Human Resources Committee on Oct. 4th, 2018

[Kerry Diotte]

I guess that's to say that all people with all disabilities will be looked upon, including people with episodic disabilities. They're all going to be reached out to.

[Carl Trottier]

Yes.

[Kerry Diotte]

I'm assuming that there would also be a gender balance and also indigenous people and visible minorities. Is there going to be any special effort in that regard?

[Yazmine Laroche]

Thank you again for the question that you're raising.

When you look at some of the data on where disability happens, we do see a prevalence among indigenous Canadians, for example. It's really important that our outreach efforts are taking into account regional distribution and gender and of course also looking at our indigenous peoples.

[Kerry Diotte]

Thank you.

This is for Ms. McDonald from Canada Post.

I know it's very early on in the game here, but I think we most often think of barriers as being a lack of wheelchair ramps and automatic doors.

Can you paint a picture about what other possible barriers could exist throughout your 6,200 post offices?

[Jessica McDonald]

Sure. I think they could be everything from how we communicate to how we present ourselves so that if we have not thought of what someone's challenge might be, they feel welcome asking for support.

I think when you mention being accessible to wheelchairs and having doors that are able to open, you're probably referring to other very basic physical infrastructure. I think we've all come to understand and know when we see it that it is making an effort toward ensuring we are accessible to those where we can build two standards and fit out two standards that are accepted for meeting people with disabilities that we can recognize.

I think what I'm looking forward to understanding more is really the depth in society, particularly as people age, and as we become more accepting and supportive in general of non-visible disabilities so that we start to understand how we can build our own standards and how we present ourselves so there is a better service standard for accessibility.

[Kerry Diotte]

Do you have any more specifics? We all know that if somebody in a scooter comes up, the counter should be a certain height and the door should open. What other disabilities are your outlets having to deal with?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Could we have a very brief answer, please?

[Jessica McDonald]

I feel as though I may be missing your question, but I want to say it's as basic as understanding there can be a broad range of challenges that people may have that are not visible and that you can't necessarily build for or expect standards to automatically be adapted to. Rather, how we present ourselves can encourage people to tell us what their challenge is and how we can support them as a service provider.

I personally approach this by being open-minded and by understanding that we probably have less representation in our workforce than we are even aware of in terms of the people who will self-report as having challenges. The same thing is true for the society we serve.

What we need first and foremost are people with lived experience. We need as well to represent ourselves in such a way that customers will come forward so we can truly understand the adaptations and service approaches they want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Hardcastle, go ahead for three minutes, please.

[Kerry Diotte]

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

I will try to talk slowly for the interpreters, but I might have to go fast.

I want to talk about the accountability. The federal government is the largest employer. It's going to be the most affected by Bill C-81. It's the largest organization that is going to have to obey the legislation, but at the same time, the key agencies that do enforcement and oversight are going to have to report to the federal government. I see that as being problematic.

I know there are probably ways we can strengthen the bill. How can we make these agencies more independent? Instead of reporting to the federal government, should they be reporting to Parliament, or have you already anticipated this? What are the ways we can make sure these agencies are operating in an independent manner?

[Yazmine Laroche]

I'm not sure that I can answer that question. It's a really good question. I'm representing the public service as one of the entities that will be governed by the bill, so I'm not responsible for the policy decisions and what's being debated right now as the bill works its way through the legislative process as to how the machinery and mechanics of the different oversight bodies work together.

I can say from our perspective that we in the Public Service of Canada—meaning all government departments and agencies—will be required to develop multi-year accessibility plans, which are provided for in the legislation. That becomes our accountability mechanism. That sets out what each organization is going to do under each of those six pillars to make the workplace environment better for people—not just public servants, but Canadians with disabilities.

What's so interesting about those multi-year accessibility plans is that they are all in the spirit of “nothing about us without us”. Those multi-year accessibility plans aren't just going to say, “Here's what we're going to do.” They also require us to say, “How did you engage people with lived experience in designing these plans?” They also provide for a feedback mechanism on our own implementation of the plans. What I find so powerful about that is that it means that people with lived experience will be contributing not just to the design of the plans, but also to telling us how good we are at implementing them.

From the perspective of the public service as one of the entities being covered by the legislation, I'm very pleased with the way those multi-year accessibility plans were designed.

Maybe my colleagues want to talk about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Sorry, but we need to move on. Maybe there will be another opportunity.

That brings us to the end of the second round, but we probably have enough time for a microround of one question from each side. Please keep it to about two minutes, because we need to break for committee business before we rise today.

John, go ahead.

[John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. McDonald.

You were talking briefly in answer to some of the other questions about the impact this could have on some of your postal outlets. We know how important some of these rural outlets are to the rural communities. If they lose their post office, it would be a real detriment to those communities.

Clause 91 of the bill sets a maximum penalty of $250,000 with respect to violations of regulations. On Tuesday we asked the minister where the revenue from those infractions would go, and she said it would be going to government's general revenue.

Would you support an amendment that those fines would go into an enabling accessibility fund that federally regulated private sector businesses could access to help fund some of the changes they would have to make at some of their facilities to comply with the new legislation?

[Jessica McDonald]

That's a very interesting question. Thank you.

Speaking from my role at Canada Post, I would like to think that Canada Post can give support to those outlets and facilities that partner with us so that we can be successful together. As I've said, the contracts that we have are already very specific about how the dealer will fit out their equipment, furnishings, signs, etc. We understand that in rural areas, where I've lived a lot of my life as well, these can be very small, multitask outlets that don't have a lot of budget flexibility, but if we're doing our job well at Canada Post in working with those retail outlets and recognizing their circumstances, we could work successfully to support them in meeting the standards.

[John Barlow]

Do you support that amendment to have that fund available so you or some of these outlets could access it, rather than have it just go into general revenue?

[Jessica McDonald]

I don't know that I would say from Canada Post's perspective that we would need such an amendment in order to be successful with our partners.

[John Barlow]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Go ahead, Wayne.

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

Mr. Chair, thanks again.

I want to start by saying thank you to our interpreters for doing a wonderful job, as they have always done.

I want to get your opinion about board composition. I know CASDO recommends a majority of persons with disabilities on the board. We had a visitor yesterday in our office who proposed a higher percentage of people with disabilities on the board of CASDO.

Could each of you give me your opinion on how that board should be composed? Should it be 50% plus one, 70%, 100%?

[Jessica McDonald]

That is another very thoughtful question.

I do think that representation from interests and lived experience and personal background needs to show the broadest diversity possible. I'm struggling to answer your question because to put a specific number is difficult, but I think—

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

There are those who say it should be 100%—

[Jessica McDonald]

Yes, I know.

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

—but there is also a balance.