Advance Consideration

By Raymond D. Cohen

During his 18 years in the Canadian Parliament, Dr. Bruce Halliday has been a cutting edge pioneer for the equality and empowerment of people with disabilities. His vision for a society that values and protects each member as an individual of worth and dignity has found expression in every major initiative Canada has undertaken on disability since 1979.

In his own inimitable style, he has joined public leaders and disability rights advocates to blaze a trail of respect and understanding through a wilderness of prejudice and paternalism. Indeed, he has been instrumental in building Canada’s record of achievement on disability.

He was there at the outset of the U.N. decade, as a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Committee which produced the landmark, Obstacles report. His passion for dignity and equality in the lives of Canadians with disabilities is reflected in the 130 recommendations of that report and they have been the building blocks for a world class Canadian agenda on disability.

He was there, in 1982, when Canada became the only nation in the world to provide specific constitutional protection for the equality of people with disabilities.

He was a strong advocate for federal leadership in 1983, when the Government of Canada designated a Minister Responsible for the Status of Disabled Persons - significantly moving disability issues from a health to citizenship perspective.

In 1987, he became chairman of the Standing Committee of Parliament on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. This is a permanent mechanism for ensuring attention to the concerns of citizens with disabilities. I note with personal admiration the work and vigour of that committee in addressing disability questions on public attitudes and media portrayal, taxation policies, census and data development and especially the empowerment and equality concerns of Canadians with disabilities.

In many respects the guidance and sensitive leadership of that committee chairman leaves an indelible mark on Canada’s outstanding record on disability - particularly in the area of human rights, transportation and employment.

This year, the Parliament of Canada passed the Omnibus Bill, which amended various laws to ensure that Canadians with disabilities would enjoy equality in almost every aspect of social process. Prime Minister Brian Malroney launched a momentous five year national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. And, Canada sponsored Independence ’92, probably the largest and most significant international disability policy meeting ever held.

As always, the gracious country doctor from Ontario was there.

This Canadian - this humanitarian - has reached beyond the borders of Canada. He is an advocate for all who suffer injustice in every nation. He has focused particularly on the population explosion, which has impoverished billions and murdered millions, including, especially people with disabilities.

Canada is far from being the promised land. But many feel that is the best place in the world for people with disabilities. Certainly Canada is the world leader for international disability rights and advocacy.

I have said much about the country doctor turned parliamentarian. But he would be the last to claim he did any of these things alone. He did not. And maybe that is the real point of this award.

His quiet determination and commitment is symbolic of what leadership must be in an age of science dedicated to quality of life.

He knows the job of government is not to govern people, but coordinate and inspire the efforts of all people to govern themselves. He leads not with threat, bluster, flamboyance and the impotent cliches of the modern media. He leads with quiet love, a quiet truth, a quiet toughness, a quiet insistent rationality. He inspires people to transcend politics, personality and ego, and to unite in action for the fundamental principles of humanity. His legacy in public life is a model of cooperation for results - always in the best interest of people with disabilities.

It is my profound privilege now to present the distinguished service award of the President of the United States to Dr. Bruce Halliday.

Justin Dart, Chairman of the United States President’s Committee on Employment of Persons with Disabilities, at the International Conference of Ministers, Montreal, PQ, October 1992.

ADVANCE CONSIDERATION - AN INTERVIEW WITH DR. BRUCE HALLIDAY

Dr. Bruce Halliday, physician, parliamentarian, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is approaching the end of his role in government. Whether this means an end to the country doctor’s role in serving the causes for which he has fought for the last 18 years in government is a very big question. Raymond Cohen recently interviewed Doctor Halliday.

RC - Dr. Halliday to begin with the basics, how did you first get interested in disability issues?
BH - As a family physician, I always had a fundamental interest in disability issues. You can’t be a physician in the general practice of family medicine and not deal with various types of disabilities over time.

Also, as I indicated to you earlier, my first wife contracted polio shortly after we were married and she was fairly badly incapacitated because of it, so that gave me another major reason to be interested. I got involved with the Canadian Paraplegic Association because of the nature of her disability, and went on to become more concerned about disability issues. That was prior to going to Ottawa after my election in 1974.

RC - As a physician, how long did you practise... and are you still practising to some extent?
BH - Just a little bit now - but I practised 22 years here in family medicine before I got involved in politics. You know, there was a time when I wasn’t involved in politics at all. I was just approached to run. I didn’t even belong to the party. I had to buy a membership before I could run for the nomination!

RC - How old are you?
BH - I’m 66. I don’t feel it though - unless I try to play hockey - then I do. I was playing hockey up until about two years ago. It’s a popular little sport. I have season’s tickets at Maple Leaf Gardens. I started supporting the Leafs when I was six, living in Saskatoon. I’ve stuck with them through thick and thin. Mostly thin - the last 35 years!

RC - So, your first wife - what was her name?
BH - Her name was Janet. We were married just five months, living here in the village. We got married in May, May 24, and then on October 18th she contracted polio. We didn’t know what was going on at first. She became pretty ill, and we had her in the hospital here... and then she got worse. So we put her in an ambulance to take her to Toronto, but by the time we got about half way there, she was unconscious and wasn’t doing very well. I remember giving her artificial respiration. We took her right into Hamilton, where they put her in an iron lung. She was in an iron lung for two years, which indicated the extent of her disability.

At the end of two years Janet was weaned from the iron lung onto a rocking bed and was then transferred to Lyndhurst Lodge in Toronto. She spent another two years there under the care of Dr. Jousse before she was able to come home. By that time she had developed a new lease on life. Dr. Jousse has a great capacity for motivating people who often have good reason to be rather down in their mood. And she responded very well.

Janet came home using a wheelchair, but still needed to have a rocking bed here at night. She was able to stand, so she could transfer from the wheelchair, say, to the toilet or the car. But we had to make some adjustments in the house, of course. She had the ability to use her left hand to some extent, and her right foot, so she could push herself around the house using both the foot and the hand on the wheel. She got around pretty well.

RC - It certainly sounds like you know absolutely firsthand what disability and lifestyle relating to disability is all about.
BH - Yes, because her disability was fairly involved. We had to always have some help in the house, - she needed an attendant full time. And we did travel a fair bit. We went to Switzerland together, over to London, England at least once, on three Caribbean cruises, and we did a lot of travelling in Canada.

RC - How long were you together?
BH - We were married in ’52, and she died in ’83. About 31 years. She had a very good life and she was a good motivator. Her mood was such that she inspired not only myself but other people around her too.

We had no family, mainly because she couldn’t probably have physically been able to handle pregnancy, but we did have dogs, and we really enjoyed them.

RC - At this point in your life, you do have family ...
BH - That’s right. I thought perhaps I wasn’t going to have that opportunity, but after Janet died, another year later I saw fit to get married, and to my surprise Elizabeth and I know have three children.

RC - Is it a blended family, or are they all from you and Elizabeth?
BH - Oh, they’re all ours. Elizabeth is quite a bit younger than I am. of course. She worked in my office in Ottawa for a while before we got married, but she comes from this neighbourhood. Her father’s a dairy farmer. When we got married she knew what she was getting into, because she worked in the office.

RC - In terms of your role as a country doctor, and your evolution into the hard and fast world of becoming a politician, it strikes me that must make for a very interesting blend of lifestyles ...
BH - Well, it is and it isn’t. I used to think I worked pretty hard as a physician. It always used to be 55 or 60 hours a week as a physician, but in this job it gets up to be 80 or 90 when the House is sitting. You have to be prepared to sacrifice a lot of your own personal time for either job, but it’s certainly worse in politics.

But the interesting thing is, I’m convinced that success in both fields requires the acquisition of a similar skill, and that is the skill to listen. Because in both spheres of activity, the person you’re dealing with feels better after talking to you. The patient feels better when he’s told you something that is bothering him and he’s able to share some of that burden with the physician. And likewise in politics. So many people, once they’ve talked to you, feel somewhat better - as long as you’ve listened. You may not be able to help them, or do what they would like to have done, and they perhaps understand that, but you’ve listened to them, and they feel they’ve shared the thought. So there’s a similarity in the two.

I didn’t switch to politics because i was disenchanted with medicine - I really enjoyed it. It was just that it was a new offer. And it was surprising because, you know, I finished my high school in Ottawa at Lisgar, which is only about six blocks from the Hill, and I used to go down to the Hill and sit in the Commons. I never enjoyed going to the movie theatre. I’d listen to the debates and I thought, "Gee, wouldn’t it be wonderful to be a Member of Parliament?" But I never pursued it. I didn’t belong to a party. I was interested in the goings on in the political realm, but I didn’t choose to become personally involved, other than to vote. I ended up voting as a student; I had that feeling of idealism, I voted for the CCF for a number of years, and then I switched over to the Liberals, and then I switched over to the Conservatives - before I was elected.

When our member here died in December, 1973, I’d only barely met him. In 1974, one of my patients who was in to see me said, "Bruce, why don’t you run in the place of Wally Nesbitt?" and I thought, "She must be joking!" I didn’t know her to be interested in politics and I hadn’t shown any interest, and I really thought she was joking. And that was followed up a few months later by a visit from a couple of leading politicians in the area who were interested in having me run for the nomination. I said, "Well I know nothing about it. Do you think I can be successful? I don’t mind trying if it’s not going to cost me too much."

RC - And of course it hasn’t cost you too much over the years?!
BH - Well, it has cost me a lot of time. But the benefits in many ways are huge. The one problem with being a busy family physician is you have little time to other things. I used to play some golf before I graduated in medicine; I could count on one hand the number of times I’ve played golf since.

RC - You know our paths have crossed so often, mostly at conferences or committees, related to disability issues, and I’m getting a flavour of you being somebody with many areas requiring your attention and time.
BH - In disability you mean?

RC - No, I mean as a member of Parliament. In terms of the diversity of issues that you have to contend with all the time.
BH - Well, you do have a diversity locally of course, but I’ve been most fascinated by the issue of world population. That’s my big hobby-horse internationally, and I chair the board of what’s called the Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population Development. It consists of a fascinating group of people around the world who are concerned about what I think is the biggest issue in the world today, and that’s population growth. And it’s far more significant than any of these environmental things we’re hearing about, because it’s the thing that makes the environmental problems worse.

The two mechanisms we have to improve and slow down population growth are education, particularly education of women, and secondly, health care. And in about a dozen or two developing countries, particularly Africa and Latin America, the per capita expenditure on those two areas, education and health care, is going down. So you can imagine what’s happening to the population. It’s devastating. Yet we can’t get the major countries to acknowledge it. The government will go down and speak to the UN and talk about 14 or 15 different issues, and won’t even mention population. It bother me.

RC - In terms of disability issues, for those who may not be in the
know, what is the general role of the Standing Committee?
BH - I give the last two Prime Ministers - the current Prime Minister and Mr. Trudeau - a lot of credit, as well as Joe Clark. When Joe Clark was prime minister, he agreed to set up our committee as a special committee. It was all ready to go, in fact people were named to it. Walter Dinsdale was going to be the key person on it, and I was going to be from the government side ...Well then the government collapsed on a budget issue. Mr. Trudeau saw the wisdom of maintaining the notion of having that special committee do a study of disability in Canada, and so he re-appointed the committee and we had a couple of years, as you know, of working on what came out to be the Obstacles Report.

It was a special committee, under the rules of the House of Commons, it should have disbanded as soon as it reported. Any special committee dies when it reports. We asked to be allowed to carry on under some mechanism, and Mr. Trudeau agreed to that.

Then when the government changed, Mr. Mulroney agreed to see us carry on. In fact, he allowed us then, at our request, to become a standing committee. So we became, as you know, the Standing Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons only - there was no Human Rights component at that time. When we were given that status, we were given, as all committees are, terms of reference, and our terms of reference were somewhat different than virtually any other committee. There were four things we were given the right to do: propose, promote, evaluate and monitor. No other committee has that mandate, and as a result we were able to be innovative and do things under the fact that our terms of reference were special.

We collaborated with the Speaker of the House, which very few committees have done. We held special events: two parliamentary forums with the Speaker; we’ve also held the National Access Awareness Weeks in conjunction with him; we produced the Obstacles Report that was a complete innovation as far as the style of the report was concerned. Now we’re toying around with the idea of having a report on the last parliamentary forum not only in the traditional print form but also in a video form as well, which has never been done by a parliamentary committee either.

So we have been an innovative committee. I think we’ve been able to do that because we were given terms of reference other committees weren’t given, and we have used that to our advantage and to the advantage of persons with disabilities.

RC - Regarding the dual mandate, human rights and disability, how do you see those two areas fitting in with each other? Is there ever any competitiveness in vying around issues - you know, I mean, too much human rights at the cost of disability or visa versa?
BH - It’s a good question you’ve raised, because we are known as the Standing Committee on both Human Rights and Status of Disabled Persons. We assumed from the beginning that we were responsible for human rights not only in Canada, but around the world. That becomes a very onerous and big topic - so when we realized what we were being faced with and the pressures we were being given for dealing with human rights issues in Indonesia or Bangladesh or Guyana or wherever, those of us who had a basic and prior interest in disability felt we couldn’t really cope with both. So, with the agreement of the House leaders and the whips and with the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs, there was a complete agreement to switch the international human rights issues over to the Standing Committee on External Affairs, and they developed their own subcommittee on human rights.

So we have maintained the human rights issues of domestic nature here in Canada. And after all, what people with disabilities are lacking is largely recognition of what are their human rights. So when we’re dealing with disability issues, in a sense we’re dealing with human rights issues as well.

RC - What’s your assessment of Canada’s record during the UN Decade on Disability?
BH - I think we’ve done remarkably well in those ten years in Canada. There’s still a lot to be done, and anybody who listens to some of the shortcomings that we have regarding how we handle disability issues will realize that, but I think it’s fair to say that we’re the only country in the world that has a standing committee on disability, which is something we’re very proud of. Also, we have had these parliamentary forums where we’ve involved the Speaker of the House and we’ve involved the business community, the communications industry in the country, the media, we’ve involved Members of Parliament, and we’ve involved the speakers of the legislature in the past. We’ve had the National Access Awareness Weeks that have served as to highlight the importance of disability in the various communities all across the country. There’ve been a lot of advances in one way or another, culminating in a sense with the recent National Strategy, which was announced just one year ago, where a little over 150 million dollars over 5 or 6 years is going into about 10 different departments, each having some responsibilities that relate to disabilities.

Something else we’ve achieved is that we are now at the point where government departments, when they come up with a new programme, are beginning to ask themselves, "What does this programme have to do to be of use to persons with disabilities?" That used to be an add-on or an afterthought, coming after we realized it wasn’t a satisfactory programme for people with disabilities. Now they’re looking at such issues in advance.

RC - Do you have any off the cuff impressions as to the kinds of things that remain to be done, and how they should be pursued?
BH - Well, I think virtually all of these areas do need further pursuit. For example, in transportation there is still the need to make our aircraft more accessible to those who have mobility difficulties. It’s improving, and the committee has to keep on nudging the various responsible partners to do more. The Canadian Transportation Agency just completed hearings on that very subject. So there is an awareness in the Canadian community of what has to be done in these areas.

The committee, as you know, has embarked on an overall study of the economic integration of people with disabilities into the community, into society, and we wouldn’t be studying that if there wasn’t more to be done there. And that involves a lot of work in the area of education and training. A very small percent of people with disabilities are actually gainfully employed, but a large percent of them could be if they were given the proper education and the proper training. And then if they’re provided with adequate transportation to and from work and housing accommodation that allows them to be independent, then instead of receiving welfare payments, they can become taxpaying citizens. It’s remarkable how that can happen. We can save money from the public treasury by spending a little bit, and not only does it integrate people with disabilities into the community, but it gives them a sense of well being and a sense of pride in themselves that they may not have now. So there’s the human dimension and there’s also the economic dimension that we stand to gain from if we embark on these things.

RC - So you see that as being the future function of the Standing Committee, addressing those issues as well?
BH - That’s right.

RC - You mentioned Aboriginal people earlier...
BH - Yes, I served on a special committee recently on employment equity. When they signed the Employment Equity Bill, it became very obvious that if you wanted to identify one group of people - native women who have disabilities - they are in "triple jeopardy". They are women, they have disabilities and they are native persons. Our committee, ten years ago or so, travelled and visited a number of native reserves right across the country and were impressed by the difficulties that people with disabilities have had in those communities.

It’s changing and we’re now beginning to see chiefs come forward who want to do something for people with disabilities. But it’s partly because our committee and the secretariat people like Skip Brooks have helped to motivate those people with disabilities on some of theses reserves who are able to get fired up and do something about it themselves. And that’s when you get things done.

RC - In light of the international meeting in Montreal and the subsequent UN debate, what role do you perceive for Canada at the international level?
BH - I think our minister, Mr. de Cotret, was very pleased with the response he got from around the world, with the attendance of some 78 ministers and/or their senior officials responsible for disability. And I think they were convinced that there was room in our international scene for something more than what the UN has been doing at the present time through their office in Vienna. There is an office there; I haven’t got a lot of personal experience in that, but I’m told that it’s been less than completely successful in being able to make a lot of achievements, so that the minister was wondering whether he couldn’t get more interest aroused by having some other mechanism that would bring people from around the world to talk about disability at the parliamentary level, at the senior government level.

I think Montreal served a purpose. There were people who came away from that meeting very impressed by what went on there, a day or so of discussions that were very useful. They moved from there to New York City to the UN - I had the chance of being there as well - and many people who spoke at the UN commented on the value to them of that meeting in Montreal.

I would hope that something will come of it. Of course a committee is about to be formed of representatives from that Montreal meeting who will be charged with the responsibility of coming up with some ideas for the future, how we might function in the international realm.

RC - That sounds like it could be fairly exciting: the impact, the process...
BH - Oh yes! I think the minister would be more than proud and more than willing to allow Canada to have a leadership role in that kind of an organization if that met with the agreement of his colleagues around the world. So I think that’s what we might be looking at.

RC - From what I understand you’re now making plans to step down from public service...
BH - Well, as we’ve discussed, I’ve got a young family, and I’ve had over 18 years now as a Member of Parliament. The average life of an MP is between five and a half and six years, so I’m well beyond triple the time. I’m past the normal retirement age as well, so there are several reasons.

I have certain regrets about it because I enjoy particularly this work on disability issues. I enjoy the constituency work, working with people, but I also enjoy the international work in the population field. But there’s no reason I can’t have some involvement on the periphery even though I’m not an acting MP. I can still get involved one way or another.

RC - Will your affiliation with the Standing Committee terminate at that point, or will you carry on with that?

BH - Automatically you’re no longer on the Standing Committee if you’re not an MP.

RC - Will you stay with the committee until that time?
BH - I hope so. The whips are the ones that finally decide who’s on a committee. I would like to stay on the committee as long as I can.

RC - Do you have any words of advice for consumers and community leaders regarding real progress on disability issues in the future?
BH - I guess from a purely crass economic point of view, we have to get the message across that Canada will be better off economically the more we are able to involve people with disabilities in everyday living in the community. And that involves working and being gainfully employed. I think there are still too many instances where the old attitude, that a person who has a disability can’t really do the job, still prevails. So, I think we have to continue with that Access Awareness Week idea we have whereby we educate Canadians on the importance of preparing people with disabilities for employment. It’s good for the people and it’s also good for the country economically.

RC - How should consumers and community leaders around disability issues approach legislation -- all the Omnibus legislation, for example? It seems to me that in the past, you’ve had people who were either collaborative or confrontative in nature; everybody seemed to be very much invested in their own agendas, and I guess that’s the human condition. And I can’t help but feel that some kinds of approaches to the committee are more constructive than others.
BH - You’re very right. We on the Standing Committee are human like everybody else is. I remember when I was practising medicine, a senior anaesthetist at my hospital told me that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. And I never forgot that little expression because it applies in the House of Commons at committee hearings, where if somebody comes in and is too antagonistic to us, or too venomous, or too argumentative, it tends to put you off a little. It’s perhaps a weakness on our part as well, but human beings do react that way. We do get a variety of witnesses, some of whom are more militant than others. We are more inclined to move things ahead if we feel we’re working together.

You mentioned the Omnibus Bill. That’s a good example of a bill where you took half a dozen pre-existing laws that were incomplete; they were drafted in the days when nobody really gave to much thinking to disability issues, and they were inadequate in recognizing the needs of people with disabilities.

More and more, we’re seeing bills come into the House of Commons for debate where there is advance consideration being given to the needs and wishes of people with disabilities -- and we’re going to see more of that...advance consideration.