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.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
I have one quick last question.
Should the focus be on establishing targets to start versus deadlines to finish? There have been two of you who spoke briefly about 20 years and only a little happened, or 15 years and only a little happened. Should there be a stronger emphasis on establishing targets to start?
8:35 p.m.
Dean, Chang School, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I can only speak for Ontario. Because of the standards being developed, five years or less, we felt we addressed that in the bill. That is how we addressed that in the bill. In fact, it was our colleagues in Great Britain, as well as in the United States, who recommended we do that. They were ahead of us—they were ahead of Canada and Ontario—and they found that, especially in Great Britain, the day before the deadline everyone was saying, what are we supposed to do? That's when they said, have standards developed and enforced along the way.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
What goes around comes around.
I want to jump to Mr. Adair.
You mentioned—and you're not the only person who mentioned it—communications as a pillar. When we're talking timelines, it's not that anybody's opposed to timelines. It's trying to understand what they'd be referring to. Is it a deadline? Is it a timeline? Is it a benchmark? I want to bring it back to the communications, because you mentioned that there are so many things in communications, how would you even apply a timeline to communications? There's a lot that you mentioned there. If you can maybe just talk about that, it would be great.
8:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance
The general theme of what we're talking about is that it's important to have some quick wins and to have some long-haul objectives and to recognize that we'll never really arrive at a fully accessible Canada. When we get there, there are going to be more challenges.
In terms of communication, this is not an area where I'm an expert. We do have partners among our 56 partner organizations who are experts in this area. Barbara Collier was a witness here earlier and would be a person who could give you details on that.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
She was the other person who mentioned communication as a pillar.
8:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance
Exactly, and she, along with others, would be the right person to work on answering a question like that and putting timelines in. It's very complicated, and some will be easier and accomplished more quickly, and some will take longer.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Therein lies the biggest challenge, because when we are talking about this, what we constantly heard was that it's an evolution. It's not a destination. It's constantly evolving. With new technology that speaks to a better capability for communications, it's constantly evolving. So when I talk about innovation, that's why I don't want to stifle it.
Thank you.
8:35 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you.
I think I'll expand on my colleague's line of thinking, or questioning; I don't want to say what he's thinking. My understanding, and what we know about CASDO, is that it's going to be on an ongoing basis providing standards. Once a standard has been decided, we need a deadline or a time frame, if you want to call it that, a coming to provision time when the federal government enacts it or doesn't and provides a reason. Maybe all of you can expand on that and maybe slide in a little more about how responsibilities are fragmented right now after enactment does take place.
I know that Mr. Adair and Mr. Falconer....
8:35 p.m.
Consultant, Steering Committee, Barrier-Free Manitoba
I'll speak mostly to the fragmentation issue. I think you have a patchwork of regulatory authorities that makes it unclear whether they will actually have consistent regulation. It's unclear who to complain to. It's possible that they'll have conflicting standards. I think it creates duplication and confusion and will cost money, and that's where the chasing of tails will happen. There will be lots of people doing the same thing without proper coordination and proper accountability to one source, which in this case would be the commissioner. I think that's the issue.
Around timelines, again, I think the grand timeline's an important one. I think the idea of saying within their first, we say, five years that the first standards will have been created.... I think the five-year timeline for the review of the act is critical, because if things aren't working in the first five years, let's figure that out and let's make the changes. Let's not wait for the first regulation and then five years. Let's have...I would say four years. In the Manitoba act, four years after the act was proclaimed and enacted, there was a beginning of a review. I think we need that. This is new. We need to learn from it and correct the course as we go.
8:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance
I have a comment on the fragmentation. Our organizations are largely grassroots. Organizations of people with disabilities don't necessarily have the legal expertise to answer the question around whether it should be one or two. What we're calling for is a systematic approach that supports complainants, that gives them the support they need if they're going to complain, a system where we avoid altercations or disagreements between different authorities—and maybe it's one single source, or maybe it's not—and complaints are resolved quickly.
Most importantly, we're calling for a systematic way of supporting and reinforcing people whose rights have been violated in relation to the act. I don't have the answer, but those are the principles that the folks we've talked to are looking for.
8:40 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
In terms of the fragmentation then, it brings us to the matter of exemptions. Not only are we dealing with different entities that are going to be responsible for the same thing, but some entities, some organizations under federal jurisdiction, would be exempt.
There is also a concern that there won't be a requirement for a rationale to be provided, or an appeal process for a person living with a disability, or someone who is civically engaged. If we're going to keep these exemptions in, that's a glaring oversight in terms of that kind of accountability. Could we have some feedback on that?
8:40 p.m.
Dean, Chang School, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I don't know enough about the exemptions and why they're there. Perhaps there are good reasons, I don't know, but I do know from Ontario's experience that being firm with organizations on having to comply is important. I'm not talking specifically about exemptions. I'm just talking about our experience in Ontario. We need to be firm; otherwise, we will not get compliance. I don't know enough about the exemptions to know why they're there. I don't understand the rationale behind them.
8:40 p.m.
NDP
8:40 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Very quickly if I could, Mr. Chair, just to get this on the record, when I was giving my explanation of how I thought timelines would fit in with CASDO, I got a thumbs-up from Mr. Adair that he was agreeing with that summary.
With that then, I guess we'll leave it for the next bit of questioning from my colleagues.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you.
Thank you very much everybody. We really do appreciate it. On behalf of the committee, thank you for accommodating our evening schedule here.
We will be continuing this. Just for my committee colleagues, the next meeting will be first thing tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. in this space.
Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.