Human Resources Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2018

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In terms of enforcement, besides the idea that the disability community is going to look on a website and engage in making businesses enforce an accessibility plan, what about enforcement from the accessibility commissioner? What about those powers? Right now, we see that it's fragmented among different entities and the CRTC and the CTA implementation and enforcement are splintered.

Do you think there's an opportunity for us to consolidate this better so that it's not just dependent on this idea that it will be citizen engagement that does the enforcement? Right now, you have to post an accessibility plan, but, when you read the language, it doesn't have to be implemented. You have to have a plan and you have to make it public, but you don't have to implement it. I'm wondering if you see opportunities for us to concentrate on consolidating enforcement in one place where we could be doing that. Right now there are four different places that you do implementation and enforcement. For a disability community, that's really impractical.

[James Van Raalte]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask my colleague, Mr. Lapalme, to address the question.

[Erik Lapalme]

In terms of enforcement, yes, there is that public accountability for the plans and progress reports. There is that requirement to prepare and publish those progress reports. Part of those reports is the entity talking about how it is implementing its plan.

There is the public aspect, but also there is the accessibility commissioner for the entities that are within its jurisdiction, and the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for the organizations that are within their jurisdiction. They'd have to be notified of the publication of those plans and reports, as well as the fact that the organization has implemented its requirement to establish a feedback process. In fact, they can enforce those requirements. It is within their enforcement powers to ensure that the organizations that have those requirements have published their plans, have consulted with persons with disabilities, and have made them available to persons with disabilities in alternate formats, for example.

As Mr. Van Raalte mentioned, there is also the possibility to work with entities to ensure that their plans and reports are meeting requirements and that they could be made better or made stronger.

Of course, more broadly, in terms of meeting the requirements under regulations in standards that have been adopted into regulations, that's where the accessibility commissioner, the Canadian Transportation Agency and the CRTC have their broad enforcement powers to ensure organizations are, in fact, meeting their requirements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now we go over to MP Long for six minutes.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you for coming in this morning.

I don't think there's any question that C-81 is going to open up opportunities and break down barriers for people with disabilities.

I do have a few questions for you this morning. How does this legislation compare to accessibility legislation in other jurisdictions, provincially and internationally?

[James Van Raalte]

I am pleased to respond to this question, because I think it speaks to quite a bit of work the public service has undertaken, also in consultation with the disability community across the country and internationally.

I think it's important to give credit where credit is due in terms of some of the provincial leadership that has been undertaken over the past decade—namely Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia—and that has allowed us to build on that foundation.

There's quite a bit of similarity between C-81 and what it sets out to do and the legislative frameworks within those three jurisdictions I mention, in four areas in particular: the development and enforcement of standards; the concept of the accessibility plans; issues related to compliance; and then review mechanisms, again at the end to make sure the legislation is meeting its needs.

I am referencing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which was passed in 2005; the Accessibility for Manitobans Act, which was passed in 2013; and most recently, the Accessibility Act in Nova Scotia in 2017.

From a standards development perspective, it varies somewhat amongst how the provincial accessibility laws generally provide for the creation of standards through standard development committees and/or an accessibility advisory board that may create committees to develop standards.

By contrast, C-81 proposes CASDO as that arm's-length independent standards-setting process and the technical committee piece. I'm happy to answer questions about CASDO and its ability to set model standards.

From an accessibility plan perspective—again, similar to provincial laws—C-81 sets out that planning and reporting requirement. One of the big differences, however, is including persons with disabilities in that process in terms of, as well, having a feedback mechanism.

Provincial accessibility laws and Bill C-81 all include provisions to ensure compliance, including provisions for inspections, compliance orders and administrative monetary penalties. In the provinces, these are undertaken by designated directors and inspectors. These individuals are housed within the government departments responsible for administering the act, whereas Bill C-81 establishes unique remedies in relation to the contravention of accessibility requirements that result in harm.

Finally, in terms of that review process, similar to provincial accessibility acts Bill C-81 provides for periodic reviews of the provision and operation of the act, to make sure the act is—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

You've mentioned provincial jurisdiction, but what about international?

[James Van Raalte]

The closest model is within the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of course, the federated model within the United States and the powers of the federal government vis-à-vis the states are very different from what we have in Canada.

In terms of looking at setting up the CASDO, we did look at the American access board. In fact, Minister Qualtrough travelled to Washington, D.C. almost two years ago and spoke with representatives from that organization in terms of feeding into and informing the legislation.

Beyond that, we looked at the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. This legislation goes far beyond what those jurisdictions are doing.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I want to home in a bit on enforceability. We've heard concerns about the enforceability of the standards and regulations created under the framework established by the bill. Can you speak more to enforceability mechanisms? How are you going to enforce this?

[James Van Raalte]

I'm going to turn that over to my colleague Mr. Lapalme.

[Erik Lapalme]

As I mentioned, there are the three main enforcement bodies under the bill: the accessibility commissioner, the Canadian Transportation Agency and the CRTC. In terms of the proposed accessible Canada act itself, the main body set out there is the accessibility commissioner. The Canadian Transportation Agency has a broadened mandate and increased powers and responsibilities through amendments that are proposed to the Canada Transportation Act. The accessibility commissioner would have a broad range of powers. These are set out in terms of inspections, production orders—a paper-based audit that could request documents—compliance orders to stop an activity and notices of violation. These can be a warning: Something is not good and you're getting a warning, but it should be fixed. It can also be a notice of violation that has an administrative monetary penalty associated with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Sorry, I have to cut you off.

MP Hogg might give you a few minutes to follow up.

[Gordie Hogg]

You can finish.

[Erik Lapalme]

Thanks.

These mechanisms are part of what is called the “proactive compliance enforcement”. This is the accessibility commissioner proactively going out and ensuring, verifying, compliance with regulatory requirements. Then there's also a remedies process available to individuals. Individuals who have experienced harm as a result of the contravention of regulated standards would be able to file a complaint with the accessibility commissioner, and then the commissioner would potentially launch an investigation. If the complaint is substantiated, then the commissioner has a wide variety of remedies available that he or she could order. They include compensation for pain and suffering, amounts for lost wages, and additional amounts if a practice was the result of a wilful or reckless practice. There are some maximum amounts set out in the legislation for pain and suffering compensation and for wilful and reckless practice, but there are also provisions to ensure that these amounts change over time to account for inflation. There is this proactive side and there is the reactive side to help remedy individual situations of harm.

[Gordie Hogg]

Thank you.

Looking at the preamble and the purpose with respect to the legislation, I see there are values and principles that we would all in a free, positive and progressive democratic society support. I look particularly at the reference made that Canada, being a state party to the United Nations convention, “has agreed to take appropriate measures respecting accessibility and to develop and monitor minimum accessibility standards”. A little further on it's referred more effectively to the vision or the mission statement, which says:

...Parliament considers that it is essential to ensure the economic, social and civic participation of all Canadians, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, and to allow them to fully exercise their rights and responsibilities in a barrier-free Canada;

It's talking about right across Canada.

Yet when we look at this, we see the bill will only affect organizations within federal jurisdictions, including the federal government and federally regulated industries. As a federal government, how do we envision taking this set of principles and values and being able to ensure that we can, I don't know if “inculcate” is the word, but make that a principle, a vision, a statement that is going to be taken on by provinces, local governments, society, all of those things that are not contained within the regulatory provisions of this legislation?

If we're wanting to really change the intent and wanting to really change our country in a positive way around this with all of the things that are laid out here, what types of levers do we have? We often talk about the federal government wanting to use different methods to encourage or incentivize provinces and local governments to be more actively engaged. What do you see as the disconnect? How do we deal with that disconnect between that great set of values and principles and the application of those?

[James Van Raalte]

I'm happy to answer this. It's a fundamental question of culture change. The minister speaks of this frequently. I think there are three levers, if I can use those words. One of them is quite formal and then two are more on the informal side.

On the formal side, Bill C-81, again, contemplates the creation of CASDO. The independence of CASDO is very important in terms of its ability to establish model standards that any organization can use. From an ideal perspective, the minister can ask CASDO to establish standards, but other organizations can work with CASDO to establish model standards as well. A province, a municipality or an international organization can approach CASDO and ask it to develop a model standard on—let's pick open spaces, not the built environment, but parks and recreational areas. They could say, we want a model standard, and we want you to form a technical committee. Could you do that for us? CASDO has that ability under the proposed legislation to do that.

Model standards, once they're developed, as I said, can be used by any organization. Having that independence and that model standard means that any jurisdiction, province, territory or municipality can use that model standard to have that coherent approach across Canada.

On the informal side, there is the regular ongoing conversation at a political and officials' level with our provincial and territorial counterparts. For the past two years, as an example, I've been co-chair with my Ontario and Saskatchewan colleagues of an open forum on accessibility, to set the groundwork for a more formal consultation with the provinces and territories, should Bill C-81 be adopted.

How are we going to work together in terms of accessibility coherence across jurisdictions? As I indicated, there is the leadership from Ontario, Nova Scotia and Manitoba. Also active at the table, I would say, are Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia with lots of interest in what we're doing and how we're going to work together. I know the minister has had a number of occasions to talk to her provincial and territorial counterparts going forward.

The final informal piece is behaviour change. That is the conversation about how you can do better and how you can take it to the next level. The legislation is just one part of that conversation change. It's a lever to ensure that organizations are talking about accessibility. I think the minister, especially in her business case for why it makes sense to hire persons with disabilities, is also a big, important part of that conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Now for six minutes, we will hear from MP Diotte.

[Kerry Diotte, Edmonton Griesbach, CPC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just want to go back. We know that this bill will apply to federal government and federally regulated agencies. We also heard that implementing it could result in up to a $38 billion per year benefit. I'm just trying to understand that a bit more. It seems so huge for something that is not going to apply everywhere. Can you break it down a bit more? It's just staggering.

[James Van Raalte]

I'm happy to offer a clarification.

What the minister is talking about is a study that references employment for persons with disabilities and their inclusion in the labour market. The economic benefit to the Canadian economy is estimated at between 1.3% and 1.9% of GDP. For all of those individuals who are able to work and contribute but are now unemployed, if they were working, that's the calculation of that economic benefit.

The legislation will contribute to the employment of persons with disabilities through the development of employment standards around accessible workplaces. Part of the equation in getting persons with disabilities in, and staying in, the labour market is to ensure that hiring organizations have policies from a recruitment, retention and promotion perspective that are accessible and inclusive for persons with disabilities. It is not a one-for-one calculation. There are many other things that the government is doing in terms of supporting the employment of persons with disabilities, as well as our partners within the provinces and territories and the non-profit community.

[Kerry Diotte]

Thanks for that.

It seems to me that we're creating a lot of bureaucracy here. You have the Canadian accessibility standards development organization. You'll have an accessibility commissioner, a chief accessibility officer, and there's also talk of hiring 5,000 civil servants.

What would the civil servants be doing? It sounds like they're just going to be regulating.

[James Van Raalte]

This is an important question. I'm going to divide it in two parts.

As I said in an earlier response, the announcement about hiring 5,000 new persons with disabilities into the public service is part of the normal hiring practice as attrition occurs and hiring occurs across the Government of Canada.

Right now, the participation rate across the Government of Canada for persons with disabilities is around, I think between 4% and 5%.

[Erik Lapalme]

It's 5.6%.

[James Van Raalte]

It's 5.6%. Thank you.

When you match that against the fact that 14% of the Canadian population are persons with a disability, while we are meeting our employment equity targets, it still falls quite short of representativeness across the country.

The 5,000 additional hires over the next five years will bump that 5.6% up to somewhere between 7% and 8%.

Again, there's a lot more that can be done in terms of recruitment within the public service to make the public servants representative of persons with disabilities. I'm sure Deputy Minister Laroche will have a lot to say about that on Tuesday. It's something that is near and dear to her heart.

In terms of the new organizations that are contemplated under Bill C-81, just at a high level, I've explained that the Canadian accessibility standards development organization will have a mandate for developing standards on an ongoing basis for the government to consider from a regulatory perspective. It will also have a technical assistance mandate, in terms of being able to help organizations translate what a model standard actually means for an organization. It also has a research mandate, in terms of contemplating and getting ahead of the standards that are needed for the next generation, so that we're not in a reactive mode in standards building or standards development. We'll be looking at and leading on the next range of standards that are going to be needed.

The chief accessibility officer, as I believe I've explained, has that systemic monitoring role. The person will be required to report annually on the progress and implementation of the legislation across the system. Again, it will have that special reporting capacity, should either the minister or somebody from the outside signal that there are problems with the system.

Then finally, there is the accessibility commissioner, who will be housed within the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is intended to take advantage of the infrastructure that already exists in place within that commission, and will have the proactive compliance and enforcement as well as the complaints-handling mandate that my colleague has explained for the committee.

[Kerry Diotte]

This is all very commendable. We all want to make Canada more accessible.

But do you think it's fair to the Canadian taxpayer—you're essentially saying we should sign a blank cheque—especially when some of the people who are lower income would have accessibility issues themselves and probably earn less money. It's their taxes that are going to be impacted by this.

We have no idea what this is going to cost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Very briefly, please.