Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the third reading of Bill S-5. I am pleased to say that the New Democratic Party supports this bill in its third reading.
Bill S-5 is an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
As the critic for persons with disabilities for the New Democrats I am committed to a legislative process to extend equal treatment for the disabled and I see Bill S-5 as a step in the right direction.
Under Bill S-5 the amendments recommended to the Canada Evidence Act will allow persons with disabilities to participate more fully in the justice process. For example, in a case where a person with a mental disability has the capacity to give evidence in court but has difficulty communicating by reason of a disability, under Bill S-5 the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by a means that enables the evidence to be intelligible. This is an important gain for the disabled.
The court would also be compelled to provide whatever resources necessary to assist the person to give evidence, whether it be a speech therapist, interpreter or mechanical devices for communications purposes.
Under the amendments for a witness who is sight impaired there will be also the opportunity to identify the accused by methods other than sight. For example, when asked in court whether the witness can identify the accused in the court room, a sight impaired witness would be able to use methods other than sight such as voice recognition and scent, and I think these are positive additions to the Canada Evidence Act.
In terms of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code I endorse the changes which will extend the protection afforded to young people in the courts to persons with disabilities. Although I concur with my colleague from the Bloc, I have concerns about the lesser penalties for sexual assault for persons with disabilities as opposed to non-disabled and this is obviously a concern which remains to be dealt with.
I endorse the amendment which provides support for jurors with physical disabilities and I support the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act under Bill S-5 which will work to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities within the federal sphere.
A key amendment adds a provision that requires employers and service providers to accommodate the needs of persons who are protected under the act.
The duty to accommodate is a concept viewed by persons with disabilities as being essential to their integration and inclusion in society. The concept has been recognized and adapted legislatively through all provincial human rights jurisdictions.
Duty to accommodate affects how we work, travel and communicate. It affects basically all of the fundamental aspects of social, political and economic life for persons with disabilities.
For the past 12 years disabled people have been fighting for a law that provides duty to accommodate in our federal human rights act. It has taken a long time because government agendas have taken precedence over the quality of life of persons with disabilities.
The present bill represents the perspective of the disabled. It provides for a positive duty to accommodate those with disabilities subject to a standard of undue hardship.
Undue hardship is defined with respect to health, safety and cost. It is important that undue hardship be defined. It is important to have a human rights policy base for limitations of undue hardship that will ensure a meaningful duty to accommodate people with disabilities.
This bill is, however, by no means perfect. The bill needs to include the assurance that the human rights system at the federal level is effectively working by ensuring that the training of investigators at the commission level happens.
A further review of the human rights act and the human rights commission system is also needed. The process at the present time is driven by an individual complaint system and that is problematic. Accessibility complaints usually take two years for resolution. Usually resolution comes in the form of one person's complaint being answered. It does not, however, address the same complaint that many others may have across the country. In other words, the bill does not deal with systemic problems. It is a complaint driven process.
In conclusion, Bill S-5 and its gains for persons with disabilities has been a long time coming. There is still a great distance to go in closing the equality gap for the disabled in this country. Bill S-5 is a start and I urge that we move quickly to pass the bill into legislation.
It is our duty to accommodate the dreams and the plans of our disabled citizens. They have as much, if not more, to contribute to this country as anyone. For that reason, I am in support of this first step.