Bill C-81 (Historical)

Accessible Canada Act

An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada

This enactment enacts the Accessible Canada Act in order to enhance the full and equal participation of all persons, especially persons with disabilities, in society. This is to be achieved through the realization, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, of a Canada without barriers, particularly by the identification, removal and prevention of barriers.
Part 1 of the Act establishes the Minister’s mandate, powers, duties and functions.
Part 2 of the Act establishes the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization and provides for its mandate and structure and its powers, duties and functions.
Part 3 of the Act authorizes the Accessibility Commissioner to provide the Minister with information, advice and written reports in respect of the administration and enforcement of the Act. It also requires the Accessibility Commissioner to submit an annual report on his or her activities under the Act to the Minister for tabling in Parliament.
Part 4 of the Act imposes duties on regulated entities that include the duty to prepare accessibility plans and progress reports in consultation with persons with disabilities, the duty to publish those plans and reports and the duty to establish a feedback process and to publish a description of it.
Part 5 of the Act provides for the Accessibility Commissioner’s inspection and other powers, including the power to make production orders and compliance orders and the power to impose administrative monetary penalties.
Part 6 of the Act provides for a complaints process for, and the awarding of compensation to, individuals that have suffered physical or psychological harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of — or that have otherwise been adversely affected by — the contravention of provisions of the regulations.
Part 7 of the Act provides for the appointment of the Chief Accessibility Officer and sets out that officer’s duties and functions, including the duty to advise the Minister in respect of systemic or emerging accessibility issues.
Part 8 of the Act authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations, including regulations to establish accessibility standards and to specify the form of accessibility plans and progress reports. It also provides, among other things, for the designation of the week starting on the last Sunday in May as National AccessAbility Week.
Part 9 of the Act provides for the application of certain provisions of the Act to parliamentary entities, without limiting the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate, the House of Commons and the members of those Houses.
Parts 10 and 11 of the Act make related and consequential amendments to certain Acts.

[Michael Rousseau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Let me assure the committee, people with disabilities and the Canadian public that Air Canada takes very seriously its obligations to ensure that our services are accessible. We want to be the preferred airline for people with disabilities.

We're already investing significant resources in accessibility, and we'll do even better.

Each year, Air Canada successfully carries hundreds of thousands of customers who require mobility assistance or other accommodation. We invest significant resources in accessibility. We have been and will continue to be a leader. In January, we became the first carrier in North America to adopt the Sunflower program for customers with non-visible disabilities, and we were also the first in Canada to enable customers to track their checked mobility devices in real time. In addition, we have updated our policy around priority boarding and storage of mobility aids.

Also, at the start of 2024, we created a customer advisory committee comprising representatives from four Canadian accessibility groups. We were a key participant in drafting the Canadian Transportation Agency’s “Mobility Aids and Air Travel Final Report”. We are proud of the contribution to this government-led initiative. Air Canada was one of the first airlines to waive liability limits in international treaties to pay the full cost for damaged mobility equipment. I sit on the board of the International Air Transport Association, which represents 250 airlines worldwide. Air Canada was a key member of its mobility aid action group.

We endorsed the Accessible Canada Act and its goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040. As part of this, we publicly filed a three-year accessibility plan, which we are currently implementing. Our plan includes 145 far-ranging new initiatives based on a year of research, expert consultations and feedback from travellers with disabilities who took over 220 flights. We would be pleased to provide a copy to committee members for your review.

Our employees, third party international contractors and the entire leadership team have a high awareness, a strong work ethic and deep empathy for this very important customer segment. Hundreds of thousands of customers requiring assistance successfully travel each year.

In 2023, across our network, we received nearly 1.3 million special assistance requests from our passengers. Based on the number of incidents reported, the vast majority had a positive experience. In terms of those requiring wheelchairs and mobility devices, in about 0.15% of these instances customers contacted us to report a negative experience. Overall, our records show that in 2023 about 100 accessibility-related complaints were filed with the CTA related to our services.

This is not to minimize the number of incidents, nor the serious impacts the disruptions had on the individuals involved, but it is important context that indicates, first, that we do a good job and, second, more importantly, that we need and will continue to get better. Our industry is more complex than others; however, I believe that if all our partners work together, we can remove all barriers for air travel.

While the causes behind these negative experiences differ, we have concluded that the chief issue is inconsistency, and the best remedy for this is to provide our people, who all want to do a good job of serving customers, with more and better tailored training and tools so they can succeed every time.

For example, our 10,000 airport employees will receive extra disability-related instruction as part of a new recurrent annual training program. Apart from reinforcing processes, it will promote better understanding. In addition, our frontline and management groups are required to complete a specially designed training program put together with expert advice, which includes content on the principles that all persons must be treated with dignity and barriers removed.

A good parallel is airline safety. Incidents still occur, but aviation today is the safest mode of travel. This was achieved through our industry’s willingness to examine and learn from mistakes, constantly refine processes, adopt new technology or add redundancy, and through continual and better training.

We are well aware of the effects a disruption has on our customers with disabilities. When we fail, we are incredibly disappointed, because it affects a person’s quality of life. In these cases, we apologize and we take responsibility. However, what we hear is that our customers’ overriding concern is always that we act to make sure that whatever happened to them does not happen to others.

This is why our leadership team and all employees at Air Canada are committed to improve and we are striving each day to deliver a positive experience for every customer. We know we must and can do better.

We're ready to answer your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

As Mr. Long mentioned, I was here during Bill C-81. I was very frustrated with it because it seemed like it came in at the eleventh hour. We had to just pass it and get it done.

We were very much focused on accountability, understanding that, when we are consulting with persons with disabilities, sometimes that will look different. It doesn't necessarily mean that we're sitting in a room having a conversation. There could be aides involved from various levels, even when we look at how people can get to the consultation point. Obviously, that was pre-COVID, and the virtual realm wasn't as adapted everywhere.

I also want to ask how CATSA did not know that the regulations required its management to take accessibility training. It's quite alarming to me that it wasn't understood that this should be done, especially when we have a.... This is a culture change. This is something that needs to be discussed, and it has to be at the forefront. That accessibility lens has to be put on there. I'm just wondering why it wouldn't know that this was something that needed to be done.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We know this audit highlights some shortcomings in barrier-free transportation within Canada. We also know the Minister of Disability Inclusion intended on a framework legislative approach for Canada's accessibility act. That was Bill C-81, a couple of Parliaments ago. It leans almost entirely on regulations with that act.

I'm wondering about this: Are the regulations that have been developed sufficient to achieve the goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040, or are there regulatory or legislative changes that would need to be done in order to achieve that goal?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act, I think was one of the most profound and transformational pieces of legislation that we've passed. I know that MP Chabot was involved. I think MP Falk was involved in earlier HUMA days. Obviously, Minister Qualtrough was. It's life-changing for Canadians.

It was passed in 2019 with a goal to basically have Canada barrier-free by 2040. It hit home to me when I had a constituent come into my office before we passed that act. They literally couldn't get on a bus. They were in a wheelchair. They couldn't access the bus.

For those listening in, the many people listening in today, this covers the federal government, obviously, and then organizations that are regulated by the federal government. Just for the record, it's banks, airlines, phone companies, trucking, rail, shipping and what have you.

There's just one point I want to make before I ask questions. The Accessible Canada Act is good for everybody. Ramps and elevators obviously help the disabled, but they're also there to help people who are elderly or to help a mother with a stroller. Signs that are easily legible help people who are learning new languages. Captions on TV help people in a busy, loud airport.

The things that we will do, things that we will legislate, are good for all Canadians, but I mean, it's going to be a while. Obviously, there's great work happening and we're going to get there, but it will take time. It will take a lot of work from all Canadians.

My first question for you, Ms. Thomas, would be about how in the audit you found that while Via Rail and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority consulted with persons with disabilities on their projects, persons with disabilities continue to face ongoing challenges, such as websites that are not accessible. Can you elaborate on that finding, please? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

Minister, good afternoon and thank you for coming before the committee again.

I will say that I've not seen, certainly in my years, a minister who's been so forthcoming, so transparent and so available to members of Parliament and certainly to our HUMA committee.

Minister, I'll start with this. When I started running, wanting to be an MP, I was doing a lot of door to door, and certainly one of the things that became very evident to me very quickly was the plight of two groups: seniors, number one, but more so, persons with disabilities. The stories that I would get at the doors, Minister, were heartbreaking. It's hard to believe that, in a country like Canada, there was a group that had been so ignored. Obviously, mental health issues are through the roof. Employment is bare minimum. Poverty is almost universal and accessibility....

Minister, I want to commend and compliment you on leading and bringing forth Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act, which is transformational legislation. I was proud to be part of that in my previous years with HUMA.

I want to switch to Bill C-22, and I'm obviously very happy that it just passed third reading in the House. It's now with the Senate, and I want to congratulate you again for your leadership on this.

I think we all know at this committee—and, certainly, there was basically unanimous support—that it's historic legislation. It's going to be a game-changer for persons living with disabilities right across the country and certainly in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. I want to thank you for making sure that the disability community will be closely involved in the shaping of the framework of the benefit. Obviously, support and input from that community is of the utmost importance.

We've done a lot, but as you've always said, it's never enough, and we can always do more.

Having said what I've said, Minister, I'd like you to tell us what else you're doing and what else you're working on to improve the lives of persons living with disabilities. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues.

Good afternoon to our witnesses. Welcome back, Mr. Lepofsky. Thanks for your contributions to Bill C-81. That was landmark legislation, the Accessible Canada Act that we put through last session.

To spread it around a bit, my questions will be for Mr. Calderhead and Ms. Bourgeois.

Mr. Calderhead, you alluded earlier to clawback. I want to drill down on that a bit more. As we saw with our national day care program, it takes negotiation with each province.

It's going to be very important for us, as government, to make sure provinces and territories don't view the disability benefit as an income replacement or an opportunity to reduce existing benefits. Recognizing that we have 13 provinces and territories that all have different programs and plans, can you speak to us a bit on the importance of ensuring that this proposed federal benefit is harmonized with the existing provincial and territorial benefits?

Can you touch on that again, Mr. Calderhead?

[Thomas Simpson]

Absolutely. Thank you very much for that, Mr. Morrice.

As I shared earlier, while HUMA, in Bill C-81, was studying the legislation, the disability community sought out timelines for which regulations would be developed. I think it's very apt here that we learn from the same success.

The minister spoke today of her wish for the regulations to be done within a year. Why not legislate that within the framework that is here in front of you as Bill C-32?

I'm no lawyer. I'm sure you can figure out where it fits properly.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I am happy to provide this committee with a list of all the consultations for both Bill C-81 and Bill C-22, because I would suggest it was the most rigorous and fulsome consultation and conversation that any government has ever had on disability in the history of our country.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

First of all, I would beg to differ that Bill C-81 hasn't had a significant impact on the way this government has governed and the way law is made in this country.

[Alexis Conrad]

I'll give you a sense of the logic behind it, building on what I said at the beginning in terms of the framework legislation. Not only is it an opportunity to make sure that the voices of the disabilities community are part of the conversation to feed into the program design, but we also know that the nature of disabilities programming across the country—my colleague talked about this—is dynamic. It changes. Frequently there are changes made by provinces, or in jurisprudence there are changes, and the regulatory process is much more flexible in terms of making sure that the benefit design keeps up with making sure it's still meeting its policy objective.

Some people may have mentioned, through the Accessible Canada Act consultations, that they would like the details in the legislation. The feedback we have gotten from the disabilities community through the engagement we've done is that they prefer this. They like this approach because they feel more a part of it, but also because it is a more flexible, dynamic process to keep pace—

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

Okay. Thank you.

In my opinion—and maybe it's just me—I definitely like to do my homework beforehand so that I know what needs to be done and what boxes need to be checked, to make sure that when we get to the next phase we can check those boxes off.

I was a part of this committee in the 42nd Parliament when this particular committee studied Bill C-81, the accessibility act. We repeatedly heard from stakeholders at the time that they wanted things placed in the legislation versus in the regulations, because they wanted stability and they wanted predictability.

What I've heard and what has been said is that the benefit amount and eligibility for this program are not included in the legislation as drafted. My question is, why was it decided to exclude the basic and integral information to this program from the scrutiny of Parliament?

[Mario Dion, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today as the committee considers the 2022-2023 main estimates for the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

To begin, I will share some brief background information about the office for those of you whom I have not previously met in my four years as Commissioner.

Our main goal is to help regulatees, namely public office holders and members of the House of Commons, know and follow the rules of the two regimes the office administers: the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

We fulfill this mandate through our experienced staff. There are slightly more than 50 people who work for the office, and our budget is devoted mostly to paying their salaries. In fact, 82% of the budget goes towards salaries.

You were likely in communication with an adviser from the office, as all the members who completed their initial compliance process were in contact with an adviser from the office.

In addition to advisory services, which are the most visible part of what we do, all of the work of the office supports regulatees, directly and indirectly, and builds an understanding of the rules.

Employees provide communications, outreach support and investigative services when allegations of possible issues are made, and they also provide legal expertise to me in conducting all these activities. They maintain the technical and financial framework for the office's operations and assist me directly. Nearly 70% of the budget is dedicated to program-related functions.

It was a busy year in 2021-22. The advisers' workloads increased by 43% in this fiscal year over the previous one. This is a natural outcome following an election, of course. It requires additional work under both regimes, such as completing the initial compliance process for all MPs, newly elected or re-elected, and for new ministers, new parliamentary secretaries as well as new ministerial staff. As you know, there is a significant turnover of ministerial staff after an election.

Prevention is the major focus of the regimes that the office administers, and education is key to prevention.

In the past fiscal year, for the first year ever, we surveyed public office holders to help us better understand their needs. The response rate was high and yielded positive responses. The analysis is nearly complete, and we will not only use the results to better align our business approaches, but we will ensure it's made public to support transparency in our work. We plan to conduct a similar survey of members of Parliament, this time under the code, in this fiscal year.

I believe that the vast majority of regulatees are honest people who want to follow the rules. My role and the role of my office is to provide what is needed to achieve and maintain compliance. I believe regulatees are accountable for their own compliance with the rules and must develop a reflex to act ethically and educate themselves in order to ensure compliance. The office will continue to strengthen its focus on education and outreach in support of this.

We have maintained our primary focus on assisting, advising and directing regulatees as well as monitoring their actions.

In the main estimates, you will see that there is an increase over the previous year of $473,000, mostly devoted to the payment of pay increases—economic increases to employees—as well as benefit plans, from the adjustment of the rate as determined by the Treasury Board.

It is also to prepare training and communications materials for our new case management system, which will come online during this fiscal year. We need to prepare both staff and users for this new system that will be introduced.

Therefore, it's benefits, salaries and making sure that people understand the new system before its deployed. The last area is to ensure that we comply with the new requirements under Bill C-81 on accessibility.

The office is already taking steps to improve the accessibility of documents used on social media and in presentations. Accessibility is not just required, it is key to meeting the needs of regulatees and the public.

I hope the committee will find this information helpful.

I'd be pleased to answer your questions.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you so much.

You say in your report that she felt “invisible”. I can really feel that from reading your words. I wonder what she would think today. If she were here today and could talk to our committee, what would she say?

Things have changed, in many cases for the better, but people with disabilities, and especially women with disabilities, still really have roadblocks. The Accessible Canada Act is moving us in the right direction.

Do you think she would say that we are moving in the right direction?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you, Minister, again for your regular availability to this committee. We really appreciate it.

Minister, I want to say it's refreshing to work with somebody like you who is so passionate about her portfolio. It was a pleasure to work with you on the Accessible Canada Act, Bill C-81, in the last Parliament. I know it's transformational legislation. Again, thank you for your commitment.

Minister, I do want [Technical difficulty—Editor] to talk about CERB. I know MP Gazan talked about CERB with respect to poverty, and I think we all know that without CERB hundreds of thousands of Canadians would have fallen into poverty.

Minister, my question is this. When the Canadian economy shut down due to the pandemic, it was evident that the employment insurance system would not be able to handle the volume of claimants who would be applying. I think all of us MPs could certainly attest to that, given the calls we were getting into our offices as our government launched the Canada emergency response benefit, the CERB, to support Canadians who were unable to work. This benefit ended up providing direct financial support to more than eight million Canadians, ensuring they had the help they needed to pay their bills and support their families.

I will be blunt. It was shocking to me to hear, especially from Conservative members, comments about the CERB being too generous. What would have happened if our government had not taken action to create the CERB?

Thank you, Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening to all of my colleagues. First and foremost, Mr. Flack and Mr. Robidoux, on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay and all Canadians, thank you so much for the work you and your department have done over the past seven to 10 months. The work you've done for Canadians has been incredible. You stepped up when you needed to. Certainly, I know Canadians know that.

For me, in my riding, one of the greatest privileges and top priorities I've always had over the past five years has been to work with and advocate for the rights of Canadians with disabilities. As my friend and colleague MP Young referenced earlier, it was a privilege to be able to work in this committee in the last Parliament on our government's groundbreaking Accessible Canada Act, Bill C-81, along with some of my colleagues who are still here today, including MP Young and MP Falk.

On this Human Rights Day, I would like to focus my questions on what our government is doing through the investments shown in the estimates to help ensure that the rights of Canadians with disabilities are upheld, particularly throughout the pandemic.

The supplementary estimates (B) 2020-21 allocate $848.6 million towards a one-time payment to persons with disabilities, pursuant to an act respecting further COVID-19 measures.

During its study on Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the committee heard, and I know all MPs did, about the difficulties faced by persons with disabilities during this public health crisis.

How many people is this measure expected to assist, Mr. Flack?