and international level as well. There are examples of the fact that the system is working right now.
Senator Brazeau: I have a short question. Many of the witnesses who appeared before our committee in the past have mentioned that perhaps provincial governments do not spend as much as they should or could for people with disabilities in sports. Having said that, how much does the Government of Alberta currently spend on its sport and recreation budget towards persons with disabilities? By the list of organizations that you do fund, it sounds like you are doing quite a bit.
Mr. Kramers: Just over $1 million of our overall budget that the foundation receives goes towards disability sport right now.
Senator Brazeau: How much is that total budget?
Mr. Kramers: It is around $26 million. That budget is set aside not only for sport but also for recreation, active living, and some wildlife efforts that the foundation has a mandate to preserve as well.
In terms of our funding to sport and recreation groups, we have annual funding of around $7 million or $8 million. In total, probably over $1 million goes to provincial disability sport organizations right now.
Senator Andreychuk: I have two questions. You indicated that when the cutbacks came in Alberta, the associations that you referred to were exempt from that, which leads me to my question. Has some of your success come from the involvement of what we on the Hill call "political will," that the premier and others have been involved in integrating sports for disabled in a way that it is part of the whole sports philosophy as opposed to something aside?
Mr. Kramers: I believe that in some respects that is the case. There is definitely a feeling that while we need to protect the services that are provided to those who do not have all the opportunities that everyone else does, there is also very much a need to make both systems work together better as opposed to trying to set up a variety of independent systems. We need to find a way so that everyone can work together, whether we are talking about disability sport, Aboriginal sport, or any other targeted population. We have to try to find ways to make it all work within the same system.
Mr. Patrick: One of the strengths of the policy that Mr. Kramers spoke about earlier is our new Active Alberta policy, which will lead us for the next 10 years. It is a cross-sectoral approach. It is not just sport and recreation that is involved; it is children's services, education and health.
We are trying to engage other ministries and other facets of society to be involved in sport and in getting more Albertans to be active, and, as an extension, in getting more disabled Albertans to be active.
Senator Andreychuk: There has been discussion at this committee from various witnesses to indicate that those who make it to the Paralympics, et cetera, are role models for others to see the possibilities of what they could achieve.
On the other hand, there has been some indication that the emphasis on that end, the Paralympics, takes away resources from those in smaller communities and that we would do best to encourage integration in communities, rural areas, et cetera. What is your experience?
Mr. Kramers: I will tackle the last half of your question and maybe have Mr. Patrick speak to the first part.
One of the things we are seeing throughout the development of the renewed Canadian Sport Policy is that there needs to be an emphasis on that full spectrum of sport. There is that whole other side of sport as well that takes place outside of the sport that is funded from provincial and federal governments and from national and provincial organizations. There is the whole aspect of community sport that is integral to what happens within the country, and that aspect needs to be paid more attention to, not just from governments but in respect of the whole system, whether it is the national or provincial sport organizations. We need to take a look at the full spectrum of what is sport in Canada.
With that, there are some tremendous role models who have advanced through to both the Olympics and the Paralympics that we could take advantage of in terms of promoting the values and benefits of sport, where it has taken those people, and how it can help people lead a much more fulfilling life.
Senator Martin: My question is about funding. An earlier witness this evening, former Senator Kochhar, mentioned funding to the larger organizations — and you listed the organizations that receive funding — assuming they are larger umbrella organizations or associations.
Would you talk briefly about your funding model and the trickling down of the funds that should go to some of the smaller, local non-profits or organizations that also serve a subgroup, whether there is equitable funding, and whether the funding does reach some of these other groups?
Mr. Patrick: One of the issues is here are pockets of various groups that may not be associated with a provincial body, but we have a connection or partnership with them. How do they receive money? How do they access this? Groups are eligible to apply for the grants I mentioned earlier, which are one-time project funding. With respect to wheelchair fencing, for example, there was a club here in Edmonton that asked for funding and received $10,000.
Outside of what we mentioned, we also have a general sport and recreation catch-all grant. These groups are eligible to apply for funding. That grant is not necessarily targeted towards the disability population.
We provide the funding to some of these provincial bodies, but they are independent organizations. They have the ability to allocate funding as best they see fit in order to expand their programs. There are groups out there that may get missed.
Senator Martin: Has the province has tackled or been asked to facilitate looking at more effective funding models that would potentially help more groups?
Mr. Patrick: I think awareness is a big key. The Development Initiatives Program grant I just mentioned is heavily oversubscribed. We do not do a lot of advertising because we get a lot of applicants. There are groups that can benefit from learning about that and other funding opportunities that exist. It is a matter of determining whether we want to push that and let groups know it exists.
Senator Martin: Are there plans to increase the funding allocation for sports, especially for athletes with physical disabilities? Has there been increased demand because of increased participation? Are there plans to increase the funding?
Mr. Kramers: We would definitely like to provide increased funding. A lot of the funding depends on what we receive in our annual government allocation to the foundation. Whether they are disabled groups or the able-bodied groups, we start off trying to allocate some base amount to their annual operating funding before looking at program grants on top of that. We try to ensure that every time we have the opportunity, we are adding more into that capacity level for all of our provincial groups.
Mr. Patrick: Part of the problem at the grassroots level is the matter of critical mass. Even at our provincial level, the Alberta Cerebral Palsy Association has 40 members province-wide. When you start splitting that up between how many are in Edmonton and how many are in Calgary, it becomes difficult for them to create their own funding. Do they have enough participants to make it worthwhile to have a coach spend time with them?
If you compare that against Hockey Alberta, which has 93,000 members, the critical mass is just not there for programming. It makes it difficult for one or two kids to receive programming.
Senator Martin: Being a provincial jurisdiction, the province of Alberta, specific officials or a designated office can facilitate the kind of stakeholder meeting where you are looking at more efficient ways of sharing the pot. If there are certain administrative costs that everyone is spending on, there are certain things that resources could be shared.
I know in the United States there are non-profit organizations coming together to look at where their mandates overlap, and how money can be more efficiently spent. I guess the province is best positioned to do that kind of facilitation. I share that with you as a thought.
Mr. Kramers: That is a good thought, and we have started bringing some of the groups together. Mr. Patrick mentioned we brought them together a couple of years ago starting with the sport participation bilateral. We brought a bunch of those groups together and asked, "How can we get you guys to work together a bit more?" One of the things that came out of that was a web portal for disabled people in the province to say, "I want to get involved in sport but I am not sure what organization to go to." They can start off at that portal and it will direct them where to go from there.
With things like that, we are trying to find ways to maximize the efficiency of the few dollars the groups have within each of their own budget areas.
The Chair: As you work with the groups on the ground more than others — and being a provincial government foundation — I would like to ask you about integration. In your view, is the integration of able-bodied athletes and athletes with disabilities to the same national sport organization beneficial to athletes and the promotion of sport?
Mr. Patrick: Are you asking about integration at the national level?
The Chair: No, at the provincial level.
Mr. Patrick: I think there is definitely some benefit to it. We need to determine how far we go with that. I know at the national level, for example, funding ceased to be provided to disability sport organizations. It was provided to organizations like Hockey Canada to oversee sledge hockey. We need to determine how it makes sense for the province of Alberta, or if it works better for us to provide an opportunity and culture for organizations to work together towards integration. Some sports do better than others. Swimming is a good model. I would say hockey has been a good model, as has cross-country skiing. More work can definitely be done. Various groups do not understand who has the lead role. As I mentioned earlier in my example, is it Basketball Alberta or is it Wheelchair Sports Alberta?
We can provide a culture to facilitate that. I think it would be beneficial.
Mr. Kramers: I think there are definitely a lot of advantages. In large part, there is probably more high-performance coaches and technical expertise that reside on the able-bodied side. We could spread that knowledge, expertise and technical training to athletes with disabilities. I think there would be benefits that could be reaped by promoting more of that integration.
The Chair: Are you involved in any of that integration effort?
Mr. Kramers: We are in some respects. When we fund our programs to go into interprovincial games — whether it is the Canada Games or the Western Canada Games — we will not allocate separate bodies of funding for the disabled component and the able-bodied component. We will consider both of those components when determining what the funding allocation will be for that sport. We will say to those sport that is they have to work together to maximize the use of that funding.
Where we can, we are trying to encourage the groups to work together.
The Chair: Thank you for making time available for us today, for your input and for being flexible.
Mr. Kramers: Thank you for your time.
The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)