Human Resources Committee on Oct. 4th, 2018

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you.

My next question, I believe, will be for Canada Post.

I live in a rural community. I know that you mentioned this in your remarks, that services can't.... It's not a one-size-fits-all approach for different services. In many rural and remote communities, local businesses are authorized dealers for Canada Post. Will these businesses be required to comply with the accessibility standards established through Bill C-81? I'm talking about those small towns of about 400 people or fewer. Will these costs associated with complying, if there are costs to these standards, be the responsibility of the local business?

[Jessica McDonald]

In both rural and urban areas, we do partner with small businesses. I can appreciate that in rural areas these may be smaller operations. In terms of accessibility at facilities that we partner with but do not own, our contracts actually specify already that the facilities must comply with the legislation, and that the Canadian Human Rights Act and any associated CSA standard must apply. This is in our existing legislation.

We'll need to work in a very supportive way with outlets, and particularly with smaller ones, so that they understand what that means in practice. Absolutely, to answer your question, it does extend.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you.

Has there been a cost analysis done to determine the estimated costs for complying with the accessibility standards?

[Jessica McDonald]

Not yet.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Do you know when that would be expected?

[Jessica McDonald]

Well, there will be a tremendous amount of work—which was what I was trying to avoid saying, but it's true—involved in assessing all of our physical infrastructure. We have that under way. We are just beginning to look at how to dive into the entire system, from retail outlets to our transportation to our internal logistical systems and headquarters.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Is there an estimation of how long that is going to take?

[Jessica McDonald]

No, I honestly can't answer that question. I wish I could.

What I'd like to tell you is that in principle it's a huge priority for us, but it's just a tremendous amount of work, given the scale of Canada Post's operations. As I say, it's one key reason that we need a director who is able to plot out an entire road map and get timelines against it. We'll be very happy to transparently report what that work plan is and what timelines are associated with it.

The main thing I want to convey to you is what a significant priority this is for us. I'm sorry that I can't answer all the questions at this very early stage.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Sangha, you have six minutes.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions will be mostly regarding the Human Rights Commission, and either Madame Landry or Madame Daye can answer my questions.

As chair of the Human Rights Commission, the human rights organization involved in accessibility issues, you are already dealing with complaints from persons with disabilities. I think more than 60% of complaints come to you regarding disabled parties. In dealing with those complaints, you are not able to give them full relief, because some of the accessibility standards were not met and you are not able to provide better results.

Do you think now with the implementation of Bill C-81 that you will perform those duties better and be able to give better progress reports? Will accessibility standards be better met than before?

[Marie-Claude Landry]

I think it's complementary. We have the complaint process, and it has addressed some problems, but the thing with the bill is it's proactive. It's going to bring forward a completely different way to address systemic situations of accessibility or lack of accessibility. For me, the fact that it's under the Canadian Human Rights Commission and act will give us a broader and larger set of tools to address accessibility.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Ms. Daye, do you want to add something?

[Marcella Daye]

I can give more details and perhaps a story.

The way the system works now is that people who have been discriminated against have to file complaints and then get individual remedies. That is the only complaint process that exists right now. If 100 people fail to get into a building, 99 will leave and one might have the wherewithal to file a complaint and get a resolution. Sometimes those resolutions result in systemic changes, but sometimes they are individual remedies.

What this act will do is give us two new tools. Number one, it will require organizations to change things, so that hopefully 100 people can get into that building and there is no need for a complaint. The requirements for compliance have teeth, and that goes back to the inspection powers. We can inspect, and we can make judgements on whether someone is meeting a standard or not. If they are not, they can be found in violation, and they can face large fines if they are in violation. It is an encouragement to do better.

The new system also creates a complaint process. Let's say somebody, maybe that 99th or 100th person, tries to get in, but they still can't get in. What they discover is that the organization has not implemented the standard. In the new system, there's only one type of complaint, and that's a complaint over a standard not being implemented. The resolution of that complaint is to implement the standard and remedy the harm.

It gives us two robust new tools to identify and address issues. It places less of a burden on those 99 people who couldn't get in and less of a burden on the one person who had to shoulder the complaint under the act.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

When we talk about development and implementation of accessibility standards, I have already heard here that you try to have consultations and that you get better information from the general public. Do you think Bill C-81 will provide better provisions for bringing the regulatory changes, or is it better to get it from the general public?

[Marcella Daye]

I would say this bill has excellent provisions. These provisions require every regulated entity to consult with both their employees with disabilities and members of the public. They must consult as they develop their accessibility plans, as they develop their feedback mechanisms, and as they issue their progress reports. This means that somebody doesn't even have to try to get into the building in order to discover there's a problem; they can be part of an accessible advisory council and help identify the problems at the front end.

The role of persons with disabilities is seen now as more of providing an expert body to assist in developing good regulations. In fact, the requirement for CASDO to include people with disabilities as half of the members will help ensure that standards and regulations are created with those persons with disabilities and their lived experience baked right in. These are very strong developments that will help the system.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

That means that the battle to have the consultation from the public and standards laid down by the section—both of them will help.

[Marcella Daye]

I'm sorry; I don't think I understood—

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

The standards that are going to be laid down in Bill C-81 and information that you get from the public will both be helpful for making improvements.

[Marcella Daye]

Both will be helpful, and both will be built with the voices of persons with disabilities built right in. It gives effect to the mantra in the United Nations convention on persons with disabilities, “nothing about us without us”.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Diotte, you have five minutes, please.

[Kerry Diotte, Edmonton Griesbach, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the people at the committee here today.

This is for Ms. Laroche. You're talking about hiring basically 5,000 people with disabilities. Will there be an attempt to have a balance of disabilities? In other words, I mean people with visual impairment, mental disabilities, mobility disabilities and maybe episodic disabilities. Will that attempt be made?

[Yazmine Laroche]

Thank you so much for the question.

I'll start off with a general comment, and then ask my colleague Carl to provide a bit more detail.

Certainly there's no intention, as we're developing the strategy to bring in 5,000 new employees, to focus on any one group. The idea is to attract many great potential public servants with disabilities without focusing on any one area.

One of the challenges to doing that, and it's something that our colleagues at the Public Service Commission are working on, is how to make sure that your actual recruitment tools—going out to search for people—are as accessible as possible for people suffering from a range of different disabilities.

Carl, I don't know if you have any other details you want to give on the 5,000.

[Carl Trottier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance, Planning and Policy Sector, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

I don't have a whole lot, but I have a few points.

There should be no distinction made in terms of who it is that is being recruited. It's a broad effort to try to attract 5,000 new employees with disabilities between now and 2025.

This is embryonic work right now. We are working with the Public Service Commission on devising how we're going to go about attracting approximately 1,000 persons per year.

It's a bit early to give the details of how the approach is going to be, but there's definitely no intent to have distinctions made among the disabilities.