Human Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

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

Thank you very much, everybody, for being here today. As my colleague Mr. Long said, every day is a new day of education. We keep learning more and more.

I want to stick with timelines. We're hearing a lot about timelines. When I think of timelines, I think of “by this date, this has to be done”, but I keep hearing, in all the testimony, about evolution. We haven't told you to do things, but the banks and the airplane transportation agency are all saying the same thing: It's an evolution to get to where we need to go, because there are so many different pieces.

When I look at the disability policy lens, I can see that; I can see why. There's not one thing that says, “We're there now. We've done it. Yay! We've done our job.” It doesn't work that way.

At the end of this, we have to come up with potential recommendations for amendments and so on and so forth. I know that this one will play prominently, so I'd like to get more feedback on your thoughts around why we should or should not, as we're proposing, have hard-core timelines on there, and why.

Let's start with you, Ms. Mandal.

[Marina Mandal]

I touched on this earlier, but I'll go into it in a bit more depth.

For us, it really is a very complex piece already in terms of what the framework legislation sets out. You have the infrastructure. You have to create CASDO, appoint the commissioner, appoint the officer. You have the standards development, which we heard about from many other witnesses, including us today. You heard that it needs to be finely tuned. It needs to be informed by experiences in other jurisdictions. It needs to be informed by stakeholders.

On the stakeholder point, the minister, I believe Minister Qualtrough, said that just in the last two years she has received feedback from 6,000 individuals and organizations. As we get into the details of the standards, we would expect to see more of that and other views being at the table. One of the points that we and other stakeholders have made to the government is about the desire to see harmonization within Canada—that is, with the provinces that already have legislation. As I indicated earlier, for our cross-border banks there is a desire to see at least ICT harmonization.

All of that takes a lot of time. There's no end point where Canada is 100% barrier-free—that's a dream—but as best practices and technology evolve, I think it will keep moving in that direction.

Ms. Waley, do want to add something on the progressive realization piece?

[Tasmin Waley, Senior Legal Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association]

Sure.

One thing that's mentioned throughout the act is this idea of “progressive realization”, the idea that accessibility is dynamic and constantly evolving. There will never be a date by which we're finished with accessibility. That's the view our banks take. This is an evolving process. We always want to be aware of best practices and always be innovating in terms of providing accessible options.

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

Does anybody else want to add to that?

[Teri Monti]

I would echo Ms. Mandal's comments about the need for harmonization. Making sure that the Canadian public, our employees and our clients have a consistent experience no matter which RBC door they come through, whether it's a provincially regulated subsidiary or the federally regulated bank, is very important to us. It's important to take the time as we go through this to make sure that the experience remains consistent.

This is very much a journey, as both Ms. Waley and Ms. Mandal have mentioned. The world evolves and things change. The goal you're working toward today might shift a little bit with some new, innovative technology that makes more things possible. It's important to have the flexibility to move forward in a way that takes that harmonized approach and also takes advantage of innovation as it happens.

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

Do you want to add something?

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

I'd like to roll into my response a response to the questions about both the composition of the standards development body and the timelines.

A lot of stakeholders are involved here. There's an opportunity to do this quickly or to do this well or something in the middle. We're obviously balancing those two things. It's complicated by the number of different stakeholders.

I refer you back to question number 6 on the policy lens. It says to be sure to give everybody who needs to have a voice a voice if they are going to play a part in implementation. As we know, if people don't have their say at the outset, they dig their heels in and create opposition.

I know the number is important to some disability groups, but to me the issue is more about letting the right people have a voice so they don't end up just being opponents to whatever happens. They have to buy into the process at some point.

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

Thank you. I have just about 30 seconds left.

Would you say that actually putting in timelines, legislating timelines, would be a downfall? Would it limit people to thinking “Oh, we only have to do this, so we're not going to do anymore, because that's what the law says"? Would you agree that would actually be detrimental to this process?

[Marina Mandal]

I think it could be, absolutely, conceptually.

There is low-hanging fruit, and perhaps more so for the industry I represent and some of the other industries you've heard from. I'm cognizant, you know, that the minister did talk about the mom-and-pop trucking companies.

I think the answer is that it depends on the timeline. I think there could be a negative impact insofar as people saying they have x amount of time to do this and then they are done.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Hogg, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Gordie Hogg, South Surrey—White Rock, Lib.]

Thank you.

I think this is our fourth session. We've heard from maybe 12 or 15 witnesses, and not surprisingly, everybody who comes before us sees this is as a positive venture. The bill has a lot of positive notions to it, so they respect the values and the principles inherent in it. There are misgivings just about some of the details, but obviously the people who are coming are those people who are in favour of it.

I'm an adherent of John Stuart Mill's notion of being able to understand the other side in order to make an informed decision. The other side has not come before us, yet people keep making references to it.

I wonder if each of you could take a couple of minutes and tell me what the other side would say, the people who are saying this is wrong, because no doubt we're going to have to face some of those. Some of them are out there.

Professor McColl, what are the questions or the other side of this or the edges of this that we would hear from those people who are not in favour?

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

I think that one of the other sides may be people with disabilities who think that it's not enough, who want the legislation to go further and faster and be more far-reaching. I think that's perhaps one of the most delicate sources of opposition to be addressed. I suspect you've already heard from some of them.

[Gordie Hogg]

Are there others?

[Teri Monti]

I think one thing you might hear from opponents is about the cost. I think we've talked a little bit about that versus making an investment. That might be a concern for smaller organizations that aren't quite as far down the path as we are. You might hear a little bit about that.

[Marina Mandal]

I don't think I have anything to add. Those would have been the two I would have pinpointed.

[Gordie Hogg]

Certainly we've heard from a lot of large organizations, national organizations, large businesses. Some references have been made. In fact a witness yesterday from YVR, the Vancouver airport, was saying he had concerns about some of the smaller organizations and their ability to finance some of the changes that were associated with it. That's certainly been an issue, as have the timing and the standards, which MP Ruimy just made reference to.

I think contextually those are some of the things we have to look at, manage and deal with. There's been a lot of discussion as well in terms of the policy development and ensuring that we have people with their own disabilities to inform the development of the policy. My experience in terms of policy is that that's obviously a positive thing to do, but sometimes it seems to me that after the policy or legislation is developed and then goes to a bureaucracy, a government, to implement, that some things get lost between the policy development and the implementation stages.

Could you talk a little bit about how we might be able to ensure that is contained within the implementation process so that we have access to those people who have informed the policy to ensure that there's not a disconnect between the policy and its actual implementation? I've seen that happen a number of times.

Are there some safeguards, some experiences you have, that would be helpful in terms of informing that?

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

I think the standards development organization is a good safeguard against the intention getting lost and also a very direct way of implementing the policy. Of course, what happens in the public service is opaque to many of us. Probably you're more familiar with it than we are. I must admit that I felt that the standards development organization was a good assurance that the intent of the legislation would be upheld.

[Marina Mandal]

I would add that for the accessibility plans, the feedback and the progress report, as you know, Bill C-81 sets out the duty to consult with persons with disabilities. I think it's another safeguard that ensures the people most impacted by the legislation stay involved on an ongoing basis as it's implemented by the private sector.

[Gordie Hogg]

Can you talk about other jurisdictions that we might learn more from? How does Canada, where it sits today, compare with other jurisdictions? Where are the very best practices? What are the pieces that we might learn from in terms of those jurisdictions that are doing this perhaps more effectively than we are in certain areas?

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

Our natural comparators are the U.K., the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and those kinds of countries, and they've all gone the anti-discrimination route, of course, with their federal legislation. I'm very pleased that Canada didn't go that route, but rather took an access-and-inclusion route. Ontario is the one jurisdiction that stands out as having tackled the problem of society-wide standards. I think there are lessons to be learned from Ontario's experience.

[Marina Mandal]

Ms. Waley and I are not all that familiar with experiences outside of Canada, although I take the point that Ms. McColl has just made. I would say that in Ontario, one of the things that has been great and has been translated into the Bill C-81 context is that notion of framework legislation with standards to follow, with separate consultations on each standard. I think Ontario is a good role model to look at.

[Teri Monti]

I would also agree that Canada has been a leader in this area. I manage a global team. I have a team in the U.S. that does accommodations and a team in Canada that does accommodations. There's a huge difference between the legal requirements and what is actually done. From that perspective, the individual perspective, I think we have gone considerably further than our colleagues in other parts of the world. I would say again that the AODA is probably a good example of existing legislation and process.

[Gordie Hogg]

Are you saying—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm sorry, Gordie. I have to cut you off there. We have to get one more question in from MP Diotte.