Human Resources Committee on Nov. 7th, 2018

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

I just want to point something out.

Whatever the percentage of the board is made up of, whatever accessibility or disabilities are there, it's hard to say what's going to be needed for that. Whatever those minimum standards are, they are already there. If you have somebody who is part of the board and for whatever reason the criteria are not met, they have to meet those criteria, or else that person's not getting into the building.

Part of the challenge is that there are so many different types of disabilities, and you have to allow for an ongoing evolution. This is why we keep coming back to timelines. It's an evolution. We're finding out more and more the different types of disabilities that are out there.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Ms. Falk is next.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Interrupt me if I'm wrong—

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

No, please don't interrupt.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I'm sorry.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

I'm trying to keep things—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Correct me if I'm not hearing this right. What I'm hearing is that we have policy in place for this already.

[James Van Raalte]

We have building code policy in place for Government of Canada institutions.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Okay.

[James Van Raalte]

To clarify, right now that building code is based on the National Building Code, which is province by province.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Okay.

[James Van Raalte]

In our setting in the national capital region, you can have buildings that reflect Quebec building codes and you can have buildings that reflect the Ontario Building Code. You can also have an older building that was built to the building code standard of the time, and until there's a large renovation of that building, it isn't captured.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

If the codes are good now the way they are, what are we doing with this legislation? I'm just a little bit confused. This is an opportunity for us to make sure this building is barrier free for people with disabilities, and if we're just relying on the code that's there now.... I'm just trying to understand what we're doing.

[James Van Raalte]

If I could give an example beyond the building code, which is the standard or example everybody relates to, my own office space within the accessibility secretariat goes beyond and has been assessed beyond building code issues. We have sound dampeners in the ceiling for people with cognitive disabilities. We have put in special rooms for people who have sensory impairments so that they can work in quiet. We have carpeting and contrasting wall colours for people with visual impairments. We have, from a leadership perspective, gone above and beyond the minimum standards. Those are built environment issues.

You may recall, Mr. Chair, that in my testimony a number of weeks ago, I also talked about issues that go beyond the building code, such as wayfinding and policies around allergies such as perfume and food allergies.

There's a lot that goes into consideration when we are designing and working with spaces. Our colleagues in Public Service and Procurement Canada are helping the Government of Canada itself, from a leadership design perspective, to make sure those workplaces are in conformity with the building codes.

The important part from a go-forward perspective is that CASDO itself will be a regulated entity. Not only will it be recommending standards to the minister, but it will also be subject to those regulations going forward as the regulations evolve and improve.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

In the department's opinion, does it do any harm to have it in the legislation that the head office must be without barriers?

I'm having a hard time grasping this, because I feel that's very progressive. It's making a statement. It's actually even saying something to people within the disability community—that this is an expectation.

Is there a hindrance? Does the department feel or believe that having this in the legislation is a hindrance?

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Mr. Van Raalte can respond.

[James Van Raalte]

Again, Mr. Chair, we will loyally implement.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Go ahead, Mr. Nuttall.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I'm really struggling. I don't understand how the department that writes a bill doesn't have an opinion, and in this case I don't believe it would be an opinion involving cabinet confidence, because it's an amendment that's coming up on the floor of committee. It's really hard to understand how the department that is going to be affected doesn't have an opinion or doesn't have anything to bring to the table on a certain subject.

In terms of this exact motion, I think one of the things I'm struggling with, after hearing the initial answer that James provided, is essentially that there are older buildings that basically comply with the building code without a significant renovation because it's not a retroactive code and it's on a go-forward basis. Does that mean that in dealing with an existing building, perhaps a historic building, it's not mandatory to update to the standards of today, let alone to achieve what we're telling the country we want and actually pushing the private sector across the country to implement?

It seems pretty basic to say that we're creating a new organization and that this organization is going to enforce standards, and that the head office of that organization should live by those same standards. I think that's just a case of practice what you preach.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Nuttall. I don't know if that was a question.

Mr. Hogg is next.

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

As I understand it, the principle is the same whether it's in policy or legislation. I don't want you you to interpret, but with respect to policy, what flexibility does that give us? I think we want to achieve the same thing. The principle, I think, is the same, as you're trying to express it or as you are expressing it, in terms of being able to ensure that we accommodate anybody who's going to be going into that building. I think that's a principle you're espousing.

Am I correct?

[James Van Raalte]

That is correct, Mr. Chair.

[Gordie Hogg]

Does having it in policy provide any more flexibility? Can the principle that is contained in it be achieved more rapidly through a policy perspective or through a legislative perspective?

[James Van Raalte]

In practice, Mr. Chair, policies can always be updated much more quickly and have far more flexibility than in a legislative or even a regulatory perspective.