Human Resources Committee on Oct. 18th, 2018

[Prof. Michael Prince]

The remarks about the employment equity plan are a really important reminder of what we already have within Canada at the national level, and similarly with the court challenges program, connected with the Charter of Rights. When the charter was brought in, there was a debate. There was the famous “Obstacles” report of 1980-81, looking at disability. The debate then was whether we should bring in something like the Americans with Disabilities Act, which didn't follow until later. There was rehabilitation legislation in the United States and people thought that since we had the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act, we didn't need it. We also have the Employment Equity Act.

Here we are a generation later and we're bringing in a bill to address this, which tells us something about the need.

Canada will be catching up, to put it politely, to Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Ireland and several European countries that have various forms of disability rights or accessibility laws. The United States has perhaps invested the most heavily, but again, different federations have different social and political contexts, and we need to make sure this works for our context and our experiences.

We do need to hit the road running. I sense that desire by the minister herself, but you're right; without presuming how Parliament may eventually land on what this bill looks like, I would hope there are plans afoot for implementation, such as advisory committees, the creation of a design organization or variations thereof.

The chief accessibility officer.... I actually think the names are backwards. The person who I think should be responsible for the administration, enforcement and compliance should be called the officer. The person who should be about the culture change should be the commissioner. The titles are a bit confusing.

What the disability community has called on for a long time is a commissioner who would be like the Auditor General; an officer of Parliament who would play that cultural role and engage from day one on education, information and raising public awareness in plain language and in a variety of alternative formats. That could be something to start from day one. You could announce the person who represents a new beginning, and with that person there's an array of other organizations and legislation that already exists. You could say that this is a journey we're about to start on and here are the timelines.

I said it was aspirational and I still believe that. I get what you just said, but we need incremental and phased ones too at year three, five, seven, 10, 12, or whichever, for accountability.

What's currently called the chief accessibility officer, I would respectfully say rename it. Change the titles to what should be the commissioner, and that should be an officer of Parliament. There's a real potential as the promoter and educator of the change in the dialogue in the country.

[Gordie Hogg]

How much more time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have literally nine seconds.

Ramesh, you're up next. I'm going to suggest that if you have time to share, maybe you could share it with Sonia.

Sonia, you don't have time for a question, I'm afraid.

MP Sangha, please.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, everyone, for coming today and giving this great input to the committee.

In Brampton Centre, I have consulted many people on these accessibility studies they were doing. Harvinder Bajwa is in a wheelchair, runs an NGO and is doing a great job.

Jeevan Bains doesn't have eyesight. She's my niece. I talked to her at length just to have first-hand knowledge. She gave me great points. She said she was happy to be part of the consultation process. She's proud of that. She is proud that her uncle is going to be part of this study with the HUMA committee. I too am really proud to be part of this committee. Her main concern was that this barrier-free Canada should be for each and every one.

Mr. Prince, you raised the issue of the amendment to clause 7 on the applicability of the act and said that it should not be limited to certain ones, that it should be for each and every part of the organizations and institutions in Canada. I was really impressed that you are giving us that information and that you want the committee to move a little more forward with that.

Please indicate to the committee how much the amendment you are seeking would help.

[Prof. Michael Prince]

The way I would answer is to say that my own university has an employment equity plan. It probably wouldn't without the federal legislation. We briefly had employment equity laws in B.C., as did Ontario, briefly. Both had governments that removed those laws.

In my opinion, we only have employment equity in my university because of the federal contractors program. We have to bid on federal dollars. We want funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and other councils.

Through the federal spending power, there's a whole host of organizations in Canada that introduced or went well beyond the constitutional limits or the formal division of powers under the Constitution and have employment equity and are committed. We've embedded it now for 30-odd years.

I think the expectation in the disability community is to see a similar approach so that we reach out, that we have these practices. The expectation is that this will build on and complement equity. Accessibility is the next part of that story of diversity, equity and inclusion.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Do you think that in the long run there may be a charter issue constitutionally? If certain people are getting the right and others are not getting the right, do you think there will be a charter issue?

[Prof. Michael Prince]

There's always a potential for charter issues.

In B.C. many years ago—Mr. Hogg will remember this—we had a court case around the right to have interpreters in hospitals. That became a charter case. That perhaps has not been as well implemented as it ought to have been, but different groups have tended it.... This has been part of the problem. Different groups, by impairments and different conditions, are going to court and litigating the rights for their particular group with their particular condition. That's very a fragmented, piecemeal, slow, tough journey to advance the rights of all Canadians who have some limitations and face barriers.

The potential of this bill, if it's designed right, is to make this a much more generic and universal approach, so that groups, families, parents and disability groups such as People First don't have to invest the very limited dollars they have on very expensive court cases to advance the rights across groups. That's what I see as troubling right now. It's the fragmentation around disability groups. There's a very understandable frustration by a lot of parents, whether it's around autism or diabetes; everyone wants a national strategy for their group and their condition. With respect, that's not the way to go.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Chair, I can share the rest of my time with Ms. Sidhu.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have 40 seconds. Go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the panellists for being here.

I'm pleased to see a sign language interpreter present at committee today. I met with hearing-impaired Canadians who told me that the United States has sign language interpretation for emergency alert broadcasts for things that happen, like natural disasters, but the same service is not offered in Canada. That is a concern.

Is that an issue raised by those with a disability?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

A very brief answer, please.

[Shelley Fletcher]

I don't represent the hearing-impaired community. However, we do sit on a committee with the folks from the hearing-impaired community. Absolutely, that is identified as an issue here in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

We will come back to Sonia in the next round.

Next is MP Diotte for six minutes, please.

[Kerry Diotte, Edmonton Griesbach, CPC]

Dr. Prince, welcome. I know you had some pretty strong words about the bill as it is now. You talked about it seeming to be a machinery-of-government bill. It should be about people. It's disturbing. Thanks for your honesty.

Can you give us some specific examples of how this bill fails people with disabilities?

[Prof. Michael Prince]

There's only so much you can push for in legislation. I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues, particularly from People First, is...and I know the minister has talked about this briefly before. Again, on day one if this is passed and gets royal assent, what I think Canadians with disabilities are looking for in the larger context is an agenda of accessibility and inclusion that would be around programming and services and investments. Those get into budgetary items, of course, and programming, which are not necessarily in Bill C-81.

There are limits to what you can do in the bill, but there are the ideas of investments in disability supports and services, whether it's for people who are deaf, hard of hearing or hearing impaired.... There are other kinds of investments in services and in labour market agreements that have been recently retooled for employment opportunities.

To really give this bill its best chance of success is in the larger context of investments in other policies and programs, many of which are provincial not federal, in fact. But where does the federal government have a role, whether it's through the enabling accessibility fund, which would be a very important way of...?

In my call for amending clause 7 and bringing in other entities, and when I talk about incentives...either some grants or contributions, or looking creatively at tax credits or tax measures that would provide incentives for employers on accessibility in a way that we haven't. We toy around with that with home modifications for seniors and people with disabilities. We've dipped into it that way, but why can't we do similar things around other incentives?

With the enabling accessibility fund and the opportunities fund, the disability tax credit, the RDSP, the registered disability savings plan, which is a fantastic public program in this country, and we're the first country in the world to bring in something like that, there's that larger context.

I might be criticizing parts of this bill. It has a lot of room for improvement. But I would also make a plea to the committee to make this a people's bill and a social policy-oriented piece of legislation, some of which could maybe be in here, but a lot of it's going to be things that parallel and complement this. This is the right committee to be doing that.

[Kerry Diotte]

To help people who don't have disabilities, what are some things in the workplace that have to change?

This question is for Dr. Prince or anybody else who might have some knowledge on that.

What has to change? We all see the accessible washrooms and wheelchair ramps, but what are other things that most able-bodied people would not even think about?

[Shelley Fletcher]

I would quickly comment on something Michael just said. The RDSP program, for example, is fantastic. Canada is very fortunate to have that.

In our world, the number of people with intellectual disabilities who have taken advantage of the RDSP program is minimal because they can't get to it. They don't understand it. Somebody with an intellectual disability walks into a bank and says, “I would like to access the RDSP.” There are a ton of issues with banks. None of that is written in a language that people with intellectual disabilities understand. Here we have a great opportunity. We can't access it.

[Kerry Diotte]

Is there anyone else?

[Shelley Fletcher]

Your question was around employment specifically.

Do you want me to stop?

[Kerry Diotte]

I just want to give Dr. Treviranus some time to comment.

[Jutta Treviranus]

One of the things I want to comment on is that we've been involved in quite a few discussions on the future of work. There is the discussion about how work will be changing, how automation and many of the new innovations that are coming about are going to be quite disruptive in work for everyone. What I would suggest is that we insert or infuse those with thoughts of accessibility and greater equity for people with disabilities.

Some of the changes that need to happen to our employment are things that will benefit everyone, but will definitely benefit individuals with disabilities. In fact, if we have the impetus of making them more accessible.... For example, our HR practices assume replaceable workers with a particular job description, as opposed to a team of workers. We try to fit the person to the job, rather than the job to the person. There are all sorts of benefits to thinking more inclusively about jobs that will improve Canada's performance with respect to the future of work and the transformation of work that will also benefit people with disabilities.

In every area where we are talking about new policies, change of policies, new innovations or changes within our practices, we should be infusing the interests of individuals with disabilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now we are going to MP Long.

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

This is for everybody on the panel.

Sometimes my Conservative friends across the aisle talk just about the concerns of the cost of Bill C-81. You know, “How much is it going to cost? Can we bear that cost?"

Should there be a cost to creating an accessible Canada?

Mr. Prince.

[Prof. Michael Prince]

Well, there are costs to everything. There are the opportunity costs of all that talent and energy that's been lost over the years of the people who haven't been able to participate.

We need to recognize that part of the reason for the perpetuation of systemic barriers and obstacles is that there are real concerns.... Legal liability is one of the reluctances around employment barriers at times. Part of it are the fixed costs of retrofitting or making facilities and services more accessible.

That's what I mean by these broader policy tools around tax measures, or the grants or contributions, for investments. We need to have a frank, honest conversation that there are costs around accommodation. There are huge benefits and opportunities, but we need to look at both and have a balanced conversation on that.

Again, that's not to hold up or delay fundamental human rights on the altar of a cost-benefit analysis that will mean a further delay and a further perpetuation of barriers to Canadians who have been left out for far too long.

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

Jutta, go ahead.