SPER Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, November 5, 2003

¹

1540

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.))

Mr. Steve Estey (Chair, Council of Canadians with Disabilities)

Mr. David Shannon (Member, Council of Canadians with Disabilities)

¹

1545

Mr. Steve Estey

The Chair

Ms. Diane Richler (President, Inclusion International)

¹

1550

¹

1555

The Chair

Ms. Joan Westland (As Individual)

º

1600

The Chair

º

1605

The Chair

Ms. Lee Ann Basser (Adjunct Professor, University of York; Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University, Melbourne; As Individual)

º

1610

º

1615

The Chair

Ms. Susan Gregson (Director, Human Rights, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

º

1620

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Myre (Director, Policy and Research, Department of Human Resources Development)

The Chair

º

1625

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Diane Richler

º

1630

The Chair

Ms. Diane Richler

The Chair

Ms. Joan Westland

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Mr. David Shannon

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. David Shannon

º

1640

Ms. Lee Ann Basser

The Chair

Mr. Steve Estey

º

1645

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Steve Estey

Ms. Diane Richler

Ms. Joan Westland

º

1650

Mr. David Shannon

The Chair

Ms. Joan Westland

Mr. Steve Estey

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Myre

The Chair

Mr. Steve Estey

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Myre

º

1655

The Chair

Ms. Diane Richler

The Chair

Ms. Lee Ann Basser

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 018

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, November 5, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

    This is sort of a weird week here on the Hill, as I think Reed would agree. This afternoon I myself am supposed to be at three other meetings that are going on--government operations, health, and HRDC, I think.

    We invited the members of the human rights subcommittee of the justice committee, to see if they would be able to come. However, they were struck only yesterday, so we'll see if they wander in or not.

    We're thrilled to have all of you here. Even if it's Reed's and my personal briefing, we will proceed, because knowledge is good, and whatever we can do to help on this file obviously is important. It's something that I think we'd hoped to do this time last year, practically.

    This is such a happy sort of family that's arrived here. No one has to stick to the order they're in on the page.

    Have you sorted out what order you'd like to go in, or have you even seen the page? No.

    Okay. We have the CCD, then Inclusion International, then Joan, then Lee Ann, and then Susan and the officials. D'accord? Is that okay? So CCD can lead off.

    Steve and David, can you do this in five minutes or a bit more?

    Mr. Steve Estey (Chair, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Sure, I think in less than seven, anyway.

    I'm just a little bit confused here. I'm unaccustomed to the NGO people being able to speak first, so I'm taken aback here, but thank you.

    Dave and I just wanted to take a moment to first of all say thanks for inviting us today, and also to maybe recap a little bit what's happened since the last time we met, which was in April 2002.

    At that point, you'll perhaps recall, we talked about the process related to the convention and the ad hoc committee as being a very new thing. At that point, the ad hoc committee itself hadn't met, and we didn't know very much about what was going to happen at all.

    As we sit here today, the ad hoc committee has met two times, and we've learned an awful lot about the process. I wanted to touch a little bit on some of the things that have happened through the course of those two meetings, and then turn the microphone over to Dave to talk a little bit about some of the things that we think might be useful for the Government of Canada to think about. Then we'll talk a little bit more about the community participation in this process.

    First of all, the ad hoc committee itself met for the first time in July and August of 2002 in New York City. At that meeting, member states sat for two weeks and talked about whether or not a convention would be a useful thing. At the end of the meeting, no decision was really forthcoming in terms of yes, we do, or no, we don't wish to have a convention.

    The ad hoc committee recommended to the General Assembly that the ad hoc committee be called to meet again the following year. And before the meeting the following year, the ad hoc committee recommended that the General Assembly call for a series of regional meetings to discuss the convention within the various UN regions around the world.

    So that resolution went to the General Assembly about a year ago. It was passed, and subsequently the General Assembly, or the United Nations, hosted a series of regional meetings around the world in the late winter and spring of this year, 2003, in advance of the current year's ad hoc committee meeting that happened in June of this year. There were regional meetings in Asia, in Africa, in the Americas, and in Europe. The Americas meeting was held in Ecuador, and officials from the Government of Canada participated in that meeting.

    From the regional meetings, we came back to the ad hoc committee meeting in June of this year, and at the ad hoc committee meeting in June of this year, again the discussion was, “Do we or do we not need to have a convention?” But a number of procedural and process questions were brought forth by member states. I'm sure that members of the Department of Foreign Affairs will speak to this more, but from an NGO perspective, we saw member states talking about, for example, “What kind of process are we talking about here? How will we actually elaborate a convention? What does that mean for us?”

    Through the course of the ad hoc meetings in June, the EU called for the creation of a working group to begin to draft the first round of a convention. That working group was established by resolution of the ad hoc committee, and it will meet in January of next year. The working group consists of 40 people. Twenty-seven states' parties will be represented. Twelve NGOs are on that working group, and one representative from national human rights institutions.

    Interestingly, one of the 27 states that will be on the working group is Canada. That information just came out last week. So we here in Canada in the NGO community are quite excited about that, and anxious to work with folks in the government to help and to participate fully and actively in the meetings of the working group in January.

    That's just a quick summary of where we are. I'd be happy to fill in the details, if you'd like, but if I may, I'd now like to pass over the microphone over to Dave.

    Mr. David Shannon (Member, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is truly a pleasure to be here today and to talk about when the convention will be passed as opposed to the last time we were here, when it was if there was going to be a convention.

    It is also exciting that not only has there been these advancements with respect to the articulation and development toward a convention but there also has been advancements in Canada's role in that process, moving towards one of centrality. And this is a great opportunity for Canada.

    We see a great opportunity for Canada in two particular ways. One, of course, is the constitutional principles we have on the rule of law, security of the person, equality, and the protection of minorities, which is truly a Canadian tradition. But within our charter of rights, we have successfully been able to balance the interplay of individual and group rights that occasionally may be in conflict. It is in that Canadian experience, exported to the world community and on stage in the development of this convention, where we believe Canada would play a critical role.

    Second, Canada's laws creating the duty to accommodate a person with a disability up to the point of financial hardship is a legal standard that is lost on much of the world community, and that is much of the world community that does have human rights legislation. It has yet to catch up to Canada. We believe this legal test is necessary for putting teeth in the convention tiger. Canadian expertise with respect to the duty to accommodate can advise on its meeting, establish Canada as a leader in disability rights, and demonstrate Canada's sincerity in providing equality for everyone.

    I'll allow Steve to wrap up.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Steve Estey: We were talking about the opportunity to meet here with you, and we wanted to let you know a couple of things that CCD is involved with in terms of trying to advance civil society participation in this process. We certainly see at the domestic level, and also internationally, that civil society organizations are playing a very significant role in the development of this convention.

    As I mentioned to you, there's a 40-person reference group or working group that's been established, and 12 seats of those 40 are going to NGO folks. That's quite a significant number, and we'd like to see that kind of collaborative thing that's happening internationally happen domestically as well.

    To that end, our organization, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, has applied to HRDC for funding to develop a community consultation process. That application, as I understand it, is sitting in the minister's office now. We're hopeful that it will be approved very quickly.

    We also wanted to highlight for you, Dr. Bennett, that at the first ad hoc committee meeting in 2002, we had hoped for NGO participation on the Canadian delegation. That did not work out, I guess for timing reasons and so on. However, this year, officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs did welcome a member of Council of Canadians with Disabilities onto the Canadian delegation. That was very helpful from our point of view, and we hope to see that continued in coming meetings, whether working group meetings or at the next meeting of the ad hoc committee itself in 2004.

    Another idea that we talked about is something that we've seen in other processes related to government legislation development, and that's the establishment of a reference group. We thought that might be something that would be useful. We'd be happy to speak with you further about that if you'd like.

    Finally, we're hoping that this committee can write letters of support for the convention process and for the participation of civil society organizations to the appropriate ministers as a follow-up to this meeting here today.

    Thanks very much. I apologize for taking a little bit too much of your time.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Diane.

    Ms. Diane Richler (President, Inclusion International): Thank you very much.

    I do appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion today. While we may not have the full committee present, I realize that the record of this meeting will still be useful for everyone who wants to have access to it. So I think it's very important to get these issues on the public record.

    I'm here as a Canadian, and I'm also wearing my hat as president of Inclusion International, which is the global federation of organizations of people with intellectual disability in their families. As the Canadian group CCD is represented internationally by Disabled Peoples International, which has a seat on the working group that Steve spoke about...so does Inclusion International. We're collaborating domestically as well as internationally on the convention.

    I wanted to also make reference to the comments from Steve and Dave in terms of some of what Canada has to offer in this process, and maybe offer a bit of a cautionary note in terms of some of the discussions that are happening at the global level.

    I think we have a sense of pride within Canada about the development of human rights concepts and what they've meant for people with disabilities, and I think that this committee in particular has really played a strong role in promoting that. I think it's not coincidental that people who have an interest in disability issues also have had an interest in democratization and the role of civil society, and much broader issues that touch on human rights.

    One of our concerns is a feeling that, in many cases, it seems as if the goal is achieving a convention. We're concerned, because the convention is not our objective; our objective is improving the lives of people with disabilities. We have to be really careful in terms of thinking about what a convention looks like as to whether it's actually going to further that goal or not. In thinking about that, we have to look at the convention as a tool for achieving our objectives, understanding that progress in different countries and parts of the world is going to be measured against very different kinds of standards. So when people from around the world come together and start talking immediately about what might be in a convention, they're often driven by their own analyses of what the lacks are in their own countries and what needs to improve.

    Our perspective is that strictly a legislative framework approach is not enough. Again, I'll refer to some of the work of this committee. I was at a very interesting series of meetings last week in Africa. Inclusion International sponsored a seminar on disability and poverty in Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa. We had wide representation from throughout Africa, and very good participation, both government and civil society. We spent the afternoon looking at the UN's millennium development goals, the global goals for reducing poverty, and what those meant in the lives of people with disabilities and their families. We were looking for guidance from the group as to what government might do and what changes could be made, and there in Lesotho, surrounded by incredible challenges and poverty, one of the proposals that came forward from one of the groups was to look at the tax system.

    What was interesting was that here was a group of people who recognized that their country was in the process of trying to establish an income tax system and to make it more common for people to recognize public support for solving certain issues. These families identified that having some relief through the tax system would be a more likely way for them to be able to offset the costs of disability than possibly securing all kinds of fancy services.

¹  (1550)  

    I use that example because I think that in the discussion of the convention, people aren't looking very much at how you build a broad system that truly recognizes human rights, that does not discriminate in all aspects, that uses positive ways of recognizing the cost of disability, as well as others.

    We're also very concerned that, in the past, while there has been a lot of advances in terms of improving the legal framework for people with disabilities, whether it's the recognition of the rights of children with disabilities in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or others, in fact the situation of people with disabilities has not really changed; that in fact what much of the legislative framework has done has been to focus on individual complaints rather than on systemic change; and that in fact there really have been very few institutional links between human rights commitments and policy development.

    We turn again to a Canadian example. CIDA, in their action plan on child protection, published in 2001, recognized that a human rights approach meant adopting a focus on basic structural causes as well as manifestations of problems. We're somewhat concerned that since the beginning of a heavy investment of time and energy and resources on the convention, that's using all of the energy that's available, and that when parallel discussions are going on--for example, around the millennium development goals--there's not enough attention being paid to ensuring that people with disabilities are equal beneficiaries of investments, either on the domestic front or internationally.

    So we're very concerned that a twin-track approach is needed. Certainly we support the idea of a convention, but we don't want to see that being the only way that the Government of Canada is looking at supporting the human rights of people with disabilities at the global level. We think Canada can do a lot, both in terms of expanding current thinking about human rights in discussing the convention and promoting those same principles in other venues, whether it's in international financial institutions, in other multilateral institutions, or in our own domestic foreign policy.

    Thank you.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Thanks, Diane.

    Joan.

    Ms. Joan Westland (As Individual): I think I should have been allowed to speak before Diane, because many of my comments echo a lot of the opinion that she has expressed.

    I do believe the discussion around the convention, and some of the dilemma that I think Steve and others have articulated around that discussion, both reflect the fact that the priority of the convention and its status amongst the UN member states is obviously not the same.

    In the 1980s, we saw that Canada and the U.S. and the European countries and Scandinavian countries were able to mobilize. They achieved significant victories in the advancement of barrier-free communities and the promotion of the rights of people with disabilities. In the rest of the world during that international decade, the capacity to advocate and to lobby was limited, if it existed at all. So these gaps and the diversity amongst regions continue today, and consequently the potential of the convention needs to be understood within that context. It is a confirmation that people continue to exist in outrageous circumstances, and it is a tool that may enable citizens and communities to address some of those injustices. But I have concerns that the strategies to develop and promote the convention will further isolate and exclude people, and that the expectations created in fact go beyond the reality of what a convention is all about. I think that gets to Diane's point around what our objectives are, and are we able to resolve them, and is that the appropriate or only mechanism.

    I would like to be passionate about the convention, but I'm not. Part of the reason I'm not is that it just continually goes back to my frustration that when we talk about people, we still don't mean everyone, and that when we talk about human rights for people with disabilities, we talk about it as though it's different from human rights for everybody else. I find that extremely saddening and frustrating. I am continually appalled that we accept the fact that when any documentation is produced, whether it's legislation or conventions or others, if there isn't a specific article or clause that says “and people with disabilities”, we inherently accept the fact that they are excluded, and we function accordingly. Consequently, we set up all these parallel systems and approaches to dealing with what I consider to be a societal issue, not a disability issue. It is a community issue, and it needs to be recognized as such. We have to stop being blamed for some of the circumstances that we are challenged with.

    So I would suggest that this convention needs to be put into a context that connects it to existing conventions--addressing such issues as poverty and health, social and economic justice--and builds on the UN instruments that promote human rights and the strategies to ensure inclusive communities. This would situate the work around the convention within the bigger picture as well as, I think, enhance and strengthen existing tools and mechanisms.

    There is a concern, and I think we've already heard echos of it from the two previous speakers, that if Canada commits resources to the convention process, it will divert resources from domestic issues. I think this fear is fuelled by the reality that we still have a great deal to do to get our house in order in our own country.

    So recognizing that we have this Canadian dilemma, I would suggest that this committee and the community need to do more than insist that the Government of Canada articulate a position on the convention. I think we need to continue to hold the government accountable for all of its promises and obligations and legal commitments that are on its table today, and have been for many, many years past. We should not allow international focus to distract it from domestic priorities. If we have identified this as being an issue, then we need to address it and incorporate our solutions to it rather than simply flag it as a concern.

º  (1600)  

    The committee and the community should challenge the government to take an aggressive stand in all its international negotiations. It should insist that there are articles included in the NAFTA agreements, in the international labour accords, within CIDA funding of projects and so on. There are endless lists of international mechanisms that government departments engage in, and within those we should include issues dealing with barriers for inclusion of people with disabilities so that it becomes a term and condition of the contracts and agreements that we enter into as opposed to being a parallel, separately negotiated process.

    I could certainly go on to give details of why and how we can build barrier-free governments and barrier-free government infrastructures and inclusive communities. That would basically be describing Joan's world, and probably take up far more time than we're prepared to allocate. But I will conclude by reminding you again of the importance of setting this convention process in its historical as well as practical context; of ensuring that it's interconnected and interrelated to the “mainstream”, to use an old word that we haven't used for a long time; and of ensuring that the process really motivates action in the domestic environment as well as in the international environment.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for inviting me to present today.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Maybe before we go to the next witness, I understand there are some teachers at the back who are here with the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy.

    Would you stand up? Can you just tell us where you're from?

    Voices: [Inaudible—Editor]

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: That's great. Well, welcome. We're thrilled to have you come and see the better part of Parliament. I hope you weren't at question period. We don't let the students go, you know. We think they should have to come to committees instead.

    At any rate, thank you for coming. It's great. I think you'll find, as we do as parliamentarians, that this is where we learn the most. This afternoon is an example, where we have the NGOs and the real people working in the trenches of this file, together with the government officials, where we hope we actually make huge progress by their actually informing us, and us hoping to shed a little parliamentary light on some of this. So thank you for coming.

    We also want to thank the Senate, in that the House of Commons, of course, has no resources to actually do the real-time...so there is a serious role for the Senate. They get all the toys and the resources.

    As well, we have our fantastic, tiny, perfect committee here: Reed Elley from the Alliance, Madam Dalphond-Guiral from the Bloc, and Wendy Lill from the New Democrats. What we're hoping is that if we actually hear what we need to hear, and are able to come to a consensus, just with our little rumour that the House might prorogue.... I guess what I'm asking the committee is for us to perhaps keep our lens on whether or not, as per Steven's request, will we be able to send a letter off, even if we went in camera for five minutes afterwards to see if we could actually get some action on this before Friday.

    So that's my little wish list for the afternoon.

    Now we have Professor Basser.

    Ms. Lee Ann Basser (Adjunct Professor, University of York; Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University, Melbourne; As Individual): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm delighted to be here.

    I'm here with a Canadian cap on, I suppose, but I'm actually an Australian, as you can hear. I'm a law professor from La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, and I'm visiting at Osgoode Hall Law School at the moment. My Canadian hat is as an adjunct professor in the Faculty of Graduate Studies at York University, where I'm attached to the Masters of Arts in Critical Disability Studies.

    I have considerable expertise in the area of human rights and disability law, as I've researched, taught, and written in the area for many years. I'm the co-author of a leading international text, Disability, Divers-ability and Legal Change , which is published by Kluwer Law. I'm currently working with Professor Marcia Rioux from York University on a book on human rights and disability law.

    Existing human rights treaties, as has been referred to today, are very broad in scope, but they've actually proved to be inadequate to the task of promoting and protecting the rights of people with disabilities. Disability issues are very rarely raised before any of the existing human rights monitoring committees. A treaty such as the one currently being considered by the UN, that focuses specifically on the human rights of people with disabilities, has the potential to remedy that situation, particularly if, as a result of the treaty, disability issues are mainstreamed into other human rights treaties and into their monitoring processes generally, as I believe they should be. The process so far of working towards the convention has certainly increased the profile of disability as a human rights issue, and I think that's very encouraging.

    In the brief time I have to make my submission, I want to focus on the content of a convention, and in this regard I want to make four points.

    The first is that the convention should contain broad human rights principles that reaffirm and restate the civil and political and economic, cultural, and social rights set out in the existing treaties--in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights. Great care must be taken, in drafting the disability convention, not to compromise those existing human rights.

    In addition, a disability convention should contain rights that are specifically relevant to people with disabilities, drawing on the experience of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for People with Disabilities, and, where relevant, the other more specialized conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.

    These disability rights, in my opinion, should be drawn in general terms, general enough to cover specific concerns. In this way, the treaty would not become unwieldy and would be able to stand the test of time. In my opinion, an international treaty is not the place to deal with every nuanced detail. Just to give you one example, the right to integrity of the person and the right to be free from torture should protect a person with disabilities from non-consensual participation in medical research.

    The second point I want to make relates to the definition of “disability” in the convention. It's now well established that impairment is only one aspect of disability, and that social and environmental factors contribute to, and are implicated in, disability. Any definition must take account of all aspects of disability and should be based on a human rights approach to disability rather than an outdated individual deficit model.

    Moreover, I believe the definition in the convention should be an inclusive one. It should be open, and not contingent on a person with a disability having to establish that they are worthy of protection—it actually picks up on, in many ways, Joan's point about people with disabilities being people—or having to prove that their disability limits their capacity to perform essential activities of daily life.

º  (1610)  

    Experience with the interpretation of the word “disability”, under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, highlights the difficulties that can arise where the definition of disability is too limited. By contrast, in my own country, Australia, the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act is drafted in very broad terms so that the focus isn't on the characterization of the individual but on whether or not there's been a human rights abuse.

    My third point is that I believe it's vital that the convention has strong monitoring provisions. This will include a specialist body, a disability rights committee, to which states would be required to report regularly and to which NGOs would be able to submit alternate reports on the model of what's happened with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

    There should also be a requirement that states report on disability issues to other UN monitoring bodies to ensure that disability is mainstreamed as a human rights issue and not sidelined. NGOs should be able to report on disability issues to the mainstream monitoring bodies as well.

    There should be provision for individuals to bring complaints to the disability rights committee in the same way that they can to the human rights committee under the optional protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Of course, this right would not accrue until all domestic avenues had been exhausted, but it would provide an important avenue for redress of human rights abuses for people with disabilities.

    Finally, while the purposes of a convention are different from those of anti-discrimination legislation, there are lessons to be learned from the domestic experience. However, it is important that the convention does not undermine hard-won gains at the national level. This requires vigilance in the way in which disability is defined and careful attention to any restrictive clauses in the convention.

    To conclude, I'm delighted to hear that Canada is a member of the working group, which I only discovered when I came to Ottawa today. Canada has an outstanding reputation as a leader in the international community in the promotion and protection of human rights, at both the national and the international levels. Given this record on human rights, I would hope that the Canadian government would be an active participant in the convention process.

    Thank you very much for inviting me. I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now we will hear from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

    Ms. Susan Gregson (Director, Human Rights, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    What I'd like to do today is briefly provide some developments to date in the ongoing discussion process at the UN to consider proposals for a convention on the protection and promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.

    Foreign Affairs' role to date has been to coordinate Canadian participation in two meetings of an ad hoc committee on this issue. As has been discussed, these were held in the summer of 2002 and again in 2003. Other departments involved in this process are primarily HRDC and Justice Canada, which are represented here today, as well as Canadian Heritage and CIDA.

    As you know, Madam Chair, disability is a cross-cutting issue that falls within the responsibility of a number of departments as well as provinces and territories. As a result, consultations are ongoing with a wider network of federal departments as well as with provinces and territories, and this will continue throughout the UN discussion process. My colleague from HRDC, I think, will expand on these consultations later on.

    At the last ad hoc committee meeting, Canada expressed its commitment to participate in the development of a convention that significantly improves the situation of persons with disabilities. We stated that in order to proceed to such a convention, it first of all must be rooted in reality in order to create obligations that can be implemented. It must be realistic. Secondly, it should be drafted so as to attract the broadest possible base of support among member states. Thirdly, it should be consistent with existing international human rights treaties, as has been stated by Lee Ann. Finally, it should ensure the equal and unequivocal promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities.

    In addition, we think that the awareness-raising function of a new legal instrument must not be discounted, as it would highlight the rights and further understanding of all the issues that are at play.

    I should add here that all of the states present at the ad hoc committee meeting did support the principle of negotiating a new convention. The only exception to this was the U.S. They stated that although they would be supportive of the discussion process, the U.S. does not intend to be a party to any eventual instrument.

    At the meeting in New York, we were very pleased and privileged to benefit from the advice of an NGO representative on the Canadian delegation. We do count on the ongoing contribution of NGOs and other experts to ensure that this UN process does bring some real improvements to the lives of persons with disabilities. Again, my colleague from HRDC may provide some more information on the consultations with the NGOs.

    We've heard today from a number of people with regard to the need to mainstream the human rights of persons with disabilities in existing UN human rights conventions. This is something we wish to keep in mind as we go forward in this process. We also must not lose sight of the fact that the legally non-binding Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for People with Disabilities have to now been a very useful tool in the development of progressive policies in many countries. Hopefully they can continue to play a central role.

    Madam Chair, as Steve mentioned earlier, the key decision of the ad hoc committee last June was to establish a working group tasked with developing a first draft of a convention text. This would be based on the input received by the ad hoc committee. The working group is expected to meet for two weeks in early January, and the draft that it will develop will be discussed at the next meeting of the ad hoc committee next summer, the summer of 2004.

    As has been mentioned here, we were very pleased to learn last week that Canada has been successful in securing a place on the working group. Steve mentioned that the participation is limited to 27 states, 12 NGOs, and one representative of human rights institutions.

    The next steps are to seek more information from the UN as to how the meetings of the working group will be conducted and what will form the basis of our work. We'll also need to consult more fully with other federal departments, with provinces and territories, and with civil society in order to prepare for our participation.

    On this, I'd like to, if I may, Madam Chair, turn the floor over to my colleague Pauline Myre from HRDC, who can provide more information about the consultation process.

    Thank you.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Ms. Myre.

    Ms. Pauline Myre (Director, Policy and Research, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

    Thank you for the opportunity to inform you of our efforts in developing Canada's position on an international convention on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities.

[English]

    As the lead department for disability issues at the federal level, HRDC has also been playing a key role in helping to coordinate input into this process and in providing central information related to persons with disabilities.

    As my colleague from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has indicated, we have participated in the ad hoc committee meetings. The one held in New York in June was well attended, and my department was pleased to provide some financial assistance to a representative from a national disability organization to be part of the Canadian delegation.

    There were some very important outcomes and messages from the meeting in June. Canada played a key brokering role in bringing countries together to reach an eleventh-hour consensus decision--that is, to establish a working group charged with producing a draft convention text to be discussed by the UN ad hoc committee later.

    The other point made was that persons with disabilities must take a full and active role in drafting the convention. HRDC will continue to support the participation of NGOs to ensure that their views are reflected in these discussions. We will be working with our colleagues from other departments, in particular the ones that Susan just mentioned--DFAIT, Canadian Heritage, CIDA and Justice Canada--to develop our input.

    We have had some very preliminary discussions with NGOs on the convention, and we will be consulting with the various national disability organizations over the next several weeks to seek their views. We hope to be able to support these disability organizations financially to consult among themselves to develop their knowledge on this issue and to provide their points of view.

    Given that provinces and territories play a key role in providing benefits and services to Canadians with disabilities in their respective jurisdictions, we will also be consulting with them. Preliminary discussions have been held with provinces and territories on the proposed UN convention since this process started. Although provinces and territories have not objected to the principle of the convention, they have expressed some concerns with any new instrument that would add obligations that would impact significantly on their jurisdictional responsibilities. We will continue to seek the views of these provinces and territories over the next several weeks through existing departmental mechanisms and working groups.

    As Canada indicated at the meeting in New York, we firmly believe we need to do this right. Therefore, adequate time will be required to ensure that the convention is as perfect as it can be. We have concerns similar to those expressed here today. No one wants to rush into producing an inadequate legal instrument.

    Consensus-building and increased awareness of disability issues are important outcomes that we should not dismiss lightly. HRDC will continue to play a key role in building that consensus and in helping to develop a sound knowledge of issues facing persons with disabilities. Through our disability programs and our key reports, we will continue to support the capacity development of national disability organizations to provide an effective voice for Canadians with disabilities.

    As indicated in New York, Canada is committed to participating in the development of a convention that significantly improves the situation of persons with disabilities, but the convention must be rooted in reality in order to be implemented, and it must be drafted to attract the broadest possible base of support. We will continue to support these objectives.

    Merci.

    The Chair: Thanks very much.

    We'll go to questions now.

    I think I didn't understand, until I guess Joan and Bill and I were in Mexico last year, or around there...anti-discrimination law panel, that for certain countries it's very, very important to have these international covenants, because they don't have their own charter or they don't have their own.... And I remember, when I was at the reporting meeting at CEDAW in New York, that, again, as Canadians, we're....

    It's interesting; I guess they count how many court judgments use CEDAW when they report. Of course, for countries that have charters and things, it's not used in the courts as much as...the international covenants aren't used in the courts. But I didn't kind of get it in terms of how important it is to a country that doesn't have a charter and so on.

    But that's just my little confession.

    Reed, do you have a question?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): I want to thank all of you who have come today. I appreciate very much your coming.

    I want to take just a moment to congratulate the Council of Canadians with Disabilities on your successful challenge of VIA Rail. I think that was a very important thing you did on behalf of Canadians with disabilities across the country, and I congratulate you on that.

    I think all of us in this room are on board in terms of the need for international conventions that address issues like this. However, I guess my problem with international conventions is that we can pass all of these fine things, and have wonderful feelings of doing good, but when it comes to the whole question of having adequate monitoring of a country's ability to actually live up to the convention, and then, beyond the monitoring, to have some kind of mechanism of enforcement, we really run into serious problems, don't we, on the international scene?

    Even in affluent countries like ours, where I think we have the resources to put into making sure that international conventions are observed at sort of the ground level for people with disabilities.... You run into situations in Third World countries where they might want to do this--and maybe they don't, but if they do want to--and yet they don't have the money to do it. They don't have the facilities. They don't have the kind of resources that we in our affluent nation have to help our people with disabilities.

    So just as a very broad question to anybody who wants to take a stab at it, how do you get beyond the formation of a convention, the bringing together of countries that will actually sign it, and move into adequate monitoring and enforcement to see that it actually takes place?

    Anybody.

    Ms. Diane Richler: I think those are important questions. Perhaps I can make a couple of points.

    One is to say that in countries now where there is tremendous discrimination against people with disabilities.... Just to use education as an example, the UN agencies and the World Bank are all admitting that fewer than 5% of children with a disability in 80% of the world have access to any education. There is huge investment going on now in an initiative known as “Education for All”, but in most places, “all” means “all except children with a disability”. Yet in those countries that are making a commitment to making “all” mean “all”, they're actually planning their school systems in ways that will make sure that children with disabilities can go to school as well.

    Take a country like Burkina Faso, which now has 40% of all of their children going to school. They know that if they want to achieve universal primary education, they're going to have to figure out a way to get kids with disabilities to school. So they're thinking about that when they build their schools. They're thinking about that when they train their teachers. They're thinking about that when they plan their curriculum. And it's possible to do that.

    I don't think anybody pretends that all children are going to be able to go to school next week, next year, or maybe even in five years. But they can develop school systems that are going to be able to include all children, including children with disabilities, or else they can design old-fashioned school systems that make it impossible for children with disabilities to participate. So I think that's one issue.

    The other issue in terms of enforcement is that we often think about enforcement being solely the responsibility of countries that are in need of external support. But countries like Canada have a huge responsibility and also a huge influence, and there's no reason for us not to apply the kind of standards that we're talking about on our own foreign aid right now. I mean, Canada is giving money for Education for All initiatives around the world that are eliminating...that are making it impossible for children with disabilities to go to school. That should not be allowed, and we should be held as accountable for that as any national government is, because they're going to take the money on the conditions that it's given, and if we don't see it as our obligation to make sure that there's no discrimination, then we're complicit.

    There's no reason for us to wait for a convention. We're contravening the charter as it is by making foreign assistance and our participation in multilateral institutions in ways that are not consistent with the charter.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: What would you call it, Diane--a precondition for the money? Or how would we word that?

    Ms. Diane Richler: Generally--and this is the point that Joan made before--whether we're looking at aid, trade, or diplomacy, we should be respecting the charter, and we're not.

    The Chair: Joan first and then David.

    Ms. Joan Westland: Just to add to that perspective, I think when we use the term “monitoring”, we immediately tend to envision some kind of formal tribunal that travels around and checks off things and requires a huge bureaucracy to support it, and reports get issued. But what we're really talking about in terms of monitoring is exactly the kind of approach that Diane was talking about and that we've all tried to table here in one way or another, which is that there are ongoing day-to-day activities that the Government of Canada engages in with other countries and with its own institutions, who may on its behalf initiate projects where the terms and conditions around human rights can be an integral part of what they do and how they do it.

    As we've said, that doesn't require additional forms, but it enhances the things that we already have in place. A convention has other purposes in it as well, but we should not get drawn into the position of saying, “This is going to be hugely expensive because you want to monitor on an ongoing basis”, therefore deciding that we can't afford it.

    What we can't afford is to continue to invest in programs and projects that eliminate the participation of a huge percentage of the world's population. That doesn't require a formal mechanism. As soon as we get into that discussion, we'll put the convention and anything else aside and say, “Well, we'd really love to do it, but it's just going to be impractical.” We have to get out of that traditional way of thinking.

    The Chair: Wendy.

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I don't mean to interrupt, but I'm going to be asking the second set of questions. I have to leave very shortly.

    I don't want to interrupt you, though, Dave.

    Mr. David Shannon: No, I'm happy to wait, Ms. Lill.

    The Chair: Yes, and Mado has to leave as well.

    Do you want to quickly ask your questions, and then we could go into a round table discussion?

    Ms. Wendy Lill: I have many questions, but what I'm hearing from Diane and from Joan, just in the last five minutes, clarifies for me the responsibility that we need to be driving at and making sure our government carries through on. Right now there are opportunities, and there are opportunities being missed. We have money and we give money to other countries in international aid. As you say, there's aid, trade, and diplomacy, and we need the disability screen on that level. It's not that difficult, and that has to be in this letter that we're going to be putting forward.

    I understand what you're saying, Joan, on the idea of one more convention accord, that “persons with disabilities” is like a special needs class, and we don't need another ghettoized kind of convention. At the same time, we all know that for families of persons with disabilities, we all hang onto these documents, we hang onto the charter, and we hang onto the pieces of the charter that deal with our issues. So I'm all for this if we can just get one more tool to strengthen the rights of persons with disabilities, even though we're not always crazy about the special nature of our situation.

    I really do apologize that I have to leave now. There is something that I have to be at. But if you want to talk further about this, I'm here; you know my number.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Keep going, Reed--and then I want you all to be thinking about what you would be tipping off the officials to that you would want us to put in a letter. If we were going to send a letter, what would you want in it? We're very efficient here, so if you want to write it and just hand it to Bill, that's fine too.

    I used to do that as a physician. I'd get people to write their own letters, and then see if I'd sign it or not.

    David.

    Mr. David Shannon: Be careful; if Steve opens his briefcase, we'll be in trouble.

    To quickly pick up on the two points that were just made, I would not speak to developing countries, because my friends can speak much more eloquently than I can to those issues.

    In Canada, with respect to the impact of international law, it was in the late eighties that then Chief Justice Dickson said that international law needs to be given the same force and effect as domestic law. And if that had the power in the late eighties for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to say that international law needs to be given that level of credibility, think of where we are today.

    The other great motivator in having international law is the awareness that it does raise, as the frameworks of international human rights law can do. On the one hand, it does create a venue that has been of very much assistance to communities and minorities to advance their rights. We've seen that in Canada with minority religions and also first nations, most evidently, but also we've benefited from broad awareness, because the world community is looking at countries or nation-states to meet the standards of those human rights documents.

    As I read in the literature, when Irwin Cotler was a professor, he termed it the “mobilization of shame”. The power of that public awareness is terrific. I might only reference the strength of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for People with Disabilities. That was certainly a non-binding document, but as a result, I think we could credit that non-binding document as having been tremendous in the advancement of rights and quality of life for people with disabilities. I would hope that a binding international human rights document would have more force and effect.

º  (1640)  

    Ms. Lee Ann Basser: I just really want to support what David said. The comments that I've just written down in response to your question were that when we talk about monitoring the enforcement at the international level, it is very different from when we're talking about monitoring and enforcement of criminal law. These international conventions do set standards. They're educative tools, as we've heard. They provide groups within communities with very important tools, as Dr. Bennett mentioned, in arguing their case for inclusion in the community.

    I would actually like to point out that while I certainly would have been, in the early days, a person who felt that disability should be a mainstreamed issue, not subject to a separate convention, I've changed my position, looking at what the children's convention and the women's convention have done for the position of both children and women throughout the world. While those positions have a long way to go in terms of full equality, at the same time, the specific conventions raise the profile of those issues and provide very important positions from which people can argue for improvement and the mechanisms that were spoken of today here, tying aid from developed countries to developing countries, to the improvement of everybody's human rights. It's very important.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Did you have something to add, Steve?

    Mr. Steve Estey: Yes--or I did. It's hard to jump in at just the right time, with the delay here.

    I want to respond to the first question, if I may, with regard to monitoring and so on. For me, an awful lot of the work that we're doing on the convention relates to how we see ourselves as disabled people and how the society in which we live sees us. I have a number of things that come to mind; I'm just trying to pick some examples of how I think a convention might be a useful tool.

    Two things occur to me. In January or February of this year, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva sent out a letter to disability NGOs around the world, asking them how they are involved with monitoring of human rights treaties in their own countries. Our umbrella organization, Disabled Peoples International, Inclusion International, and all of the other international NGOs got this letter from the high commissioner's office. It went from those international organizations to the domestic organizations, so that we, at CCD, got a copy of this letter.

    It had never really occurred to us at CCD that we should be involved in discussions around monitoring of the other human rights conventions, because we're so involved with all of the disability issues that we're involved with. At the beginning you talked about the VIA rail case and so on. Well, this is an issue of access, but it's also an issue of human rights. It depends on the frame in which you look at things.

    So when we got the request from the high commissioner's office in Geneva, through the DPI office, we contacted people in the Government of Canada to find out how, if at all, disability organizations are involved with the monitoring of human rights conventions, whether it's the convention on civil and political rights or what have you, in Canada. How are disability organizations involved in that?

    I came to find out that disability organizations are not particularly engaged in that, and I don't think it's the fault of the government at all. I've had discussions with people in the Department of Heritage who are involved with this, and they send out all kinds of invitations for organizations to contribute and participate in monitoring and development of reports and so on. But our organizations don't get involved in those things.

    So I think the discussion we're having around a new convention on the human rights of people with disabilities changes our mindset a little bit. As a person with a disability and as a person who works in a disability organization, I think that's a tremendously important thing. My issues are not that I can't hear so much as that I have a human right to be able to communicate with people in my society. It changes the frame in which we see things.

    As a second example, Dave mentioned that others in our committee were more involved with people in developing countries. I want to tell a little story about something that happened recently with our opposite member organization in the Caribbean country of Trinidad and Tobago. In Trinidad and Tobago, DPI Trinidad has been involved for a number of years with trying to get a state-owned enterprise there, a flour mill, to hire people with disabilities. They've argued that they have a right to jobs and so on, with quotas and all this kind of thing, without any success at all. This has been ongoing. I've been to Trinidad a number of times, and people have talked about it for years.

    In the last couple of years, there's been a change in the leadership of the organization in Port of Spain. The folks now that are involved in the leadership in Port of Spain are much more human rights oriented. So they have looked at the fact that they are not able to access jobs in the state-owned enterprise as a human rights issue, and they decided, in the spring of this year, to take action on that. They launched a sit-in in front of the flour mill. They spent 100 days camped out in front of this flour mill, met with politicians and so on. The police tried to remove them, etc. Finally, at the end of the day the government agreed to consider employment for people with disabilities.

º  (1645)  

    Again, it goes to the issue of the paradigm, the framework in which you see things. So while indeed your point about resources is a significant one, from the point of view of a person with a disability, and disability organizations, it's the paradigm in which we operate that makes the work on a convention something that's valuable.

    Mr. Reed Elley: I apologize for the coming and going. I have to leave, but thank you very much for coming. I really appreciate it, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

    The Chair: For those of you who don't know, this is one of our favourite colleagues, Nancy Karetak-Lindell from Nunavut, who has a huge interest in persons with disabilities. She comes from an area of Canada that has actually taken the trouble to map the persons with disabilities in that territory.

    I think it's a challenge to give people what they need when they don't even have roads, right? At any rate, we're glad you could come for even a small part of this.

    Have you given the Cole's notes of what you want in our letter?

    Mr. Steve Estey: We can certainly put something together in very short order.

    Ms. Diane Richler: Certainly there's the first point that was made by CCD in terms of setting up a process in Canada that mirrors the process that's been set up globally. You have the wording on that.

    A second point is that we don't have to wait for a convention, and that Canada can start being more active in ensuring that the charter is respected in trade and diplomacy.

    Joan, do you want to add something?

    Ms. Joan Westland: From my standpoint, at least, number one on my list would be that we don't get drawn into a debate about whether you should or should not have a convention--rather, that you understand what the purpose and function of a convention is, and that we challenge the government to go beyond that to recognize that it needs to ensure that terms and conditions of any contract or agreement it enters into, any of its funding programs or aid or assistance programs, respect the human rights of all of the citizens.

    Within that, unfortunately, we will need to say, “including people with disabilities”, because if we don't say that, we know that we go back to square one. But I think we have to be a little bit more aggressive with our own government on how it deals with this, not only on the domestic front but also on how it respects its own obligations and the many treaties and conventions it has signed, and how it applies that in its negotiations with other countries, whether that be in a donor situation or a diplomatic situation.

    That, to me, would be the real heart of a letter that would come from this committee.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. David Shannon: Notwithstanding that in some ways the glass may be half empty, I think it is also important to note the very strong position Canada is in--first, in playing a leadership role and in seeing the fulfillment of this convention vis-à-vis its position on the working group; secondly, its tradition through the charter; and third, its development with respect to the duty to accommodate up to the point of undue financial hardship. That is unique amongst the world.

    The Chair: But did I not also hear Steve say that...? The second point you made at the beginning was also being grateful that the NGOs have been included. I mean, I always think that we should thank people when they're doing something well. So if that has been the tradition that you appreciate, then I think it's good when the parliamentary committee acknowledges that as well.

    Is that what you're saying?

    A voice: Yes.

    Ms. Joan Westland: I'd like to add a caveat to that comment, Carolyn, because I've experienced in other Canadian-funded projects that there has been a condition put in that there be participation of people with disabilities. Unfortunately, there's no capacity built in to ensure that happens.

    So it's not just saying that we need to do this. We in fact have to ensure that there is a capacity built in to enable people with disabilities to participate.

    It gets back to Steve saying it's not the fact that he's challenged in terms of hearing; it's the fact that he has right to communicate with his fellow citizens, and therefore the community has an obligation to ensure that happens. And we miss out on that point. We might put in a little clause, but then we don't ensure that there's any capacity for that clause to have any effect.

    Mr. Steve Estey: I think it's important that the letter note.... Well, the context is that I think some NGOs in Canada have been very effective at talking to folks here in Ottawa, both yourselves and the people at Foreign Affairs and on; a small group of us have had a great opportunity to meet with a number of people here. What we haven't had, though, is the opportunity to link that back to our grassroots people. We've been so busy and so engaged in just trying to keep the balls in the air here in Ottawa and moving things forward, we haven't had the chance to do anything in terms of communicating with our organizations.

    The Chair: HRDC, though, has been doing some of that, correct?

    Ms. Pauline Myre: Absolutely. Some of our programs do provide capacity-building, and we're desperately trying to find more resources to do even more.

    The Chair: Mr. Estey.

    Mr. Steve Estey: It wasn't my intention to put HRDC on the spot. I just wanted to make the point that we need to communicate with our folks, that's all.

    The Chair: No, that's my job, Steve. I had heard that this work was ongoing.

    Are you talking about the NGOs that are already engaged or the associational networks that would be even broader?

    Ms. Pauline Myre: I think as Steve mentioned awhile ago, they have a proposal with our department right now to be able to do just what he said, to be able to go back to their grassroots and make sure that they are aware of the issues relating to this convention. We hope to be able to support them financially in that aspect.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: In your remarks, you said that you would be consulting with the national disability organizations. Okay.

    Diane.

    Ms. Diane Richler: I wonder if I could just draw a link between what Dave said and something that Joan said in terms of the leadership that this committee could take.

    I think it is very positive for Canada to be a member of the working group, because I think that does provide an opportunity for Canadian experience to come forward, but if the Government of Canada could also show to the world that Canada is not waiting for the convention in order to respect the principles, and is making a commitment in all of its activities...and I guess I would go beyond this. I think the terms and conditions of specific contracts are important, but I also think that any participation by Canada in multilateral institutions--for instance, UNESCO's work around Education for All--is critical. Canada has not said anything about disability in those fora, at the World Bank or all of the regional development banks, in terms of policies and investment policies.

    If Canada could talk about those things when it goes to the working group and to the United Nations, and say, “We believe so much in the principles of the convention that we're starting to monitor ourselves and make sure that we're living up to that now”, that would be very, very powerful

    The Chair: Professor Basser, do you have any benediction?

    Ms. Lee Ann Basser: I feel like I'm the outsider and I shouldn't tell the Canadian government what they should be doing. However, I suppose I would like to see Canada take leadership in the process of drafting the convention. In my presentation, I kind of alluded to what I think are the important factors--that we need a convention that reaffirms and includes people with disabilities in the mainstream of human rights.

    Really, that's the best I can contribute, to encourage Canada in its role on the working group, and more generally in the UN in the work for the convention. I do think it is really important that we have a specific convention but that the specific convention is then used, as the women's' convention has been, to mainstream disability as a human rights issue.

    The Chair: Thank you all very much. In these interesting times, I'm thrilled that we were able to sneak in this meeting.

    I learned a great deal today. This idea of what we can do internationally in terms of the preconditions or what we expect to see done with our money is an ongoing file in lots of things--from the Middle East to textbooks to what we expect in terms of workers. It's always challenging when we think of how much there is to do here, with our aboriginal people, and with our poverty and our violence. I mean, in all of the things that we want to be looking at here, I think it's always good if we can at least put our eye to our responsibility internationally as often as we can. It's about leadership, but it's also about mobilizing shame, and knowing that if we're going to preach something, we'd better be walking the talk here at home.

    So I think it is “two and two makes five”, and I thank you all for helping us carry on with our responsibilities as Canadians. If indeed we're supposed to be leaders in human rights, then it's good every so often that we have meetings to just focus on this particularly.

    Thank you so much. We hope that we'll have your next report back, and we'll see you soon.

    Meeting adjourned.