Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today in the debate on Bill S-5. As critic for persons with disabilities for the New Democratic Party, I am committed to the legislative process for human rights protection to be continually reviewed and updated due to evolving conditions for the disabled. Bill S-5 is a step in the right direction in terms of equitable treatment for the disabled.
Seventeen per cent of the population can identify themselves as having a disability of one type or another. The amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act 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 people who are protected under the act.
The duty to accommodate is a concept viewed by persons with disabilities as essential to integration and inclusion in society. The concept has been recognized and adopted legislatively throughout all provincial human rights jurisdictions.
The Canadian Human Rights Act is the principal vehicle wherein the fundamental human rights of persons with disabilities and all Canadians are guaranteed. Persons with disabilities are recognized under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under this section are various human rights acts established provincially and federally to ensure equal access and opportunity for persons with disabilities.
Duty to accommodate affects how we work, travel and communicate, basically all the fundamental aspects of social, political and economic life for persons with disabilities in Canada.
For the past 12 years disabled persons have been fighting for a law that provides duty to accommodate in our federal human rights act. It has taken so long probably and unfortunately, it would seem, because government agendas have taken precedence over the quality of life for persons with disabilities.
The bill is a start. It represents the perspective of persons with disabilities. It provides for a positive duty to accommodate 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 on undue hardship that will ensure a meaningful duty to accommodate persons with disabilities. The undue hardship provisions must be clearly defined so they do not marginalize nor diminish the most fundamental rights of people with disabilities.
Without accommodation persons with disabilities will continue to be denied access to employment and to the most fundamental elements of our social being.
If enacted, this law will bring clarity to the area of the law where the duty to accommodate applies equally regardless of what kind of discrimination it may be. It is critical that people with disabilities are consulted.
Another positive aspect of the bill is that the commission cannot be a regulatory body. It will only provide consultation. Input by disabled persons will also be included in the process. This is critical. It is critical that people with disabilities are consulted in a regulation making process, especially with respect to undue hardship and limitation on accommodation. This will help to further establish their needs to fully integrate into society.
One issue that is not included in the bill and will hopefully be included at a later date is the reference to income status as a ground of discrimination. Also the bill needs to include assurance that the human rights system at the federal level is effectively working by ensuring that training of investigators at the commission level happens. The tribunal process needs to effectively meet the needs and concerns of the citizens of Canada who are facing discrimination.
I endorse the content of the bill, especially with regard to the duty to accommodate, but we need a broader review of the human rights act and the human rights commission system.
The concerns of the disabled community are serious. We need to provide answers and solutions to their needs. They have gone unnoticed for so long and the bill will assist in addressing some of the issues faced by persons with disabilities. As a government and as a nation we need to ensure that persons with disabilities are given equal opportunities, the same opportunities share by all Canadians.
I would like to put forward at this time some of the comments of a member of the disabled community, Ms. Lucie Lemieux-Brassard:
The duty to accommodate with regard to employment is critical. Should an individual have their job changed or eliminated because their wheelchair doesn't fit in regular cars or because there is no weekend accessibility for a bus for the disabled? No.
We need to assess the needs of the individual. We need to look at the abilities and disabilities of the person and then search for a solution that will compensate for a functional limitation. The solution must assist the disabled person to carry out his or her job duties. This is about fairness and equity, not cost.
I have spoken with many members of the disabled community and would like to raise a couple of other points. The bill is important but it still needs work. There needs to be a broader review of the human rights act to address disability issues.
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 may have across the country. They are not resolved.
I will give an example. A person complains that there are no TTY services in the Dorval airport in Montreal. To resolve the issue a TTY service is installed in the airport. This is driven by a single complaint. Do we need to lodge a complaint for every single airport in Canada? How do we ensure that all airports have a TTY? How about the rest of the deaf communities across this country who will not benefit from a TTY service because federal access standards are not guaranteed?
This is a perfect example of why disabled persons need full accommodation across this country. In other words, the bill does not deal with systemic problems. It is a complaint driven process.
The disabled community is reasonable in their demands but they do not want to have to wait years to make life more accessible to all Canadians.
Bill S-5 is a step in the right direction in respecting the rights and quality of life for disabled persons in our communities. But there are still many more steps which need to be executed.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that in October last year a landmark decision occurred in the supreme court respecting the rights of the deaf to have appropriate sign language translation services available in hospitals and other public institutions. I am still waiting to hear how this landmark decision is going to work its way into the hospitals, schools and other public institutions in this land. I think all members of the disabled community are still waiting for that.
In Ontario right now there are great concerns among post-secondary students who are deaf or hearing impaired. They see that their funding is being jeopardized and made much more complicated by the present process of moving jurisdictions for their funding. They are being moved from the federal jurisdiction into provincial loan jurisdiction. Instead of finding life becoming a little easier to deal with, it is just simply one more hurdle for them. It is time that we started eliminating hurdles across the board for people with disabilities and not removing one and adding another.
In closing, I support Bill S-5. 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 any one else. For that reason I am in support of this first step.
