Evidence of meeting #118 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-81.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Do you have something? Do you want to follow up?
8:30 p.m.
Consultant, Steering Committee, Barrier-Free Manitoba
I was just going to concur. Were there enough fines this year to be able to enable something that is adequate?
8:30 p.m.
Consultant, Steering Committee, Barrier-Free Manitoba
It doesn't seem to be the test of adequacy.
I think the idea of it being used for special purposes, assuming that there are enough resources in the absence of that, is a very good idea.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I want to touch on indigenous peoples again. I know you mentioned in your opening remarks advocating for two-thirds representation on CASDO but also having indigenous people represented. Is there a specific number that you or your organization would like to see represented on the board?
8:30 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society
We haven't gotten into that detail. I think there are 11 positions on the board. Is that correct?
8:30 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society
I believe it is 11. We would expect that one of those positions, at least one, would be designated for an indigenous person living with a disability, and then that they'd have representation on the committees as well. How many that would be, and from the committees, I'm not sure.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I have one quick question. In the past couple of days, I've heard a lot about plain language for people with intellectual disabilities. If you can quickly make remarks, is that reflected in legislation that's already out there provincially? Is plain language reflected in that?
8:30 p.m.
Dean, Chang School, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I would say no, it's not.
8:30 p.m.
Consultant, Steering Committee, Barrier-Free Manitoba
There's the summary that's a bit helpful, but I don't think it meets the test of plain language.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
8:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance
If I could just add to that, plain language is a form of access and a way of including people.
October 24th, 2018 / 8:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance
It's something that is required. Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance did work with one of of our partners, People First of Canada, and wrote a plain language version interpretation or explanation of Bill C-81. It was tested with consumers who would read it for reliability, and that's the kind of work that needs to be done in promoting awareness of the act as well as in educating people about the rights they have, people with disabilities, the rights that they have once the act becomes law.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
I believe I'm sharing my time with my colleague.
There's been a lot of focus on the cost of implementing the bill. If those investments are made, what is the economic gain to people with disabilities? Could you just answer quickly?
8:30 p.m.
Dean, Chang School, Ryerson University, As an Individual
That was one of the factors that allowed the AODA in Ontario to be passed unanimously, because the official opposition, the Conservatives, were concerned about price. We showed them the research from jurisdictions that have much more accessibility, the United States being one. The tax revenues increased by the billions in the United States simply by making hotels and restaurants accessible to people. Just those two things, just those two types of accessibility, brought billions in extra revenues.
Yes, it is a cost. The businesses, big and small, told me that they have to update, anyway, every five or 10 years to keep their businesses viable. As long as they had time, they were able to absorb the costs.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
8:30 p.m.
Dean, Chang School, Ryerson University, As an Individual
That's a very good question, because we don't know. As I stated earlier, the unemployment rate is so high amongst people with disabilities that just the fact that they will be, with the employment standards in Ontario, for example, more employed and more employable, simply because people will see their value, will add to the tax base.
8:30 p.m.
Consultant, Steering Committee, Barrier-Free Manitoba
The Rotman school in Toronto did a really wonderful job looking at the economic benefits of accessibility. I think it's called “Unleashing....” I can't remember, but it was done back about 10 years ago, and it looked at the economic benefits that come from increased accessibility.
It was, I think, a really well-done methodology, and I think it was very clear. The other thing is, what's the cost of the barriers now? The costs are extraordinary in terms decreased productivity, reliance on social assistance and things of that sort. The costs are tremendous now. I think the economic benefits are really quite important.
