Human Resources Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2018

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Ruimy is next.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you everybody for being here.

I will say up front that I will be sharing my time with Parliamentary Secretary Young.

This thing with timelines has been going around my head. When I was listening to your testimony, Ms. Collier, it actually just clicked to me as to why we shouldn't be putting timelines in the legislation. It's because the things you're mentioning are enormous. There are so many different things that are out there that if we start to try to legislate every single piece, we won't get to where we need to go. I see this as an evolution of this whole process, because technology is changing and people are changing, and when you try to legislate that change it actually stops you from moving forward.

I don't have any question, I just needed to share that with you.

I'm going to let PS Young take over.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I think you did want to mention something or say something to Dan's comment.

[Barbara Collier]

I just want to say that I was stressing the scope of the issue of communication access, but I think it's very doable. Ninety per cent of what I am talking about is education, and I think we have the education resources that could be put in place. What we need is a standard stating that everyone needs training about how to communicate with people who communicate in different ways. It's very doable.

The other part is that developing the intermediaries for the federal courts and the communication assistance to assist people at public forums is going to take longer. That's a support service that needs to be developed, in the same way that sign language services have been developed. However, I think it's very doable, and it's not a huge cost to educate people.

Thank you for your question and for bringing that up.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much for your input.

I want to read a quote that our Minister of Accessibility Qualtrough said when she was appearing before the committee. It was about timelines, and I think it's important for us to hear what the minister was saying and why she is thinking that timelines are not necessary. She said:

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.

Given that we want to spur immediate action, do you believe that timelines will help speed up the action to get us where we need to get to?

Mr. Estey, would you like to take that on?

[Steven Estey]

Sure. I'll give it a shot.

I come from Nova Scotia, and we've just gone through the process of developing accessibility legislation in our province. When the first reading happened in Nova Scotia, there were no timelines in the legislation at all, so the disability community got up in arms about that and were concerned about the lack of any kind of timeline. The concern was that if you don't have a wall against which to backstop things, then how do you measure your progress and how do you compel people to do something without a fixed date?

We were able to get the Government of Nova Scotia to put a fixed date in the legislation. We've had some discussion about that experience federally since June 21, when the legislation was tabled without a fixed date.

What I have heard, as I think Jewelles mentioned, is the idea of not having one particular date globally, but to look at it in segments of different areas or different pieces of the legislation. It's a very complicated thing, Bill C-81, and to say that one date fits all is going to create difficulties, I think.

However, at the same time, without some kind of a firm wall-like backstop against which to measure, as a disability community, we have a concern that it's never going to come—don't worry about tomorrow because tomorrow never comes.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Isn't flexibility important? I'm not sure if—

[Steven Estey]

I'm having technological problems here.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay.

I just wanted to insert the word “flexibility” into what you're saying is necessary, and not a direct timeline.

[Steven Estey]

Sure. I think that there can be flexibility, but I do think that there needs to be some way for us to measure things, so some kinds of timelines and deadlines need to be negotiated at some point. I'm not sure exactly what that point is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We have just shy of two minutes left.

MP Finley, would you like to close this out?

[Diane Finley]

Before I submit a question, I do have a comment.

There is so much flexibility in this bill as it's written that it never has to come into force. The standard provision in any bill is a coming-into-force date. That does not exist. Even if the bill passes and gets royal assent, there is absolutely no requirement for the government to bring it into effect. That means that all the good talk here, all the good intentions, will go nowhere. I have a real problem with that.

My question is for Mr. Ghiz. Given your unique background as a legislator and also as one who is in many cases representing the private sector now, what are your reactions to the differences in requirements for government departments and federally regulated industries and interests—exemptions that apply to government departments that choose not to participate versus the private sector, or things like penalties for non-compliance?

[Robert Ghiz]

Good question.

I do want to touch a bit on timelines. I realize what the minister said, but I'll back up what Ms. Young said about flexibility. When you used to bring in legislation, if you put a specific timeline on something and you missed that timeline, you were going to be criticized and you were going to have a lot of difficulty. I think flexibility with regard to any legislation is extremely important.

Also, I want to go back and talk about making sure that the consultations and everyone involved at the table is there. I go with Mr. Estey, too, and I call it a bit of a catch-22. If you don't have a timeline, then you could say “Let's get it done right away” because otherwise it may not compel people to deal with things right away. There is a catch-22 there, but I think that if you work with the word “flexibility”, you'll find a way to get there and keep everyone at the table.

With regard to different provisions, you have to realize that uniqueness exists and that there have to be some special provisions while ensuring that everyone realizes why they're in place. I think people talked about education. It's going to be a key to that understanding.

The CRTC is responsible for certain areas. We heard from the airport folks. I think we are unique. There's not a one-size-fits-all answer. I do agree with Ms. Smith, who mentioned that there is a plethora of information out there, and different provinces are doing things, as well as other countries. We don't need to copy what everyone else does, but we can pick and choose what best fits Canadian society.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

I have to cut it there, unfortunately.

I wanted to take the opportunity to thank all of you for helping us with the study of this bill and for being here today and joining us via video conference. Thank you to my colleagues, and of course, as always, to everybody who makes today possible. There are more of you on this study than normal. Thank you all very, very much.

We are adjourned.