SPER Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITES

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): We'll begin. We're thrilled today to welcome the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, Madam Falardeau-Ramsay. It's something we had hoped to do last year, so we're thrilled we've finally got together. As you know, we're particularly interested in your experience with the issues of persons with disabilities in Canada, and are eagerly awaiting... Oh, we have madam as well. This is good.

Thank you and welcome.

• 1535

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay (Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

First let me introduce my colleagues. Mr. Michael Small is the deputy director of policy in the Human Rights Commission; and Michel Paré is director, standards and alternate dispute resolutions.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to join you today. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on the challenges faced by people with disabilities who, as you know, continue to face serious employment and accessibility barriers.

[Translation]

My annual report to Parliament for 1999 noted that, as in previous years, discrimination on the ground of disability had generated the largest single number of complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Over the course of the year, we worked on 604 disability- related complaints. We settled 73 of them through mediation or conciliation or in the course of an investigation. We dismissed 70 cases for lack of evidence, appointed a conciliator in 102 cases and referred 11 cases to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

[English]

Similarly, my report to Parliament on employment equity for 1999 noted the dismal record of federally regulated employers in the public and private sectors in hiring and retaining people with disabilities. It is evident that there is much yet to be done to ensure that people with disabilities share equitably in all Canada has to offer in employment opportunities and access to the services many of us take for granted.

I believe, however, that recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada have brought change for the better to human rights law. Two of these decisions have clarified the responsibilities of employers and service providers to ensure that all barriers to participation for people protected under human rights laws should be eliminated from the design and implementation of all policies, practices, standards, and services.

[Translation]

The first of these cases, the Meiorin decision of September 1999, reversed the dismissal of a woman firefighter who had consistently performed her job well but was unable to meet a newly imposed fitness standard.

The Court established a three-stage test to analyse whether an employer's claim of a bona fide occupational requirement was acceptable. This test was pivotal in the Court's decision in the second case, Grismer.

In this instance, the Court reversed a decision by the government of British Columbia to deny drivers' licences to people with a particular visual impairment. Other countries permit these people to obtain licences if they can prove they are able to drive safely by passing the driving test.

Both the Meiorin and Grismer decisions oblige federally regulated employers and service providers to ensure their standards foster real equality. They emphasize the need for systemic accommodation to ensure equal opportunity, rather than individual exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

The Commission is currently developing community education material and distributing advice to employers and service providers to be sure that these decisions and their impact are widely known and respected.

[English]

Most recently, in a decision on the Mercier case handed down on May 3, Madam Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé of the Supreme Court of Canada provided clear guidance on the correct interpretation of the word “handicap”. A narrow definition that leaves no room for flexibility is not appropriate. Handicap or disability includes not only an actual condition, but the perception of a condition and the perception of future disability. There is no need for the complainant to establish any functional limitation or ailment, since the purpose of the legislation is not to deal with the effect of the disability, but rather discrimination based on disability.

• 1540

The court then provided guidelines for interpretation that require consideration of not only the person's biomedical condition, but also the circumstances in which a distinction is made, consistent with an understanding of the socio-political context of disability. In this landmark decision, the court served notice that it intended to “put an end to the social phenomenon of handicapping”.

[Translation]

The October 1997 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Eldridge case reminds us that it is not sufficient for service providers to provide the same services to all clients. The Court ruled that the British Columbia government's refusal to provide sign language interpreters for deaf people receiving medical care infringed upon their rights to equal treatment under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government must do more than provide the same services to everyone. It must, in fact, ensure that disadvantaged groups benefit equally from services offered to the general public.

[English]

I can see you have problems with this.

[Translation]

A voice: Yes, we're having problems.

[English]

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Okay, so I'll go on.

[Translation]

Nevertheless, I'll continue. I was referring to the Eldridge decision.

[English]

A study funded by Health Canada and conducted by Dr. Jamie MacDougall has noted the changes resulting from the Eldridge decision. It appears from the report that in most provinces and territories there has been progress in developing systems to implement the decision. Unfortunately, Dr. MacDougall did not address the question of whether these new systems resulted in real improvements to service delivery.

The report identified problem areas of particular concern to the commission, that is, difficult access to health care services for deaf people with mental health problems, for deaf people living in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, and for aboriginal deaf people throughout Canada. In fact, we know that two and a half years after the Eldridge decision, people who need trained and experienced sign language interpreters to get health care still do not have access to them, particularly in rural and remote areas.

Although commitments have been made to address these issues, organizations representing deaf people have reported to the commission that little has actually changed. We urge this committee to study Dr. MacDougall's recommendations and to press for a speedy response to them from the Minister of Health as well as his counterparts in the provinces and territories.

[Translation]

Although these decisions have marked important steps forward for the integration of people with disabilities, they are still far from equality.

• 1545

The federal government's disability action plan cannot be effective without the tools and resources needed for its implementation.

The last point I want to raise before we move to questions is the review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. As you know, we expect the Review Panel's report next month. The Commission would like to take a more active role in eliminating the systemic barriers faced by people with disabilities.

We have therefore proposed that our mandate be expanded to allow the Commission to undertake audits of service providers, similar to our auditing function under the Employment Equity Act. It would enable us to pinpoint the barriers faced by people with disabilities, and help service providers and employers to eliminate them.

My colleagues and I would now be happy to address any questions or comments you may have. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am not a usual member of this subcommittee, but it is a pleasure for me to be here today, taking the place of my colleague Mr. Vellacott.

I am here not only to help him out, but also because, in my life as a parent, I am the father of a fairly severely disabled child who is confined to a wheelchair. Over a period of time, we have cared for, in our family, a number of children with disabilities of one kind or another.

As this child, who is now nine years old, becomes older and begins to take her place in a world that is not always very friendly to people with disabilities, it's important for me to have an understanding of what she can expect as she moves into this world, in terms of how we, as Canadians, protect people with disabilities from a very small portion of our society that does not treat them very well. So I have a vested interest in this; I'm not just here to fill someone else's place, as you can see.

I was interested to hear you say, at the beginning of your report, that last year you worked on 604 disability-related complaints, and that was the largest portion of the complaints that were before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I find that disturbing.

I guess my first question is why, in a society that seems to be so tolerant, where we pride ourselves on our tolerance, do we have the most cases before the commission relating to people with disabilities? Is there an answer to that?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I agree with you that it is very disturbing. It has been disturbing for many years. As far as I can remember—I have been at the commission since 1988, when I was in another capacity—it has always represented the largest proportion of complaints we receive. Almost one-third of the complaints we receive at the commission are grounded on disability.

Why? I will let you know my age by saying this, but it's the $64,000 question. Even though we live in a very accepting society in many ways, in lots of ways we're not accepting of people who have disabilities and handicaps. We see that by the types of cases we have.

For example, a few years ago we had a case dealing with accessibility to Elections Canada polling stations. We had cases, and we still have cases, dealing with accessibility of post office boxes. You wonder, because you can understand if I'm speaking only of accessibility in old buildings, where there might be some problems getting them rearranged so there is access, but when they are new facilities it's very difficult to understand.

• 1550

Mr. Reed Elley: Madam, would you say the complaints you have concerning people with disabilities tend to be more around levels of government and their services, rather than individuals who are not treating people with disabilities with respect?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: That is a difficult question to answer, because we don't keep statistics on that. But I would say they are mostly problems of accommodation in employment, and they are evenly distributed between the private and public sectors.

I will ask Mr. Paré if he has any more to say about that, because it's his area of work.

Mr. Michel Paré (Director, Standards and Alternate Dispute Resolutions, Canadian Human Rights Commission): I think madam has described it correctly. About 80% to 85% of the commission's complaints are related to employment, and it's the same proportion for complaints based on disability. Most of the complaints are employment-related, and most of those have to do with accommodation in employment.

Mr. Reed Elley: Again, are they perhaps somewhat evenly distributed between the private and public sectors?

Mr. Michel Paré: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Reed Elley: Do I have a bit more time?

The Chair: Yes, sure.

Mr. Reed Elley: Does that basically mean the framework of our laws that govern those kinds of situations has not kept up with how Canadians really feel about people with disabilities? Is there a gap there?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I think if you look at the recent development in the Supreme Court of Canada, you will see there is the beginning of a development concerning the way accommodations should be considered by employers and service providers. That's why I mentioned those decisions in my first presentation. I think with the Meiorin, Grismer, and Mercier decisions, employers and providers of services will start to realize what it means to accommodate.

What is so interesting in those decisions is that they touch not only the individual aspect but the systemic aspect. They say to employers, when you establish a standard or norm, look to see if it can accommodate as many people as possible at the beginning, instead of looking at the accommodation as an after-the-fact situation.

In its legal lingo, the court has established what types of questions should be asked in a case like that. Employers should ask themselves whether or not this is a necessary standard or norm, whether the standard or norm is reasonably related to the work that has to be done, and if this has been established in good faith. Then they should ask themselves if there is any alternate way to arrive at the same result, taking the disability into account. I'm paraphrasing what the court has said, but it means you now have to look at it from the front end instead of the back end.

• 1555

So what we are doing now—in fact we are in the middle of it—is putting all those new rules into easily understandable words and giving workshops, first to our staff and our commissioners obviously, but after that to employers, service providers, and people who are interested in the area so that they understand what those new rules are. It will make a difference, definitely. It's the biggest change I have seen I would say in the last twenty years. The law is getting more aware of what it means to accommodate, but to accommodate before the fact, if you wish.

Mr. Reed Elley: I see.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: At the same time, a lot of education and information should be given. For example, last week in Banff there was the convention of all the provincial, federal, and territorial human rights agencies in Canada, and a workshop was presented to them, in fact by Michael, on the implications of those decisions. It's very important that human rights agencies should know it.

We'll provide as much information and education as we can with the resources we have at our disposal.

I'm sorry. That was a long answer to your question.

Mr. Reed Elley: Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Good afternoon, Ms. Falardeau.

I'm pleased to note the presence of my Reform Party colleague. Before I go to questions, I'd like to make a comment.

My colleague on my right was wondering why the majority of complaints were lodged by persons with disabilities. As we can see for ourselves this afternoon, people don't appear to be very concerned about persons with disabilities.

It's regrettable that only three members are in attendance, and that's there is no one representing the government party, with the exception of the chair, who faithfully attends our meetings. While I can appreciate that everyone on the Hill is very busy and that many committees sit on Wednesday, I can't help but lament the situation that has prevailed over the years, ever since this committee has been meeting. The evidence clearly points to a lack of interest. It's almost as if we say this issue is important merely for appearances' sake.

I have three questions for you, the first of which has to do with your presentation. Toward the end, you stated that the federal government's disability action plan cannot be effective without the tools and resources needed for its implementation.

In the sub-committee's last report on persons with disabilities, we recommended that a secretariat responsible for persons with disabilities be established. It's quite clear that different departments are full of good intentions but that in reality, there is a lack of concerted action on this front. Little if any progress is being made, and results are negligible.

For my first question, could you share with us your vision of a well-organized secretariat, one that is mindful of the needs of persons with disabilities, of the fact that their numbers are increasing steadily and that as a civilized society, we have a responsibility to attend to their basic needs?

• 1600

My second question is somewhat more specific.

You mentioned a recent Supreme Court ruling that specifically targeted persons with hearing impairments. Would filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission about close-captioning of television programs be one way of ensuring that the needs of these individuals are met and that some follow-up action is taken?

The viewing audience for English programming is, admittedly, much larger. Virtually 90 per cent of English television programs are close-captioned. The same cannot be said for French language programs, given the smaller viewing audience.

Is a smaller viewing audience justification enough for close- captioning only 35 or 40 per cent of French television programs? Is this reason enough for not providing this service?

Fifty years ago, we did not have television as a information, communication and educational tool. We're talking about the health needs of persons with disabilities, and, in the case of the latest decision, of deaf and hearing-impaired persons. These individuals have a fundamental right to receive accurate, up-to-date information at the same time as everyone else.

Most likely, you'll be able to answer this question quickly.

If there is any time remaining, I'll have a third question for you.

[English]

The Chair: There will be a vote, probably at about 4:25. Is that right?

A voice: At 4:20.

The Chair: But it's time allocation, so it won't be very long. But we will have to go over and vote and then come back.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, we'll have to go. Okay.

[Translation]

My final question concerns Bill S-5 which focuses more on measures for persons with disabilities. This legislation has been in effect now for two years. What kind of impact do you think it has had? As a rule, when Parliament brings in new legislation, it always maintains that it's doing so to improve matters.

Would you care to comment on the situation today, now that Bill S-5 is in force, compared to the situation that existed beforehand?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I'll begin with your last question.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's why I asked you three questions.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I'll try to be as concise as possible, because I realize we're contending with some time constraints.

I find your question about the impact of Bill S-5 interesting, because in my view, the recent Supreme Court decisions confirm the true meaning of this legislation. I feel that the legislation's impact has been very positive and that we've been able to do something to help persons with disabilities adapt.

In answer to your second question, I certainly feel that lodging a complaint with the Commission about the lack of close- captioning of French-language television programs would have an impact. In the past, we have received complaints about English television networks and as a result of these complaints, these institutions or agencies have been forced to increase the percentage of programs that are close-captioned. In my view, 100 per cent, or at least 99.9 per cent, of all programs should be closed-captioned.

The Supreme Court has redefined the concept of undue hardship. It's very hard for a company making exorbitant profits - and I'm talking primarily about private companies that in addition, have part of the costs associated with close-captioning paid for by sponsors - to argue that the cost of close-captioning would represent an undue hardship. After all, we're not talking about a ludicrous sum of money.

• 1605

In one case recently before the Commission, the cost was in the neighbourhood of $75,000 or $150,000 per program. Close captioning of public information programs is especially important, in my opinion.

Therefore, I think it would be a good idea for people to lodge some complaints about the lack of close captioning of French programs.

Regarding your first question about the establishment of a permanent secretariat, right now, the Office for Disability Issues administers the federal program. It would be much better to have a permanent secretariat in place to deal with disability issues.

Currently, the federal program for persons with disabilities is administered by a steering committee of assistant deputy ministers. The steering committee, which operates with several sub- committees, is obviously well-intentioned, as you pointed out. However, neither the steering committee nor its sub-committees receive specific funding.

The assistant deputy ministers, representing different departments, are asked to finance these sub-committees from the budget allocated for their own specific programs.

To my knowledge - and I will defer to my colleague who has followed the proceedings of the sub-committees and steering committee more closely than I have - very few, if any, departments have been very enthusiastic about this idea. As I see it, that's one of the major stumbling blocks. Without funding, it's difficult to accomplish anything.

[English]

Would you like to add anything to that, Michael?

Mr. Michael Small (Deputy Director, Policy and Planning Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission): Yes, Madame.

As the chief commissioner has said, I have been quite closely involved in the steering committee, which has been concerned with ensuring progress in the federal government disability agenda. It's certainly given the commission great encouragement to see the agenda items listed under the disability agenda. Some extremely positive and far-forward-thinking initiatives are named within that agenda.

However, as the chief commissioner has said, the enthusiasm and the vigour being shown by the various working parties and committees that have been established to do the actual groundwork for that steering committee is under considerable stress, because there has been no specific allocation of resources for it to pursue the agendas it has been given.

That's not to say all is lost. The various committees are doing all they can, and some extremely good products have come out of some of the working groups already. Most notably, the Joint Treasury Board and National Research Council Interdepartmental Task Force on the Integration of Employees with Disabilities Through Information and Communications Technologies has produced a report now, which it delivered to the Treasury Board just a few weeks ago, that identifies some strategies for ensuring communications technology within the federal government is accessible for all potential employees. That must have a significant effect upon the employability and participation rates of employees with disabilities.

• 1610

But the problem is always going to be whether or not the recommendations of those committees and working groups will actually receive the resources necessary for their implementation. The ideas are great. The commission believes, and certainly our contacts with the community of people with disabilities suggest agreement, that many of those building blocks within the agenda have great potential. But whether they will be achieved or not depends upon the availability of resources and the commitment from departments.

Might I just add one comment about the captioning on television? My understanding is that the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, in its review of rules and regulations in 1999, actually did say it's now expected that French-language programs will achieve the same level of captioning as English-language programs. The commission, as the chief commissioner has said, welcomes that decision, but also the commission is saying the levels of captioning that are prescribed, which were described back in 1995, reflect the state of technology back in 1995. I think we can get much closer to 100% captioning now.

The Chair: Do you want to ask a question or do you want to wait?

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): When are we coming back?

The Chair: We'll come back as soon as we've voted. I hope it will only be a ten-minute vote. We're at a double bell now, and the vote is at 4:20, I think.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Oh, we'd better go now, then.

The Chair: Do you want to go now and save your question?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Sure.

The Chair: In the meantime, maybe you could be thinking about, in terms of forward audits, some of the things we talked about in terms of captioning last time. We were wondering why even the safety messages on aircraft aren't open-captioned instead of closed-captioned. Many witnesses said if it's optional... Also, for somebody whose first language is not English, it helps them to actually see the information written up there. So if the panel says you can do audits, is that something you could recommend?

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: —

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We'll be back as quickly as we can.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: We'll wait for you quietly.

The Chair: Have a cup of tea.

• 1613

• 1645

The Chair: Order, please. Wendy Lill has to leave at five o'clock, so we will give her the full 15—

Ms. Wendy Lill: I don't really have to do that, necessarily. You're putting me on the spot here. I may not have 15 minutes' worth of questions.

The Chair: Well, it's for the questions and the answers.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay.

Well, thank you very much for coming. I just feel frustrated that very important meetings—and this is one of them—get broken up by votes, with everybody rushing here and there. It must be frustrating for you too, because this is an important committee and you're important presenters. We deal with that kind of stuff all the time.

At the last session we had here, we had various people come to speak about the impact of the Eldridge decision. It's not all good news, as you know, although there has been some progress. There has been a lot of... Henry Vlug, who is a member of the deaf community, sees pretty discouraging progress, and so does David Baker from ARCH.

I'm reading your paper and the point you make around Eldridge, which is that the Eldridge case reminds us that it is not sufficient for service providers to provide the same services to all clients. What has to happen in fact is that we have to ensure that disadvantaged groups benefit equally from services offered to the general public, which obviously means they often need to have additional services to allow for that level playing field. I guess that's what the whole duty to accommodate is all about.

All of that being said, there are many, many examples—and I raised this also at the last meeting—where people wait years and years to go to the Supreme Court to get a decision on a human rights issue, a charter issue, such as the Eldridge one. As education resources for children with special needs are yanked further and further out, I know many, many parents who are now in a situation where they think, what are our choices? Do we go to the Supreme Court? Do we mount a charter case? Do we go to the Human Rights Commission?

These two things, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Human Rights Commission, are held up there as some sort of almighty saviour in the minds of families and stressed-out people with disabilities. They think, “I'm going to go to the Human Rights Commission.” So you're the Human Rights Commission, right, you're here, and there is a Human Rights Act, which is being revised. We all know it's not perfect, and hopefully it's going to get better. But what do we say to parents who are really staring down a situation three months from now, say, when their kids go back to school and there are no services whatsoever? There's no level playing field. There are no additional services to allow their child to have equal access to education, which is right here in your document.

So I'd like you answer to that.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It's a difficult question, and the answer is even more difficult than the question.

First, let me say I cannot but agree with you that the situation is very, very difficult, and that obviously one of the remedies open to parents—you were referring to the education side of it—would be the provincial human rights commissions. One area that could also be very interesting to push would be the opening up of the court challenges program to that type of case, because then it would allow parents to go to the Supreme Court, with the funding coming from that organization.

I think also primarily, at least as far as the federal jurisdiction is concerned, if we had legislation that allowed for certain criteria to be established as far as accessibility is concerned, then there would be a possibility to verify whether or not those criteria were adhered to or met by employers and providers of service.

• 1650

We were chatting about this while you were away. We were chatting about, for example, areas like access to the web. That's something very objective, something you can measure. Things like that could be verified, which I'm sure would be a help to people with disabilities—children with disabilities and their parents, but adults also.

There is some work that has to be done in that area. I hope that's the type of recommendation that will come out of the panel that is now revising the legislation.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess the problem that exists right now is that we have the Health Act, which many of us feel is really threatened by the privatization in Bill 11 in Alberta, but we don't have a national education act. There are varying degrees of educational services being offered in this country. Is that not an issue, a national standards issue?

You should be all about national standards of behaviour towards people with disabilities, towards all groups facing discrimination, correct? You say, well, go to the provincial rights commissions. I can say that to people, but why can't I say go to the Human Rights Commission? Why can't I say they're not going to have to wait five or six years for this to be resolved?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It's because of the way our Constitution is written. As you know, you have provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. As far as education is concerned, except in very specific cases that almost do not exist any more... I was thinking about education on reserves for aboriginal people, first nations, but even now that doesn't apply because most of the education for the first nations is now a first nations responsibility. It's not under...

Unfortunately, that's the way the Constitution is made up, and it's the same thing in health. Even if you have common criteria for health services across the country, established through the federal government, we do not have jurisdiction over the way those services are delivered to the public. This is provincial jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction when you deal with services that come directly from, for example, federal departments, crown corporations, and employers and providers of service in the private sector—for instance, the banks, Canada Post, the airlines, television channels, radio channels, all means of communications between two provinces, and other things like wheat and the harbours. Those are the areas where we have jurisdiction. This does not prevent us, though, from working very closely on many of those issues with the provincial human rights commissions. We do a lot of work with them, especially in the information and education area.

• 1655

Ms. Wendy Lill: David Baker, who came to see us, talked about the Human Rights Commission and talked about the problem that you also referred to, which is that you have not had the opportunity to provide leadership on systemic issues and you have been absorbed with dealing with matters on a case-by-case basis.

I'm just going to read from this, because it's quite useful:

To a significant extent, this is a function of resources, under-resourcing the human rights process, which is there as Canada's mechanism for barrier removal.

We have this Human Rights Commission. We have laws. We have the Eldridge Supreme Court decision. And Marcia Rioux, from CACL, referred to the fact that there is still dispute around this business about undue hardship. What exactly... There's duty to accommodate, but only if there is not undue hardship, and that is still floating around.

How much confidence can I have as a citizen that I can really feel good about the Human Rights Commission meeting my human rights needs, my children's, and those of the citizens I represent?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Obviously we do our best with what we have, as you mentioned. I think that is a good reason for the review panel that has been established, because obviously the situation has changed a lot in the last 20 years.

I would say 20 years ago most of the problems were individual problems, and now they are systemic problems. Our organization was set up to deal with individual problems, and while gradually we are trying to adapt that to the systemic issues, we have to have the legal authority to do so. You can extend your authority, but only up to a certain extent. The law is there and you can do only what the law tells you you can do. That's one point.

Another point that I see would be important is that it would... Right now we're working as much as we can in cooperation with other institutions that deal with certain aspects of disabilities, like the National Transportation Agency and the CRTC, but we do not have the possibility of dealing with systemic issues the way they can deal with them, from one part. But on the other side, we do not have the authority to deal systemically with the issues we would like to deal with.

An example of that is what Madame Dalphond-Guiral was referring to—the sous-titrage, the closed captioning. It's fine and nice for us to deal with it on a case-by-case basis, but then you deal with one organization. It might even be one division of an organization in a specific city. But if we get in touch with the CRTC and we say “You know, you should change your ways of doing things because things have changed now”, and all that, they can very well say “That's nice and fine, thank you for what you say”, and that's it.

I think there might be a way to integrate those areas. I think it's important that the CRTC would have something to say concerning television and radio, because they're the experts in that, and the same thing for the NTA. But I think there should be a way to make sure that, for example—it's just an example—we could have public hearings where we would participate both with the CRTC, in some instances when it touches on disability, for example, or with the NTA when it touches on a fare for people who accompany people with disabilities on planes.

• 1700

It would probably not be that costly, because in any event, they do that. We don't. And we cannot, on our own, establish that because it would cost too much money.

But with them, we could perhaps then be able to have access also to the expertise that is there in the various groups, the various NGOs, that deal with those specific issues, and then look at it from our standpoint of human rights. They can look at it from their standpoint of transport, if they're in the transportation industry, but they are not used to looking at it from the human rights standpoint. I think both would get a better view of the thing.

Finally, it's the public who would really be the winner in that.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much. I think it goes back to what you said earlier, which was that federally, if we had legislation that established accessibility—it's what we talk about all the time—this accessibility screen on a lens would be utilized across every department and every piece of legislation.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: My pleasure.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have to go. I'm sorry, again, that we've had to have this cut up like this, but I'll read the transcript—

The Chair: Just before you go, just to clarify that, if there were an audit function for the commission, would it be able to have teeth in the same way as the proposed Canadians with Disabilities Act could? Some people have said to us that the charter has it all in it, unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act, but we don't have an ability to do systemic audits and proactive things.

If the review panel suggested that you should have the resources to be able to do audits and systemic reviews of things that you're seeing too many cases of, and to prevent future cases, would an expanded court challenges program and resources for audit be equivalent to a potential Canadians with Disabilities Act? Could you get the same results in your place if you were the enforcement part as well?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: My own opinion, without having looked at this in depth, is that I think we could. It could have the same effect. The important thing would be that legislation would establish clear criteria. I think this is what is probably the most important thing—to prevent the court challenges that nobody needs. It's time lost, to a certain extent. If you want clear criteria, I think it would really help. I think that—

The Chair: So would that be criteria that were in a revision to the Human Rights Act?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes.

The Chair: Where would the Supreme Court decisions come? They're revising the standard all the time, so you're...

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes. That's why you have to be very careful, when you're designing the criteria, that they are flexible enough to give you the possibility of following, for example, technological changes.

Ten years ago, you wouldn't speak about access to the web, right? So if it's that definite in the legislation, it would prevent sometimes good work 10 years from now. We know it's not easy to change that. But it can be done through regulations, because it's much easier to change regulations than to change the actual legislation, the statute. That can be done, and I think it would be a good way to proceed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Elley.

• 1705

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you.

I noticed in your briefing notes the order of events that takes place when someone brings a complaint of this nature to the Human Rights Commission. If it finally goes to a tribunal panel and there's a specific direction from the panel to, say, an employer and the employer is told that they have to make these changes, who actually does the enforcement at that point? Who makes sure the direction, that change, is carried out by the employer?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Usually there is a provision in the decision of the tribunal that will, for example, retain jurisdiction. They might say they retain jurisdiction until such time as the order is implemented. Then it's more or less the complainant who can come back and say this has not been done yet. We have seen that in many cases.

In other cases, it will be the commission. The tribunal will say the commission should monitor what's happening. For example, in the NCARR decision we had to monitor what was happening. We asked for and received reports every three months on how the changes were implemented.

Up to 1998, it was very difficult to force implementation of the decisions of the tribunal. There is now a provision that makes it the equivalent of a decision of the Federal Court. If it's presented in the Federal Court, it automatically has the same effect as a decision of the Federal Court. It makes the implementation of the decision much easier.

In fact, it's very seldom... In my time at the commission, only once were we obliged to threaten court action concerning the implementation of a decision.

Mr. Reed Elley: Right. That was going to be my next question. If there ever was a problem and you had to really come down hard on somebody who was not complying... However, you say that doesn't take place very, very often.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: No.

Mr. Reed Elley: From your point of view as the Human Rights Commission and going through this review of the Human Rights Act, do you think you have enough teeth in it, that there's enough force behind the act to see that changes are made?

My colleague Ms. Lill was talking about how frustrating this is for people who bring it to the courts or bring it to you and there's this great time lag; they want change, and everything's happening in their lives and they're very upset. Then of course if there's a great period of time after the commission brings down its decision before these changes are implemented, it just adds to the frustration, probably even more so because of the hostility that's been generated because this thing has been taken to court or to the tribunal.

I'm just wondering how you feel about that now. There are a couple of questions in there, if you can get to them.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I think there is a common thread in all your questions this afternoon. The fact is that we're an organization whose main approach is an individual approach, but the problems we're facing now are systemic. So the problem is we don't have what is needed to deal with that. It's as simple as that. For example, if we were able to deal with accessibility problems at the front end instead of at the rear end, as I was explaining before, it would be much easier.

• 1710

For example, if there were criteria of accessibility that employers and service providers were obliged to abide by, you would establish the obligation, and then you could put teeth into the legislation to make sure this is abided by.

We see that in other areas of our legislation. For example, in the employment equity area, it works. So if it works there, why would it not work on the disability issue? Then you could make sure employers have a plan. You don't want to put them into bankruptcy, but you want to make sure they do what they can do, you want to be sure it will be done. That's what we did with...

In fact, we received an individual complaint at one point from Canada Post, and Canada Post agreed in the settlement discussions to enlarge the complaint so that all their outlets would be accessible within 10 years. They produced a plan to us. That was made outside of the law, more or less, but we asked them to have employers or service providers agree to it.

So they provided us with a plan, and every year they give us a report on what they have done during the year. We tell them if we are satisfied or not and suggest whether this year they should do more than that—and they usually do so—and that way they are able to make their various layouts available all across the country. So that's the type of thing that I think it would be important to get.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Surely a significant share of the Commission's budget is allocated to preparing and disseminating information. Existing human rights legislation deals specifically with the public system which, by definition, is a system in which groups of individuals are better organized.

In other words, those who receive or who are likely to receive the best treatment may not be the ones who are most in need or who are uppermost on the list.

Does your education program identify certain actions targeting areas in which many members of society, in particular persons with disabilities, encounter discrimination and injustices?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Unfortunately, most of the areas in which people encounter frustrations on a daily basis, namely housing, education and health care, fall under provincial jurisdiction, but we are working with our provincial counterparts.

Provincial commissions, with the exception of the Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia organizations, are relatively small and they often aren't in a position to do the kind of work we can.

• 1715

For instance, we can help them prepare school curriculums. It's important to start when children are young to eliminate stereotypes.

We're interested in working on a number of projects. While we do not provide funding as such, we do provide resource persons. For example, we can help with the printing of certain documents.

I tour different regions of the country on a regular basis and consult with groups of people. I make the rounds with my provincial counterpart so that if people come out to meet us, I'm able to tell them that even though the matter at hand does not fall within my purview, there's someone on hand who can tell them what they need to do. There's nothing more insulting for a person to attend a meeting and have someone tell him: "I'm sorry, I can't do anything about that. It's not my jurisdiction."

These are a few of the ways in which we try to ensure communications and convey information.

Commission officials and I visit both large and small communities. For instance, I recently visited Prince George and Kitimat. It's important for the residents of these communities to receive the correct information.

We put the resources we have to good use.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You alluded to health, education and social housing, areas for which the provinces have responsibility. I don't know if you can answer this question, but for the past several years, transfer payments to the provinces in these areas have been drastically reduced.

In terms of social housing, it's a well known fact that persons with disabilities are poorly housed. The situation is even more dire for persons with disabilities who are dependents.

In your opinion, should the Minister of Finance or the current government show more compassion and help the provinces uphold their commitments? As everyone well knows, they have the means to do so.

The provinces have commitments. However, many of their resources have been taken away from them. As Commissioner, is this something that you could recommend to the government, or is this too delicate an issue to bring up?

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: As you know, we are not in the business of interprovincial or federal-provincial relations.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Nevertheless, you do enjoy a right of review over decisions.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: That's correct. As you can see from our annual reports, all we can do is identify problem situations, without actually recommending corrective action, because it's not up to us to tell the government what to do.

Should the provinces be taking action? What about the federal government? Should direct or indirect funding be provided? It's not for me to say. What's important to me is that persons with disabilities have access to decent housing. How the government goes about ensuring this is not my problem. However, I would like to see some results on this front one day.

• 1720

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You say that the government's actions are of no concern to you. I'm certain you would never admit that one party is overstepping its jurisdiction in order to achieve certain results.

You're not obliged to answer that.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: These are political, rather than technical, considerations.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I wasn't really a question, but more along the lines of a comment. I was being careful not to ask a question about this.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I appreciate that.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. It was enlightening. Particularly this question of what it takes to actually make it happen I think is of most interest to the committee.

I hope that from our work on Eldridge to having you here today, we will be able to come up with some sort of little letter, going somewhere, to say what the committee's take is on our way forward. We look very much forward to the review panel and hope they will do what you've asked. We will, I hope, be able to also communicate that to the minister.

Thank you again. We look forward to an ongoing relationship and having you back.

Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: That would be with great pleasure, and thank you for having received us.

[Translation]

It was a very interesting meeting. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.