Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
We appreciate the invitation of the committee to appear before you at this early stage, as you consider the terms of reference for a study and what the focus of a study should be.
It strikes us that we're at a very unique moment, with Canada just having ratified the convention. That is a very important starting point and lens for any study on disability that would be led by this committee.
That said, this poses both an opportunity and a very unique challenge for us. The convention is 50 articles long. Many articles have a number of paragraphs. It's the most comprehensive civil, political, social, and economic rights convention that we have had across any sector at the international level to date. Various groups we are meeting with today and have met in the past have recognized this.
It's a massive and comprehensive agenda for how we should confront the various issues affecting people with disabilities. Canada took a unique and important role in advancing that convention because of this country's experience, including people with disabilities. There are important examples around de-institutionalization, inclusive education, the labour market, the right to legal capacity, and the recognition of self-determination of people with disabilities.
It strikes us that any study needs to find some focus within that. That said, a number of priorities from our perspective as a community have already been studied quite extensively in this country. Laurie has just outlined a number of the policy recommendations that have come from those studies.
The focus on addressing barriers that Canadians with disabilities face began systematically with the Obstacles report in 1981. A decade later, it was the “Mainstream Review”, in 1992. There have been various studies and consultations convened by the Standing Committee on Disabilities and Human Rights and by this standing committee over the years. We're not convinced that a study of disability issues generally, or of barriers generally, is going to move the mark forward.
What will move the mark forward? Why, after all the studies and consultations, are we still facing a reality in which the majority of people with disabilities are unemployed or are out of the labour market, where only a third of children with intellectual disabilities are fully included in education, and where the rate of violence, abuse, illiteracy, ill health, etc., among this group is among the highest of any group in Canadian society? Our sense is that we haven't recognized as a society...or had a vehicle to act on the kinds of recommendations that have been developed.
We would bring your attention to article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. This article establishes state obligations to establish a focal point, coordination mechanisms, and a monitoring mechanism that fully engages the disability community to review progress on the convention. Our sense of the central issue here is that we don't have effective mechanisms at the federal level or with a national perspective to monitor progress on the various recommendations this committee and various other committees of Parliament and the Senate have made with respect to Canadians with disabilities.
We know what needs to be done. What we don't have is a clear, established voice for coordinating government efforts at the most senior level and intergovernmental efforts, as well as reporting back to Parliament on the progress that this government and other governments are making with respect to Canadians with disabilities. We think a study that would look at the kinds of mechanisms required would be most effective. What are the models? Should we have a standing committee on human resources and human rights? Should it be an office in the Auditor General's office? Is the Canadian Human Rights Commission best positioned to be the monitoring body, or are there a number of structural limitations that would suggest that it's not? There's a sense in the community that it may not be.
We need to really look seriously at what mechanisms would be required that would be most effective in moving the mark forward.
We know what needs to be done, but we do need some mechanisms at the federal level to coordinate efforts, to focus responsibilities, to monitor and report to Parliament and Canadians on progress being made. We would encourage you, among the range of options before you for a study, to focus on article 33 and what the variety of options would be.
Thank you.