Halliday Speaks

By Bruce Halliday

(BRUCE HALLIDAY IS THE MP FOR OXFORD AND THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES).

There’s no denying that for the past ten years, the promise of change has been in the wind.

Since the inauguration of the International Decade of Disabled Persons, some fundamental building blocks have been put into place. Canada, I am proud of to say, is the first country to protect the rights of people with disabilities in the constitution. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms not only prohibits discrimination on the ground of physical or mental disability but also explicitly makes provision for affirmative action.

Everywhere I go, I meet people that I have come to know and to respect because they have initiated worthwhile activities. They are people, like many of the readers of this magazine, who have identified a real need, and have gathered together the resources to act. They set about working in ways that have a concrete and positive impact on individuals with a disability. These people have recognized the long-ignored truth: that people with disabilities are not charity-seekers. They are looking for legitimate opportunities to participate in the economic and social life of our country.

On the surface of it, these initiatives seem to generate great popular backing. Given all this goodwill, I have to ask myself - Why do things move so slowly? Why does it seem so difficult for these undertakings to get the recognition and tangible support that will permit them to reach greater levels of achievement?

For what they’re worth, here are my ideas on this one. First of all, I think we can agree that far too often the policies and activities of business, government, and unions themselves, exclude the concerns of people with disabilities at the planning stage. Making change happen is a difficult enough process without worrying about having to force yourself into the game because the rules don’t acknowledge your existence. Then, when persons with disabilities try to get the rules changed, so that they are legitimate players, this is considered by the rule-makers to be asking for a gift for something extraordinary. Changes that are allowed are then not really part of the game but are grafted on to accommodate the “special needs” of people with disabilities. Concessions given under these conditions are easy to take away.

Another kind of fragmentation that I have noticed should concern all of us who deal with disability issue. As a Member of Parliament for the past 17 years and a member of parliamentary committees that deal with people with disabilities for the past 11 years, I have had the opportunity to discuss these issues with many individuals and groups. And you know, I am still constantly amazed by the number of people who say the same thing about the same issue at the same time. And more astonishing still - even though their concerns seem to me like two peas in a pod, many of these groups see themselves as lone voice in the wilderness.

I guess that the point that I am making relates to problems that we have confronted for many years. Ten years ago, I participated in a study by a parliamentary committee of all the policies and programs related to disability. In our report to the House of Commons, we made 130 recommendations to the government for ways to bring its activities up to date. And we blamed slow progress on a “lack of direction and coordination on the part of government, institutional and community leaders who have the powers to make changes”. I’m afraid that the same thing can be said today. Without prodding form people who are committed, proper coordination will not happen, progress will continue to be spotty, performance will remain uneven and excuses will still be prolific.

So – what do we do? Well, I think the first thing that we have to do is capitalize on what I call the politicization of disability. What I mean is this. Disability is not necessarily entering the realm of partisan politics - the Tories vs the Grits vs the NDP - but it is becoming an item on the political agenda. The advocacy groups have got the media interested and where the media go, the politicians will follow. In turn, the politicians drag the bureaucrats in their wake. The politicization of disability, provides an opportunity to shape attitudes, policies and programs.

People with varying degrees of responsibilities are starting to get the message that nice words will only get them so far - inaction might have unpleasant consequences.

The real task now is to shape the action. First and foremost, I think this means keeping up the pressure on the politicians. I like to think that of all those who are involved in governance, politicians are the most willing to accept change. To begin with, we don’t have the same interest in preserving some sort of anonymous bureaucratic “system”. We work with people. (If you don’t have a genuine interest in what makes people tick, what their concerns are, you have two strikes against you in any election.) Ultimately, this means that most changes don’t threaten a program that we are directly responsible for operating. We have no budget or bureaucratic empire to protect. If politicians can be convinced that they can get more bang for a buck, they are generally sympathetic to a change.

I have been advocating the introduction of omnibus legislation that would bring many of our laws into conformity with the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For the past while, several organizations of persons with disabilities have been proposing that that the hour is ripe for the introduction of such a legislative package or an omnibus bill. But in the rush to press for Canada to adapt a legislative program in light of the recent passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, valuable lessons in how government works are in danger of being ignored.

At this point, I have to confess a certain admiration for the way the Americans conduct business. When the ADA was in the works, I went to Washington and was struck by what I might call the greater transparency in the legislative process. To begin with, bills can come in through the House of Representatives or the Senate and are not necessarily introduced as the policy of the Administration. The inevitable discussion of the modifications and compromises go on before a legislative measure is cast in stone. Because so many people must agree in order for a bill to be passed, the American system, in fact, promotes compromise between all interested parties within and without the Congress. One of the key players in getting the ADA put through told me how, at one point, staffers from the Administration, and Congressional committees, as well as people with disabilities, were locked in a room all night to negotiate specific accommodations that were necessary to get the bill passed.

Once a bill is tabled in the House of Commons, it is the policy of the government and changes are very difficult to make. Compromises are still worked on but they tend to be more behind the scenes in one on one negotiation before a bill is introduced. This means, for example, that it is easier for one interested party to accuse another of cutting some kind of special deal. Alternately, people with a major interest in the proposed legislation may be ignored by the drafters of the bill.

Recently, the government has proposed reforms to the way that the House of Commons works. It is my hope that these might lead us to adapt some of the openness of the American system so that people with disabilities are able to sit down with the legislators and other interest groups affected by proposed legislation and participate in making real choices.

When you think about all of this, the consequences of politicization are scary - but necessary. Sometimes, I feel that organizations connected with disability want to have their cake and eat it too. As long as the government and private sector structures that deal with person with disabilities are small sections, tucked away in inconspicuous corners of unrelated organizations, those involved can feel that they are in greater control. Everyone knows everyone else, and the stakes - while important to the participants - are pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. In this self-contained sphere, people can vocalize to their hearts content about what they want in the wider world, but they can also avoid having to take responsibility for decisions - the trade-offs and compromises that are necessary to function “out there”.

To put disability firmly on the political and corporate agenda means moving outside the cosy environment where friends and enemies have known each other for years. It’s like moving to a big city from a small town. From my perspective, the return is worth the risk. Significant progress, change and integration will happen only when disability policies and programs cease to be just the preserve of a few activists, bureaucrats and politicians. This is the only way that disability programs will cease to be add-ons to the activities of any large organization.

Right now there are real opportunities. Canadians are trying to find ways to deal with an increasingly competitive market place. Labour market patterns are changing in our efforts to adapt to a global economy and we are making sustained efforts at developing a national economic strategy to adapt to the nineties. Studies have shown that in order to confront a shrinking labour force that any such strategy must include the means to employ everyone’s talents. For me, this means an opportunity to increase the economic participation of people with disabilities. This would not only increase national productivity but also lead to the fulfillment that we individually get as a productive member of society.

Let me give you a specific example of opportunities that can arise in organizations that traditionally have not concerned themselves with disability. Two months ago, our Governor General opened Parliament with an announcement that the government was committed to building a prosperous society in which all men and women have an equal opportunity to participate, in which benefits and responsibilities are fairly shared and in which the most vulnerable among us are protected”. In establishing what is now known as the “prosperity agenda,” the prime minister has given responsibility for these issues to the Department of Industry, Science and Technology Canada, a department that, to the best of my knowledge, has never taken an interest in disability issues.

There is every reason, however, that these issues should be included in the prosperity agenda right from the state. The government is targeting both education and training as its priorities. Both areas are critical in terms of getting employment and in both of these persons with disabilities consistently have fewer opportunities available to them. Although we have only sketchy figures, those that are available indicate that all Canadians would benefit by the greater economic integration of persons with disabilities. It is pretty safe to conclude that in addition to this benefit it costs an awful lot of money to keep people out of the workforce.

Our Department of National Health and Welfare sets the cost of productive time lost due to chronic disability at $19 billion per year. In addition, the combined total net cost for disability was estimated at just under $1 billion in 1986. National worker compensation expenditures on temporary disability, worker pensions and benefits totalled $2.7 billion that same year.

I’ll wager that any serious study would find that this huge amount of money could be better targeted to meet today’s needs and to increase employment of persons with disabilities who are not part of the labour force.

By taking advantage of such opportunities as Canada’s prosperity agenda, consumer organizations can plug into current government priorities to further the goal of integration. Will it happen? Only if people keep their eyes and ears open for such chances and are prepared to capitalize on the situation. By keeping your ears open for such announcements, campaign promises, speeches by cabinet members and relating your goals to theirs, we can build partnerships and alliances that will permit us to accomplish more than we have ever dreamt.

(Bruce Halliday is the MP for Oxford and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities).