Human Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's meeting on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The objective of today's meeting is to continue the committee's thorough review of the bill.

Bear with me. I have a bit of a preamble here. I'm sure my colleagues are getting used to this.

I will take a moment to remind those participating in the proceedings, as well as those observing the proceedings of the committee in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study.

As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation and near-real-time closed-captioning in the room. Please note that both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language are being offered to those in our audience. The first two rows of benches have been reserved for those who wish to avail themselves of these interpretation services. Screens displaying the near-real-time closed captioning have also been set up. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being videorecorded for the eventual broadcast of the meeting on ParlVu via the committee's website.

If a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

So that you can keep your comments at a steady pace for the interpreters, I will not be very heavy-handed with the stopwatch. If you go over a little, it's not the end of the world.

On our first panel this morning, from the Canadian Bankers Association, we have Marina Mandal, assistant general counsel, and Tasmin Waley, senior legal counsel; from the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance, Mary Ann McColl, a professor at Queen's University; and from the Royal Bank of Canada, Teri Monti, vice-president of employee relations. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being with us this morning.

We're going to get started with opening remarks from the Canadian Bankers Association. Marina Mandal and Tasmin Waley, the next five minutes are all yours.

[Marina Mandal, Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association]

Good morning, and thank you to the committee for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to provide our comments on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks, and their 280,000 employees, that help drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity.

Canada's banking industry is pleased to support Bill C-81. The CBA was actively involved in the consultation process that led to this legislation, and we look forward to continuing to work with the government on the development of the regulations that will set the standards for accessibility in Canada.

During debate in the House of Commons, Minister Qualtrough stated that this legislation “is good for business and business knows that this is good for business.” We agree. Canada's banks are leaders in providing accessible environments for their employees and customers. Banks are committed to treating all people in a way that allows them to maintain their dignity and independence. Banks believe in providing equitable opportunities through diverse and inclusive environments and are committed to meeting the needs of people with disabilities by preventing and removing barriers to accessibility.

Banks have considerable experience with accessibility as it pertains to the workplace and employees. They offer individual solutions to employees with accommodation needs and have specialized departments to ensure that they continue to foster an accessible work environment. Banks have moved accessibility mandates forward through various approaches, including accessibility committees, policies and strategies, all with a goal to work continuously towards amplifying the voice of employees with disabilities.

Banks are also committed to ensuring accessible customer service. Most banks have groups with a dedicated accessibility mandate within their human resources and IT functions. Putting the needs of their clients first, banks continue to make enhancements so they can offer barrier-free facilities and services in their branches, offices, and bank machines, as well as online and through mobile channels.

Some examples of accessibility options provided by banks include teletype technology for telephone banking; video relay service; sign language interpreters upon request; Braille, large print and audio for various customer materials; enhancements at branches, such as door operators, ramps and washroom upgrades; and accessibility features on computers and mobile devices, such as colour contrast and the ability to increase text size.

We believe any federal accessibility framework should strike the right balance between being principles-based and prescriptive. The framework should also recognize that accessibility and accommodation are often person-specific. In areas where there's frequent technological evolution, such as information technology, overly prescriptive standards could be problematic. In general, we support widely accepted standards that provide flexibility to institutions, customers and employees in order to achieve the intended outcomes, and that provide adequate certainty as to what constitutes compliance. Further, because standards may change frequently, particularly as technology evolves, the framework should provide organizations with the option to comply with the standard mandated in the legislation or an equivalent or higher standard.

Banks recognize that although significant progress has been made in making Canada more inclusive, people with disabilities still encounter barriers. The banks view accessibility as a journey and continually work to improve the inclusive design of their products and services.

We're happy to answer and questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

From the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance, we have with us Mary Ann McColl, a professor at Queen's University. Welcome.

[Professor Mary Ann McColl, Professor, Queen's University, Canadian Disability Policy Alliance]

Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to appear before this esteemed committee and to share part of the research of the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance that I hope may be of use to you in your deliberations towards the passage of Bill C-81.

I will begin by commending the government on fulfilling its promise to Canadians with disabilities on the timely pursuit of this legislation and on the broad consultation undertaken.

My name is Mary Ann McColl. I'm a professor in the school of rehabilitation science and associate director of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at Queen's University.

However, I'm here today in my role as the academic lead of the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance. The alliance is a national collaboration of disability scholars, advocates and policy-makers who are committed to understanding and enhancing disability policy in Canada. The CDPA is also a member of the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, led by Spinal Cord Injury Canada from whom I believe you're hearing tomorrow.

I understand that one of the objectives associated with the passage of Bill C-81 is the adoption of a disability lens, or a process that is reasonable, effective and efficient, for use by everyone in the public service to ensure that all government activities, including legislation, regulation, programs and reports, are considered in light of their implications for people with disabilities.

Such a lens would need to meet a number of criteria. It would need to be easily understood and presume no prior knowledge of disability. It would need to be written in plain language, be brief and efficient to use, comprehensive in terms of all types of disability and all types of policy, compatible with contemporary views and scholarship on disability, and evidence-based. I hope I'm not missing anything in those criteria. It sounds like a tall order, but I'm here today to represent a tool that was developed with exactly those criteria in mind: the CDPA's disability policy lens.

The lens was first developed in 2006, based on an exhaustive review of the literature on disability policy analysis in preparation for a book, Disability and Social Policy in Canada, by myself and Lyn Jongbloed. Since 2006, it has been used by many disability scholars and graduate students in Canada and internationally, and has been cited in numerous publications. In 2017, it was refined and pilot-tested in collaboration with staff from the Office For Disability Issues and the minister's office.

I believe you have the lens in front of you.

The lens takes the reader through a series of seven questions that go to the heart of contemporary disability policy analysis. However, it does not favour any particular ideology or stance. It merely asks the user to be explicit, to state their assumptions and to examine them.

Let's take a closer look at the questions.

The first question asks whether the situation of people with disabilities is explicitly mentioned in the policy. Have their interests and implications been overtly considered, or is it assumed that the implications for people with disabilities are the same as for anyone else, and is that a legitimate assumption?

Second, if disability is mentioned explicitly, how is it defined? Currently, a number of definitions are in force in the federal policy infrastructure—for example, definitions associated with the Canada pension plan, the Canada student loan program, and the disability tax credit. Does the current definition conform with any of those, and does the policy focus on the right group of people? Who was left out, and who determines who is eligible to be considered?

The third question asks what the policy tries to do for people with disability. According to Bickenbach, there are typically three aims of disability policy: access—ensuring the ability to participate; support—providing the necessary goods and services; and equity—ensuring freedom from discrimination. Although admittedly interrelated, there's usually a dominant goal that the policy addresses. If it's equity, what kind of equity is sought: horizontal, vertical or outcome equity?

The fourth question of the disability policy lens looks at the contemporary view of disability.

We no longer look at disability as something that is wrong with a person. That would have been the biomedical definition. Instead, we consider someone with a disability as someone who is prevented from having the life that they seek because of barriers encountered in a society not designed with them in mind.

Question 4 addresses the view of disability espoused by a policy. Are people with disabilities considered a minority group, with special interests or special needs, or are they simply considered citizens entitled to the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as other citizens?

Although it may sound like the answer should always be the latter, in many situations disabled people need to be singled out for special consideration, accommodations, benefits or programs.

The fifth question asks how this policy relates to other policies, first within this jurisdiction and then in other jurisdictions. Is something being given with one hand and taken away with the other? Is the policy objective either duplicated or undermined by policy elsewhere?

Sixth, who are the other stakeholders whose interests need to be considered alongside those of people with disabilities? I don't need to tell you about this. Balancing the competing needs and desires of multiple stakeholders is what you do every day, but I have listed a few examples of other groups whose needs need to be considered, such as other minority groups or businesses in the private sector.

Finally, who are the advocates or proponents of the policy and who are its detractors or opponents? Where might we expect to encounter support or opposition? What might be the fallout of that opposition and how can it be countered?

I hope you will agree that these seven questions that make up the CDPA's disability policy lens represent a process that meets the criteria set out at the outset: brief, evidence-based, versatile, easy to understand and administer, and compatible with contemporary disability studies.

Thank you for your attention and interest in our work. I'll be happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Finally, from the Royal Bank of Canada, we have Teri Monti, vice president, employee relations. You have five minutes, please.

[Teri Monti, Vice-President, Employee Relations, Royal Bank of Canada]

Thank you very much, and good morning.

My name is Teri Monti. I'm the vice-president of employee relations at RBC. I have global responsibility for workplace policies and programs, leading a team of expert advisers who help employees and managers deal with workplace issues.

We're a global financial institution with a purpose-driven and principles-led approach to delivering leading performance. Our success comes from our 81,000-plus employees who bring our vision, our values and our strategy to life so we can help our clients thrive and our communities prosper.

In 2017, we had 45,600 employees working in RBC's federally regulated businesses. Of those employees, 7.4% identify as having a long-term or recurring physical, mental, sensory, psychiatric or learning disability. Only 4% consider themselves disadvantaged in employment because of their disability.

Our approach to accessibility has evolved over many years, and our vision has grown beyond the initial steps taken a few years ago. Today, accessibility is embedded in our diversity and inclusion blueprint for 2020, which sets out our vision to be among the most inclusive and successful companies, putting diversity into action to help employees, clients and communities thrive.

At RBC, employee and client accessibility practices are governed by our enterprise accessibility guidelines, which are consistent with the principles of dignity, independence, integration and equal opportunity, and outline our expectations with respect to accessibility practices globally. The guidelines also require employees to comply with the accessibility laws and requirements applicable in the specific jurisdictions where they operate.

Some lines of business and functional groups have also implemented local accessibility policies and best practices. One example would be our technology and operations business, which has its own IT accessibility guidelines. These guidelines are based on international standards for web accessibility and provide guidance in deploying technology solutions that are more accessible to those with blindness, low vision, colour blindness, mobility disabilities, deafness and hearing loss.

We know we have work to do, but we also have some great initiatives to profile, and I'd like to give some examples.

Within the built environment, every new RBC branch we open is wheelchair accessible and built in accordance with applicable building codes. Our physical locations are audited periodically by internal groups and external regulatory agencies to identify and remove barriers. In fact, we were excited to learn that the Rick Hansen Foundation, which we had begun working with to review the accessibility of our premises, will be an assessor working directly with the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility.

Within employment, through the “Pursue your Potential” recruitment program, candidates get dedicated support during the job application process, which includes resumé writing and interview coaching, and they are proactively profiled to recruiters and hiring managers.

We're really excited about our partnership with Specialisterne Canada to hire employees with autism, a non-visible disability. Specialisterne remains engaged throughout the entire process, including selection, hiring, onboarding and training.

Within information and communications technologies, today our telephone representatives can assist with a variety of financial solutions, or clients can do their own transactions via interactive voice response, teletypewriter or video relay services.

Our network of over 4,600 banking machines is the largest in Canada. We were the first bank worldwide to provide talking ATMs, now adopted by standards organizations around the world. Today, all RBC branch banking machines are voice guidance-enabled.

Within the procurement of goods and services, we are proud to be the first founding member of the Inclusive Workplace and Supply Council of Canada, which works to ensure that procurement opportunities go to businesses that are owned and operated by veterans or persons with disabilities.

Within delivery of programs and services, in conjunction with the CNIB, we're excited to roll out BlindSquare, the leading navigation app for blind and partially sighted people, which acts as a verbal GPS when navigating the city. We will soon be able to provide verbal wayfinding inside our branches.

In 2017, we received acknowledgements of our work, including being ranked as one of Canada's best diversity employers by Mediacorp and receiving the Spinal Cord Injury Ontario employer of the year award and the employment equity achievement award from the federal government.

We know there are still barriers for people with disabilities that can detract from our collective ability to create truly diverse and inclusive workplaces in communities.

This is very much a journey, and we continue to work hard every day to improve. We support legislation that seeks to make Canada more inclusive and we are committed to respecting the legislation and regulations once adopted.

Thank you very much. I'm pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much, all of you.

We're going to get started on the first round with MP Barlow, please, for six minutes.

[John Barlow, Foothills, CPC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for taking some time out of your busy schedules to be with us today. It's certainly much appreciated to get your perspective on where this legislation is going.

In listening to you, Ms. Monti, about some of the work that RBC is already doing in your branches, which is great news, it certainly sounds like a lot of work has already been done. One of the concerns we have with the legislation is that it doesn't include any standards or timelines to achieve some of those standards. To me, it sounds like there are probably some very good practical examples already in the private sector, as you were outlining.

Maybe you can give me some examples. Is this a concern or something that we should be worried about? Should the legislation have some definitive timelines for when there should be compliance from your members or from RBC, just in terms of some clarity on what your path forward should be?

[Marina Mandal]

As I think you've alluded to—and I hope the remarks that Ms. Monti and I made illustrate it—banks have been doing a lot of this already in the absence of legislation with the introduction of the AODA in Ontario and with Manitoba and Nova Scotia having their own legislation. That has spurred more activity. We're ready to act quickly. From our perspective, this is something that the banking industry was doing prior to Bill C-81, and it will continue to evolve and progress.

Concerns have been expressed about timelines. We're not opposed to timelines, but we recognize that the minister went through a very robust consultation involving so many stakeholders, which we were actively involved in, and we support the notion of a framework legislation that allows standards to evolve over time as best practices evolve and technology evolves.

The other aspect of that, of course, is that CASDO will have persons with disabilities on its board who can inform the process, and a lot of stakeholders have now been engaged in the process who can communicate their lived experience in a way that informs the standards. We support the framework legislation. We look forward to consulting with the government on standards. We really do think that the end product will be much closer to achieving the intended outcomes of the legislation.

[John Barlow]

Ms. Monti, do you want to add anything?

[Teri Monti]

I would agree with what Ms. Mandal has said. This is very big work and it's important to do it right. It's important to consult, and it's important to listen to all of the stakeholders that are involved.

Looking at the policy lens that Ms. McColl referred to, I think you really do need to engage those stakeholders and spend the time to develop something that will work going forward.

[John Barlow]

One of the other issues with the legislation is that there seems to be a two-tiered system, as I read through it. There is a very large number of exemptions for government departments, but federally regulated private sector organizations do not have access to those exemptions. There are fines in place for federally regulated businesses that don't meet the standards—when they are outlined—but there are no fines against government departments.

I would assume that if we want to do this right, as you're saying, Ms. Monti, everybody should be treated the same. The government departments should have to achieve these standards just as a federally regulated private sector group should. I think that if we want to send the right message to Canadians with disabilities, which is that everyone is treated equally, there shouldn't be exemptions and relief for government departments that federally regulated private sector businesses do not have.

I would ask all three groups if you could give me your opinion on that. Should we be looking at that? Should there be an even playing field across all government departments and federally regulated groups?

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

You're looking at me, so I'll speak.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[John Barlow]

No pressure.

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

Obviously, yes, you would expect the same standard to be applied across the board. The mechanism for ensuring that standard is met may be different within government from what it is outside of government. I think the principle you're stating, which is that you would expect the standard to be met across the board, is certainly sensible.

[Marina Mandal]

I'm happy to add on to that; we're pretty much aligned.

I think it's really about focusing on the intended outcome, and the Government of Canada has displayed a lot of commitment to that outcome in introducing this legislation. I think the distinction between the mechanisms and the path versus the outcome that Ms. McColl pointed out is what makes sense to me, so yes, I would say a level playing field, from my outcomes-based perspective, but there might be different ways of getting there.

[Teri Monti]

I don't have anything to add. I agree with both.

[John Barlow]

I appreciate that.

I would agree with your comments, but in my opinion, it would be difficult to reach the same outcome if one group has some legislation that forces them to get to that outcome and another group doesn't. One of them can apply for an exemption and wouldn't have to reach that outcome at all. Your members would have legislation that ensures you meet those standards, whereas government departments would not. There's also an appeal process for government departments that isn't there for federally regulated associations. I think that is something we need to address in this legislation. That's something I wanted to bring to your attention.

I have one quick question.

Mary Ann, you were talking about something with your disability lens. One of the officials from the government said that anybody who self-identifies as someone with a disability would be considered. I want your clarification. What would that entail—someone who self-identifies as someone with a disability? I hadn't heard that term before.

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

By definition, someone who self-identifies is basically someone who responds affirmatively to the question “Do you have a disability?” Defining disability is a thorny issue. The government has addressed it in a number of places throughout the federal policy infrastructure.

It would be tempting to think there is one definition that we could apply across the board. In fact, given that different pieces of policy have different intentions and are intended to address different sectors of the population, it's something that needs to be looked at very carefully.

Self-identification is a good start, but there needs to be a bit more thought than someone just coming forward and saying, “I have a disability and so I want to be considered for a particular program or a particular entitlement.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Next up is MP Long, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning. I continue to get an education every time somebody presents.

A lady in a wheelchair a couple of weeks ago said to me, “You're opening up my world with Bill C-81.” I stopped, and we had a great conversation. I walked away from that, and she's right. Bill C-81 is opening up the world for people with disabilities.

It hits home for me. In my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, Key Industries is an organization that deals with a lot of people with disabilities. We recently announced some funding there, EAF funding, so that they could have more accessible washrooms—just small, simple things like that.

Whether it's getting on a plane in Saint John, catching a train, or mailing something, there are absolutely challenges and barriers for people with disabilities. I view transforming our businesses as an investment, not a cost. Sometimes I worry. Not only my Conservative colleagues but also other businesses I talk to say, “I would do that, but there's such a cost.” I look at it more as an investment.

I'll start with you, Professor McColl. Can you speak to that? In your opinion, is taking action to invest in enhancing accessibility more of an investment than a non-recoupable cost? Can you talk to that?

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

Yes, and I'll begin my remarks by saying that most people who have actually made the amendments necessary to make their premises accessible or their processes accessible are surprised by how small the costs are. The costs often sit in people's minds as a huge impediment to moving forward with accessibility measures. In fact, our research has shown over and over again that people are surprised by how little the costs are.

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

I'll just jump in.

Somebody—and I apologize, because I forget which witness it was—mentioned that it was $500 per person, or something like that. It really wasn't that significant.

[Prof. Mary Ann McColl]

I have not heard a number like that, but that's very interesting. I'd love to know more about that.

The bottom line is that if we plan these things from the outset, if we design processes and structures to accommodate everyone from the outset, the costs are minimal. If we have to retrofit, they are more significant.

What that says to me is that legislation that makes it an expectation and a part of our culture to think about people with disabilities and to ensure their needs are considered in everything we do is the way to go, and it's the way to be cost-efficient with it as well.