Human Resources Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2018

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Minister.

Obviously, your passion for improving the lives of people with disabilities is coming through in your answers. That relates to my next question, on discussion around the need for timelines within the proposed legislation. Could you expand on why they were not included?

[Carla Qualtrough]

That's been an ongoing—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

What would be the logistical issues about attaching them to the legislation?

[Carla Qualtrough]

There are two aspects to the conversation around timeline. There's setting a date in this bill by which accessibility will be achieved. Then there's also setting timelines within the standards themselves. Some jurisdictions go for rolling timelines. They will establish the employment standard within five years and it will then apply two years later. It will establish a service standard within six years and it will apply four years later. It's whatever that is.

It is very difficult to predict how long it will take to establish a standard and very, I would say, risky to suggest that we know exactly when accessibility will be achieved given that the standards are always going to be changing. What is accessible today will not be accepted as a standard five years from now, or 10 years from now. We know that. The curb cut example is a good example.

We also want people to get moving on this now. We don't want to say that we are going to have an accessible Canada by 2025 or 2030, and then people sit back and say, “Okay, I have time.” We need to do this now. It's like giving people a reason to wait instead of requiring people to do something now. I think that's really important. I also personally believe that we would not put in the Criminal Code that Canada is going to be crime-free by a certain date. We wouldn't put in the Human Rights Act that Canada is going to be discrimination-free by a certain date. We need it now. The bill has to say people deserve a barrier-free Canada today, and this are all the steps we need to take to get there. We know it isn't going to happen today, but to set a timeline at the other end just seems antithetical to what we are asking federally regulated entities to do.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

What's the intention of your statement, “progressive realization”?

[Carla Qualtrough]

It speaks very clearly to the idea I was just talking about. It's enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It's the notion that accessibility changes as a concept, so what is acceptable today will not be acceptable in 10 years. The standards will change and we will expect more of people as our thinking evolves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Barlow, go ahead, please.

[John Barlow, Foothills, CPC]

Thanks, Minister, for appearing in front of the committee.

There seems to be some misunderstanding or misconception about this bill. You're saying we don't want to set these standards, we don't want to put a timeline and we don't know when these things are going to be done, but we want to get going now.

You talked about the Criminal Code. Yes, we don't want to say we are crime-free by 2030, but in the Criminal Code there are certainly some regulations and standards and pathways on how to reach that goal, whether or not we can actually reach it. You said there are some standards, visitable housing in Manitoba, at the University of Alberta, where they're doing some groundbreaking work on accessibility. There are some standards that you said are available right out of the gate. So those standards that are leading edge, why are they not in this legislation at all?

[Carla Qualtrough]

Sorry, to clarify, do you mean the technical details of the standards themselves in the legislation?

[John Barlow]

That's correct.

[Carla Qualtrough]

It's for the same reason I articulated earlier, that we did not want to get into a situation where... Do you mean in the body of the law or as a prepared regulation to be adopted immediately?

[John Barlow]

There's nothing in the bill in terms of a pathway or specifics on how you're going to achieve removing some of these barriers, making things more accessible. You've talked about it through this entire presentation today, that we don't have anything ready. Why aren't some of these standards that are already set...? As you said, there are some standards that we can enact from day one, so why are they not part of this legislation?

[Carla Qualtrough]

I would suggest that the law actually lays out a very clear pathway to how we're going to get there, by setting up a standards organization: how that's going to be set up, what they're going to do to develop the standards, the priority areas that we heard through the consultations, whether it's employment or service. This is not a complete list, obviously. These are the six things we heard about the most in the consultations. There will absolutely be opportunities.

Remember, this is enabling legislation that sets up this framework and this system, and a lot of work has been done already that we can build upon or adopt, depending on the circumstance and the appropriateness of doing that. I'm very confident that this law sets out a very clear path to how we're going to get there.

[John Barlow]

Thanks.

None of this has been costed in the bill, in terms of what the impact will be on private sector businesses that are federally regulated. Has there been a cost analysis on what the impact will be on some of those private sector businesses that are federally regulated? Has that been done as part of this consultation and analysis?

[Carla Qualtrough]

Well, we absolutely know the cost of not doing anything, and I would suggest that you wouldn't be suggesting that there's a cost that's too high to be inclusive.

What we know is that through the regulatory process, as a matter of course, everything will be costed out. I'm sorry, I can't remember the term but there's an economic impact part of the process.

James, can you help me out with the process?

[James Van Raalte, Director General, Accessibility Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development]

It's a RIAS, a regulatory impact assessment statement.

[Carla Qualtrough]

So every time one of these standards goes through the regulatory process, which, I'll remind you, is very public and is a chance for people to provide input on the standards, there will be a clear understanding of the costs of the implementation of that standard.

[John Barlow]

So none of that has been done as of yet.

You talk about the fact that this legislation is going to have immediate impact on Canadians with disabilities, and I do give you credit for talking in your speech in the House about the disability tax credit. You said it was a game-changer for Canadians, and I appreciate that, but my colleague from Carleton put forward the opportunities for a workers disability act, which would have ensured that Canadians with disabilities—the harder they work, the more they earn—wouldn't be impacted by taxes and clawbacks, but you and your government voted against that bill. That bill would have had an immediate impact for Canadians with disabilities to ensure that what they were earning was going back into their pockets.

That would have had an immediate impact, so why not support a bill like that, which wouldn't have taken six years to have the effect but would have happened immediately? Why not support a legislation of that kind as well?

[Carla Qualtrough]

Like your colleague—he and I have had great conversations about this—I absolutely believe that there are programs, particularly across the provinces and territories, that create disincentive to employment, because after a certain threshold, every dollar you make will be clawed back from the benefits, and literally some people cannot take the risk of losing their benefits by taking a job. We need to correct that disincentive.

Quite frankly, while seemingly clever, the idea of using the finance and tax system to incentivize provinces to change their programs and services around what benefits are available to Canadians with disabilities within their jurisdiction was beyond the reach of federal jurisdiction. This was a matter of federalism. I had this long conversation with your colleague, but as a goal, I absolutely share it.

[John Barlow]

With regard to the number you were citing today, the 1.3% to GDP as Canada is more accessible—the $20 billion to $30 billion a year—how did you come up with that number?

[Carla Qualtrough]

That was work done by The Conference Board of Canada.

Maybe James can give more details about it, at some point.

[James Van Raalte]

We can share that with the committee.

[Carla Qualtrough]

It was really groundbreaking work.

[John Barlow]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Mr. Ruimy, please.