Human Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for the testimony and for pointing out the importance of progressive realization of timelines.

I think ARCH will probably have the first comments to make on this. With regard to Bill C-81, the largest organization that will have to obey this legislation is the federal government. I want to ask about independence from the government. Under the bill right now, there could be some perceived weakness in independence. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Kerri Joffe]

Thank you for the question.

Certainly we would agree that independence is crucial for key components of this bill. It is crucial, especially for CASDO, to ensure that the proposed accessibility standards are as robust and progressive as they can possibly be, and really address the needs of a cross-section of persons with disabilities without being encumbered by the government of the day or the particular politics of the day. That's an area where we have made recommendations for enhancing independence.

We've also made recommendations around independence in relation to other key accessibility components in the bill, and we're happy to provide those to the committee. Those are contained in our written submission to the committee.

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

Does anybody else want to talk about independence, and where these agencies should report?

[Scott Shortliffe]

From the CRTC's perspective, it's a bit of a double-edged sword. We will of course implement whatever legislation is passed; we're not going to take a view on whether it should be with us or not. The CRTC has always zealously guarded its independence. Numerous governments of the day could testify that they haven't always been delighted with CRTC decisions.

We are working with the other agencies to say that we've seen the thrust of the bill and we will implement what it has passed, but, for example, we're forming working groups to make sure there's a “one front door” approach. If a complaint came into the CRTC that belonged to the transportation agency, we wouldn't simply send them on their way. We'll process it the moment it comes in.

I think, as independent tribunals, we can maintain our independence from the government, but that doesn't mean we can't also work together efficiently and effectively to make sure that the intent of this bill is always respected. I believe that we have shown in the past that we can be independent. I also believe that means we can work together for the benefit of persons with disabilities.

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

Thank you.

Let's go back to the concern we heard from Mr. Shortliffe about exemptions. A big concern is that there are exemptions without any reason having to be given. We talk about this bill moving us into an era of culture change, of human rights for persons living with disabilities, but there's no appeal process. Let's talk about if, worst-case scenario, the exemptions stay for these federal jurisdictions. Can we flesh out the idea of reporting, an appeal mechanism, a rationale for it?

[Scott Shortliffe]

It's important to remember that from the perspective of the CRTC, we already have established procedures. There's nothing that goes to the CRTC that isn't based on a public record or a public hearing comment, which includes comment by disability groups. Once we make decisions, they can be appealed. They can be appealed to cabinet in the case of a telecom for a review on variance.

On the broadcasting side, they can be appealed to the Federal Court. In the issues that have been raised, the CRTC operates on the public record and on the basis of public testimony. We do not issue exemptions issued by a star chamber with no public record and without—

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

Absolutely, and that's all good. The track record of the CRTC is all public knowledge.

We'll give the last little bit, then, to ARCH.

[Kerri Joffe]

We addressed this in our opening remarks, but I think our recommendation has been to have no exemptions. The policy reason for that is, as Mr. Lattanzio said, that accessibility is everyone's responsibility, and no one should be exempt from moving towards a more inclusive and accessible Canada.

You asked about keeping the exemptions, and we've made some recommendations for tailoring those exemptions much more specifically to the particular requirements of the organization that is asking for an exemption. We would say that those exemptions should be granted only in the very narrowest of circumstances. They should be time-limited. There should be a review process in place so that as the organization works towards meeting its accessibility requirements, if and when that exemption can be lifted, it is lifted, and before the decision is made to grant that exemption, there should be a process in which persons with disabilities can engage to provide their input and perspective about whether that exemption is actually required and what the impact of that will be on the community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Sangha, go ahead, please.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, everyone, for coming today and making your presentations. They're really very educational.

I'm from Brampton Centre. There are people whom I generally sit with and talk to and do some consultations with regarding the things I'm coming to committee with and asking questions about.

I had a chance to talk to Ms. Bains. She has an accessibility professional certification. She is an expert in digital accessibility and she advises teams and management about creating inclusive accessible online services.

Being an expert in this, she says she has no grudges. She has good facilities that are being provided through the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Things are favourable, but sometimes she says there are disappointments.

She says there is a complaint process that disabled people sometimes have to go through. They have to hire their own lawyer. The other side's organizations have their firms and big lawyers, and the disabled person's side has very big problems getting suitable results from the tribunals. Being a lawyer, I also have that concern.

Ms. Joffe, my question is to you. Being a house lawyer, what do you think of this proposition? What is your reply to how to tackle these complaints?

[Kerri Joffe]

How do I address the issue about people with...?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

I mean the complaints about accessibility for these people.

[Kerri Joffe]

We experience every day in our clinic that people with disabilities are very disempowered. There are many complaint processes because, as you said, the respondents or the organizations that are being complained about usually have a lot more resources, and they have lawyers and in-house counsel, and they can bring a lot of resources to bear in defending themselves.

When we're looking at the bill and how this bill sets up a complaint mechanism to the accessibility commissioner and to other bodies, but specifically to the accessibility commissioner, it appears to us that the process is intended to be relatively quick and non-legalistic, and to provide a remedy or a result in a manner that doesn't create these power imbalances in which the other side has a lot of lawyers and the person with the disability is really at a disadvantage.

I think if we can work to get a complaint process that does create a bit more of a power balance and that can really support people with disabilities meaningfully participating in that process, and if that process can be really accessible, then hopefully there will be a chance to avoid some of those concerns you have raised.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Taking into comparison the Canadian Human Rights Commission Tribunal and the new set-up that will now be under Bill C-81, do you think that the process under Bill C-81 will be more favourable to complainants or will it be more tedious?

[Kerri Joffe]

Yes. It's very—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Give a quick response, please.

[Kerri Joffe]

It's very difficult to say, because we don't know what that process looks like right now, so I'm not really able to answer as to whether it's going to be more favourable to people or not. What will determine whether it's going to be more favourable is how accessible the process is, how much it allows people with disabilities to meaningfully understand and participate in the process, what kinds of results or remedies we get, how well trained the decision-makers are, and how deeply they understand human rights and accessibility issues.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Is the dispute resolution process the same as this one? Is there already a dispute resolution process in existence?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Answer very quickly, please.

[Kerri Joffe]

Is there a dispute...?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Is there a dispute resolution process already in existence to resolve complaints?

[Kerri Joffe]

I think some of the issues that people with disabilities will complain about to the accessibility commissioner may also be able to be brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission under their legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Long is next, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is for ARCH and Mr. Lattanzio. I want to talk about the “no wrong door” part of the legislation. Obviously if you go to a department, you don't just get bumped to another department; there's onus on the department. Would you not agree that's a step in the right direction?