Unanswered Questions

By Bill Young

The Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons was formed in April 1989 when the House of Commons adopted amendments combining the mandate of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Standing Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons.

The Committee was mandated to review and report on the report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to propose, promote, monitor and assess initiatives towards integration and equality of persons with disabilities in Canada.

Following extensive dialogue and consultation over the period of one year with organizations and individuals across Canada, the Committee tabled its report, “A Consensus for Action: The Economic Integration of Disabled Persons” in June, 1990. It contained six recommendations. The formal response of the Government was tabled in the House in November, 1990.

In December, after considering the Government’s response, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons tabled a unanimous report, “Unanswered Questions,” in the House of Commons. The MPs from all three parties who sit on the committee emphasized their desire to continue a dialogue with the Government over the need for greater economic integration of disabled persons and, in particular, to discuss the Government’s reaction to the Committee’s previous report, “A Consensus for Action”.

The members of the Committee set out their rationale by stating that “The people who take the trouble to make a contribution by appearing before a Standing Committee of their Parliament deserve, in our view, substantive feedback from their Government. We do not think that the response to “A Consensus for Action” gives them enough. We are, and were, not asking for the Government’s response to announce the commitment of large amounts of money. We expected, however, a series of specific elements and steps that will be acted upon government wide. What we are calling for is clarity in the treatment of the recommendations of committees. Clarity can help citizens to keep their expectations attuned to political realities and could, we feel, have reduced the bitterness increasingly apparent in the community of persons with disabilities.”

Specifically, the members of the Standing Committee went through the recommendations in their earlier report, then set out the government response to each of them and concluded by asking a series of questions about the precise nature of the intent and the language contained in the response.

Recommendation 1:

The Committee’s first recommendation in “A Consensus for Action” was that the “Government of Canada in partnership with people with disabilities, representatives of the private and voluntary sectors, organized labour and this committee, make the economic integration of people with disabilities a continuing national priority and develop a national action strategy.” Given the Government response statement that disabled persons had priority status, the Committee asked “What is the nature of the priority and how is, or has, it been demonstrated? As well, they put forward other questions about the means by which specific steps would be taken government-wide.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee had urged that “a more effective mechanism be established within the federal government to ensure ongoing and consistent monitoring, advocacy and coordination on behalf of disabled persons…” The response stated that a committee of deputy heads would assume this function. In analyzing the situation, the committee asked for explanations of why this mechanism had been chosen over other possibilities, such as greater involvement by the Privy Council Office (in effect the government department responsible to the Prime Minister) or a separate commission. In order to remove any doubt about the effectiveness of the committee of deputies, the MPs urged the government to provide details about its composition, mandate, and resources.

Recommendation 3:

In this recommendation, the Standing Committee had asked that the government “review and where necessary, reform legislation and regulations to ensure the comprehensive inclusion of disabled persons in federal government programs.” In responding to this, the government indicated that this review would be undertaken so that “priority consideration” would be given to legislative changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Elections Act and the National Transportation Act. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS points out that a commitment had been made to implement these changes, in some cases, years before. The MPs then asked for an assurance that the government was not softening this commitment and that action would follow quickly. In addition, they questioned whether and how the legislative review will be conducted in order to ensure the comprehensive inclusion of disabled persons in existing federal programs.

Recommendation 4:

In A CONSENSUS FOR ACTION, the Committee favoured a complete breakdown and audit of the employment equity process internal to the federal government as it relates to persons with disabilities. The response states that “the President of the Treasury Board will continue to monitor and audit department initiatives in employment equity.” Commenting on this, the Standing Committee noted that “the Response says ‘trust us’ without providing any of the details on past performance or current initiatives. We tabled our recommendation precisely because we received evidence that indicates that performance has been spotty, targets are unmet and systemic barriers to employment equity remain in place.”

Recommendation 5:

With regard to the federal-provincial aspects of economic integration, the June report has asked for the preparation of a “federal-provincial-municipal plan of action for disabled persons that will ensure ongoing consultations, cooperation and coordinated action.” Commenting on the government’s response, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS notes that it “does not make apparent an understanding that a plan of action does not just call for isolated activities, such as deliberations by different committees of federal and provincial ministers, but it also involves the integration of these activities into a unified whole with complementary objectives. How are these initiatives to be integrated?”

Recommendation 6:

Finally, the Standing Committee reiterated its concern that government action be based on appropriate research. The MPs applauded the decision to fund a post-censal survey on disability in 1991. At the same time, they pointed out that “research on the costs and benefits of economic integration is, in our view, an indispensable basis for policy development in an era when value for money is a central consideration in all governmental initiatives.” In their conclusion, the Members of the Standing Committee repeated their contention that while “good intentions are abundantly evident in the response, concrete commitments are in much shorter supply. As a result people with disabilities are left with little reason to anticipate significant change in their present circumstances.”

In raising these questions, the Committee issued a challenge to the Government that was originally put to the MPs by Joanne Francis of the National Aboriginal Network on Disability. Repeating her words, the Committee asked: “Do we have the courage and the compassion to make this country a better place for all?”