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?

[John M. Rafferty, President and Chief Executive Officer, CNIB Foundation]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My name is John Rafferty. I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, best known as CNIB.

CNIB has been part of the Canadian landscape for over 100 years with a continuous mission to ensure inclusion and accessibility for all Canadians who are blind or partially sighted.

Currently, the Government of Canada data shows that there are 1.5 million Canadians living with sight loss. We have a long history of working with governments going back more than 90 years, advocating for the accessible voting act for Canadians who are blind, and working most recently with government across all disability sectors on BillC-81, the Accessible Canada Act.

Today, we are here to talk about smart devices, affordability and access. Smart devices over the last five or six years have changed the way Canadians with disabilities are able to interact. With developers developing new applications all the time, a smart device can allow me to navigate safely in the physical environment. It can allow me to read prescriptions when I can't see and safely take medications. It can keep my connected the way it keeps others connected. These devices and applications are about a person being able to interact in the community.

In areas of education and employment, access to high-speed data and affordable plans are more important. For Canadians who are blind or partially sighted, with a full-time employment rate of just 28%, affordability of data is critical. These devices may be smart, but if they're not connected, they really are not. More and more, now is the time for us to look at closing this gap. We are looking at addressing issues related to applications that are there for the safety of individuals who are blind or partially sighted, and to even consider looking at applications that should be exempt from data charges at all.

We urge this committee to take a look at affordability, access for both rural and remote Canadians, and also for all Canadians with disabilities.

I look forward to questions you may have.

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

Thank you.

During the study of Bill C-81 in the previous Parliament, we heard repeatedly about the importance of the accessibility lens when government programs are being created, as well as the importance of plain-language communications. The point was well made, I think, that all Canadians benefit from greater accessibility. Certainly, in the area of plain language we can see how it would have improved the government's response, as so many Canadians are now being required to pay back CERB.

A lot of the testimony we've heard has underscored, in my view, how far we are from achieving an accessible Canada. Can you speak to the opportunities for the government to help ensure an accessible Canada in its ongoing response to COVID-19 and, as a learning opportunity, where the government may have missed the mark on it?

[Angela Bonfanti]

It's really important for us to talk about the fact that this is not a one-pronged approach. The stimulus is a great first step for individuals. We also need to be talking about accessibility and inclusion from the legislative side of things. We also need to be talking about employers and the incentivization to help ensure that people with disabilities continue to join the workforce as we go.

We were very vocal throughout the development of Bill C-81 around nothing for us without us, and I think that needs to be very much at the helm of anything that is decided by way of managing the pandemic moving forward for this particular group of the community.

Also, there are roughly 90,000 registered Canadian charities out there. Paulette and I are two of many. However, there are few of us that deal directly with Canada's most vulnerable. I believe there is still an opportunity to prioritize any further stimulus for charities dealing with Canadians in difficult situations directly and to look at a potentially long-term support that is scalable so we can catch up with our revenues as we move forward.

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

No, that's okay.

I was part of the study on Bill C-81. I recall the need for plain language and that it was kind of drilled at us that the government has a responsibility in helping create a culture of inclusion and equity.

I quickly want to know if any of you could provide this committee with examples of how the government can better ensure accessibility in its COVID-19 response.

[Benjamin Davis]

Good afternoon.

I'm pleased to present to your committee key priorities for Canadians affected by MS. Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world. An estimated one in every 385 Canadians live with the disease. It's a chronic, episodic, progressive and often disabling disease of the central nervous system. Since that includes the brain, spinal cord and optic nerve, MS can affect vision, memory, balance and mobility. On average, 11 Canadians are diagnosed with MS every day.

The MS Society has heard the personal and profound stories of life with MS from Canadians, the struggles in the workplace, the financial difficulties families are facing to make ends meet, the frustrating barriers in accessing Health Canada-approved therapies, appropriate care, housing and social supports, and of course, the hope that research gives to the tens of thousands of Canadians living with this disease.

To address these realities, I'll present our recommendations on employment and income security, access and accelerating research.

First is employment security. People with MS want to work but struggle to continue to work. We need to update the definition of disability to include episodic. A staggering 60% are unemployed and that needs to change. Often the problem is one of flexibility and accommodation, and an understanding of episodic disability.

Last year, the HUMA committee studied Motion No. 192, episodic disabilities. Its report, “Taking Action: Improving the Lives of Canadians with Episodic Disabilities”, made 11 important recommendations that now need to be implemented, including extending the duration of the EI sickness benefit from 15 to 26 weeks.

The second area of priority is income security. The costs of paying for medication, services, equipment and treatment are a significant burden for people with MS and their families. Intertwined with this burden are complicated application processes, requirements for numerous verified medical forms and strict eligibility criteria for programs. When MS stops people from working, they should be able to access adequate income and disability support. This situation is amplified for women. In Canada, MS affects women three times as often as men.

We recommend the following. First, make the disability tax credit refundable. Second, implement the 11 recommendations in the HUMA committee's Motion No. 192 report. Third, change the eligibility criteria for the Canada pension plan and disability tax credit to include those with episodic disabilities, using the new Accessible Canada Act's definition of disability.

The third area of priority is access. Access to comprehensive treatment, care and appropriate housing is a must. We recommend the following to make access a reality for Canadians. First, implement the Accessible Canada Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, with a specific focus on programs and service delivery, employment, built environment and transportation. Second, we recommend, through intergovernmental health agreements, investing in comprehensive home care, and for those unable to remain at home, funding the development of appropriate housing through the national housing strategy. Third, we recommend increasing access to Health Canada-approved treatments, as early intervention is vital to avoid many of the long-term economic and personal costs that result from unnecessary, irreversible disability. The needs of people with MS and their families should be at the centre of health and drug policy decisions.

The fourth and final priority area is accelerating research. Research is key to new treatments, better quality of life, and ultimately, a cure. Canada remains at the forefront of MS research around the world. Through generous contributions from donors, corporate sponsors and fervent fundraisers, the MS Society has invested over $175 million in research since its inception in 1948.

The MS Society continues to fund fundamental research, as we still don't know what causes MS or how we could prevent it in the future. First, we recommend the federal government continue to invest in basic scientific research. Second, we recommend that the federal government connect with health charities to ensure the patient voice is part of setting research priorities. We believe that federal research funding programs should be informed by the perspectives of patients, their caregivers and health care providers. Finally, our third recommendation is to partner with health charities to turn innovative research into real-life treatments.

There are a number of partnership opportunities within the impact goals of our own new strategic plan: advance treatment and care, enhance well-being, understand and halt disease progression and prevent MS. For example, the Canadian prospective cohort study to understand progression in MS, otherwise known as CanProCo, is an innovative public, private and philanthropic partnership that will allow researchers and clinicians to observe a large group of people living with MS from across Canada over a period of time, and collect data from them. Analyzing this data will answer fundamental questions as to why and how progression occurs, which is key to improving diagnosis, treatment, health services and health outcomes.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak and share with you the priorities that Canadians affected by MS want you to take action on: employment, income, access and research.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Many constituents are new immigrants. They have a lack of English and they're not able to battle through the telephone system. There are other people who are vulnerable, and they want accessibility.

As you know, Bill C-81 has come. What are the improvements you are making regarding Bill C-81 to give better services to the constituents?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Given that Bill C-81 has now received royal assent, is there a sense that there is significant work to do within the call centres in terms of accessibility?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

I don't often do this, but if the committee will indulge me, there is something that was just brought up by the last two questions. You talked about time, accuracy and accessibility being standards. Were there any conversations or any questions regarding Bill C-81 or the accessibility legislation that is now in place? Is that something that was ever part of the conversation?

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, surely the member cannot be as unaware of the arguments that people have been making, including in the media, about the reality of the effects of this, at least as unaware as he may have been about the process that Bill C-81 followed in the House.

Eligible media organizations are precisely the hinge point in this issue. It is the government, through this panel, that will determine who should be considered eligible to access this funding and who should not. Yes, we are talking about something that involves a cost to government of $600 million.

Therefore, there is a cost, and it only applies to eligible media organizations. The member knows that who fits into that box and who does not will be decided by a panel that includes Unifor. I did not just make that up. It was not an invention of the opposition. Anybody who reads the papers or consults the independent media about which he speaks will know that the government has created this panel, it does in fact include Unifor and that many of the leading journalistic voices in the country have criticized it.

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of our third annual National AccessAbility Week, and of course with Bill C-81 having gone through this House last week, I can assure every Canadian that we will find jobs for these workers. In fact, we are showing them the dignity of giving them meaningful work so that they contribute to government operations.

I have been working with the organization. No one will be without a job.

Opposition Motion—News Media Industry

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way has a habit of debating things in the House that he clearly has not read about, because he is not aware of what this motion is about. The motion is about the inclusion of Unifor in the distribution of funds.

Yesterday he went after me on Twitter, saying that I had put Bill C-81 at risk of not passing because it might not have time to go through the Senate. Actually, he did not know that when we were debating Bill C-81, it had already passed the Senate, and we were debating Senate amendments. He has a habit, without reading or understanding the detail, whether it is Bill C-81 or this motion, of taking strong opinions and attacking people.

Let me be very clear for the benefit of the member: This party will always stand up for small businesses. We do not accuse small business owners of being tax cheats; we create a competitive environment that is beneficial for small businesses and entrepreneurs, which includes journalists. That does not include having Jerry Dias at Unifor involved in deciding who gets a government bailout. That is not something that we see as part of an agenda to advance and protect small business.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Karki, age 66 and 69, missed their flight from Vancouver to Edmonton after being left in their wheelchairs without assistance for hours at the airport. They could not go to a washroom or even get a drink of water.

The Liberal government passed an accessibility act that exempts the Canadian Transportation Agency from enforcing it. How can we rely on airlines to include people with disabilities when Liberals failed to make it mandatory in Bill C-81?

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that Prince Edward Islander Hannah MacLellan will be representing Canada at a UN conference on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York next week.

At 20, Hannah has already made her mark in P.E.I. politics. She was the driving force in the adoption of a bill known as Hannah's Bill, which passed through the P.E.I. legislature in 2016.

While working toward a degree in human rights and disability studies, Hannah has been an active member of the Carleton University Young Liberals and is a valuable employee in my office. She has been a fixture in the gallery of this place, especially during the debate on the government's bill to create a barrier-free Canada. Hannah most recently represented the riding of Cardigan in Parliament for Daughters of the Vote, where she gave an impassioned speech on Bill C-81.

I am proud to say that persons with disabilities have a formidable advocate in Ms. MacLellan. Today also happens to be her birthday. I wish Hannah a happy birthday.

Persons with Disabilities

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility)]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that all Canadians deserve to have the same opportunities and chances at success. Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, was passed with unanimous consent this week. Once it receives royal assent, it will allows us to transition from a system where Canadians with disabilities have to fight for every basic access, to a new system that systematically identifies and prevents barriers from the start. This legislation reflects the work and commitment of those in the disability community who, for years, have been tireless advocates of an accessible Canada. This success is theirs.

Criminal Records Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to speak to Bill C-93. However, before I do, I want to congratulate all my fellow Albertans celebrating carbon tax freedom day. I also want to thank the new provincial government in Alberta for keeping its promise, which is something my friends across the way do not know. Maybe they can wait for the translation. It kept its campaign promise to repeal that bill. I also want to take this opportunity to wish our new premier, Premier Jason Kenney, a happy birthday.

Bill C-93 is a bill basically to provide no-cost expedited record suspensions for those who received a criminal record for pot possession. It proposes to make changes to the pardon process to waive the fees for past pot possession convictions. It will assist Canadians who were criminalized for possession of pot that is now legal, waive the usual wait time and also amend other acts.

We generally support the bill, but I have to agree with my colleague from the riding of Victoria, and it is a dad joke, when he called it half-baked. We will support the bill. It is not perfect, but it is a step forward. I am sure when the Conservatives are back in power, we will take the time to fix the weaknesses in the bill.

The Conservatives at committee put through several valid amendments, which I will discuss here.

First, we put forward an amendment to allow for record suspension applications to be made through an online portal to make it easier and most cost-effective for Canadians to apply. Unfortunately, that was voted down by the Liberals.

We put forward an amendment to allow for applicants whose records had been destroyed to sign an affidavit explaining their circumstances and swearing that they were eligible. This would bring procedural fairness, which was criticized by several witnesses. It was originally passed at committee and then unfortunately defeated by the Liberals at a later stage.

We put forward an amendment to reinstate the Parole Board's power to cause inquiries to be made to determine the applicant's conduct since the day of conduct. It was unfortunately defeated by the Liberals.

We also put put forward an amendment with respect the Parole Board's power to cause inquiries with respect to any factors that may be considered in determining whether ordering the record suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. That was also defeated by the Liberals at committee.

Finally, we put forward an amendment to require that the Parole Board include in its annual report a review of the success rate of this legislation and the associated costs. This actually was approved.

The Canadian Police Association put forward an amendment, which we hope the Liberals will consider. This is the police asking that the Parole Board retain limited flexibility and discretion to conduct investigations and to ensure that the small number of applications from habitual offenders, not all, are vetted. This would ensure that these individuals would not take advantage of a process that was clearly not intended for their cases.

There are some fiscal implications of the bill.

The Department of Public Safety and the Minister of Public Safety think it is around $2 million. They have not done any fulsome studies, but they guess it is around $2 million. It is funny timing for the minister to say that, basically at the same time the Senate has forced through Bill C-81, the new backdoor gun registry bill.

I want people to think back to the Liberal government years ago and Allan Rock. The government said that the gun registration would only be $2 million. It ended up well over a billion. It ended up costing Canadian taxpayers about $1.3 billion. Of course, with this massive spending oversight, what did the Liberal government do? Much like it does today with all its other mistakes, errors and incompetence. It blames someone else. It blames the provinces and the gun owners themselves.

[Member spoke in Latin and provided the following translation:]

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

[Member spoke in Latin and provided the following translation:]

Beware of Liberals promising just $2 million costs.

[English]

The government apparently has not done a proper study on the costs or timelines. The fee previously was $631, which I understand had been moved up previously in 2012, on advice of bureaucrats who said that was the general cost of arranging the cost of the suspension. Now the government is saying it expects it to be $250. Where did $250 to the penny come from? We do not know because they have not done their homework on it.

It is currently five to 10 years to get the suspension, but the public safety minister said he could not offer a timeline as to when that would happen. He said that the critical point was not the cost or the actual timeline to help Canadians; it was getting the bill tabled. It was not the actual results helping Canadians, but it was the announcement of getting this bill tabled.

I have to ask, why now? The government has also said this is fundamental transformation. If it is critical and a fundamental transformation, I have to ask why the government waited until the final three weeks to put the bill through. Obviously it has been rushed through for political reasons.

I have looked at the departmental plans, and remember these are the plans that the minister signs and that are tabled in the House. This is not just nominal propaganda; these are actual documents tabled in the House, showing the government's plans for its departments.

These are the Liberals' targets for this year. The percentage of record suspensions that are processed within an established time frame is 95%, but the Minister of Public Safety says there is no time frame. Why would they commit to a target of 95%, table these numbers in the House and at the same time tell Canadians they do not know where they are going to help. I do not know if they do not have a clue, do not know what they are doing with their departmental plans or are just being disingenuous.

I also note that the departmental plans for 2018-19 for the Parole Board go out three years. When we factor in just 2% inflation, they are cutting 8.6% of the Parole Board's spending. This is in the Parole Board's departmental plans. These are actual plans, submitted in the House for long-range forecasts, which show they are cutting 8.6% of Parole Board funding.

When the member for Yellowhead submitted an amendment at committee, suggesting that people be able to apply online for this, members were told by the Parole Board that it could not offer it because of technical limitations. Apparently they do not have enough money to develop the technology, but at the same time we are going to allow this new process with up to 250,000 Canadians applying.

When we look at the Parole Board's departmental plans, which are also required to show labour going forward, they have not added a single body from the 2016-17 year. From last year to next year, they added five bodies. They are going to process perhaps up to 250,000 of these suspensions with no extra labour. Why do they think they can do all this extra work without providing extra bodies and while at the same time cutting 8.6% from the Parole Board budget going forward?

If getting it tabled is as critical as the minister says, and if it is so transformational, why has the government not provided for long-term funding in the departmental plans? It is not even mentioned in the public safety minister's own departmental plan. I remind members that all the pardons for the unjust criminalization of same-sex activities will be going through at the same time, yet with no extra bodies.

This is right from the Parole Board's departmental plan, signed off by the Minister of Public Safety. It says the volume of applications forecasted to be received this year or next year remains the same. We have all the applications from the unjust criminalization of those in same-sex activities all those years ago and potentially 250,000 Canadians who can receive a pardon for pot possession. The government has provided no extra resources and no extra staff, and has actually said there is not going to be any increase in applications over the previous year.

Again, I have to wonder how seriously the Liberal members are taking this. They say it is transformational and critical, but like so many other things, they leave it until the last second and rush it through. Are they pushing it through solely for their political agenda and for political reasons? The evidence shows they are. If they actually really cared about Canadians, they would have tabled this legislation at the same time they legalized pot. They would have taken the time to perhaps consider the other amendments put through by our party, the NDP or law enforcement members.

While we support the bill, it is another example of lazy legislation by the government.

Accessible Canada Act

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise in the House to ask one of the last questions before we adopt this bill.

When I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport, we worked on this issue. When I got the call telling me I was to be parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport, the Prime Minister mentioned that the position included the persons with disabilities file. I said I knew nothing about it. He said he was giving me a chance to learn.

It turned out to be one of the best experiences of my political career. Alongside the minister, I worked with persons with disabilities and participated in consultations. Today is a great day for the minister and for me as well.

With all the parties coming together on this, does my colleague opposite think the future of persons with disabilities can continue to improve, just as we improved Bill C-81?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ministers for the work they did on Bill C-81. I would also like to recognize the excellent work of the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, who motivated us and brought us together on this bill. My colleague who is here beside me also deserves a round of applause for his work.

It is an honour for me to speak to this bill, and I believe I may be the last one to do so. I have always cared about and been committed to the cause of people with reduced mobility and disabilities.

When I began my career, I was a young radio host and the very first volunteer work that I was called upon to do in that capacity was to host a radiothon, a telethon for cerebral palsy. I do not know whether Quebeckers or members of the House remember the major cerebral palsy telethon with well-known radio and television host Serge Laprade. Every year for many years, Quebeckers looked forward to this major televised event, which sought to raise money for people with disabilities.

It was a first. Once a year, on television, we were seeing people who had difficulty doing the same things as everyone else. We were seeing people who needed help and money from others to live. I do not know whether similar events were held elsewhere, so I will talk about Quebec.

Quebeckers were always very generous. Year after year, more and more people contributed to this cause. In addition to helping people with disabilities, this event began to raise awareness of the importance of meeting the accessibility needs of people with disabilities, who are people just like us. In the beginning, these telethons had a tendency to paint people with disabilities as people we should pity. That is how it was. The scenes that were shown depicted the challenges and hardship these individuals face. People with cerebral palsy sometimes have difficulty speaking and so those watching had to pay close attention to understand what they were saying.

Canadians and Quebeckers had a rather fraught relationship with disabilities. There were these telethons, but there were also telethons in small regions like my own. The Caisse populaire had hosted a small local telethon and brought in people with cerebral palsy. People found out that talking with them was very pleasant. The problem was that the people with disabilities could not actually get into the buildings where our telethons or radiothons were being held. They had to be picked up and carried in. Even the places hosting telethons or activities for people with disabilities were not accessible.

One of the first decisions that the volunteer organization made was to build a ramp. Now these people could get into the building where we were ready and willing to help them. We wanted to involve them so they could be there with us to help raise funds. That is one of the objectives of the bill that I am going to talk about later on.

I had so much fun at the telethon that I decided to become president of my riding's cerebral palsy association in Thetford Mines. It was a small association, yet it somehow managed to raise $50,000, $60,000 or $80,000 a year. It worked miracles with that money, mainly raising public awareness, because renovating buildings costs a lot of money, more than $60,000 or $80,000.

Anyway, I became president of the association, and one of the first things we did was increase the number of directors with cerebral palsy or other disabilities or conditions, so that we could make decisions with them, for them. That is one of the elements of the bill that really struck a chord with me. This is not a bill that is going to impose anything on people with disabilities. Instead, it focuses on working with them to find solutions.

A particular decision may sometimes seem like a smart one, but it could ultimately serve no purpose to persons with disabilities. They may not need it. The radiothon was more than just a first volunteer experience. It was an opportunity to interact with people who are different, who have things to say and who want to do things. These are extraordinary people.

My volunteer experience changed my perspective. Everywhere I go, every organization or public building I visit, anytime I play a sport or recreational activity, I always take some time to ask myself whether the space is accessible by all. I ask myself if everyone can participate in this sport or if everyone can work in this space. Unfortunately there is still a lot more work left to do.

Although I completely agree with this legislation, it really is just a first step. The bill allocates money, shows goodwill and proposes some plans, which all represent one small step. Although this step is a small one, it is still a step forward. This is something that had not yet been done and that was necessary.

As I said, I started doing volunteer work on the radio in 1985. It is now 2019 and we are still trying to implement accessibility plans. I have had the opportunity, and I truly consider it an opportunity, to work with persons with disabilities. It makes absolutely no sense to me that we are still having to introduce accessibility legislation. Accessibility should already be standard practice. We should not even have to ask the question. An accessibility plan should simply be the same thing as the architectural plan for all spaces, for all projects. This is why it is a great honour to speak to this bill this evening.

Volunteering gets in your blood. It is infectious. I was the mayor of Thetford Mines. One of the first things I did was check all the municipal buildings to make sure everything was okay. I was mayor of Thetford Mines for seven years. I did not manage to make the Thetford Mines city council chamber accessible. It is not an easy thing to do. It costs a lot of money and requires a lot of investment. We have to send a message: every infrastructure project should always include an envelope for making all public buildings accessible. If not, then we have to convince seven other people who did not have the same volunteering experience that I did to invest a significant amount of money to allow a person from the community to attend a municipal council meeting once a year. Trying to convince colleagues around the table is not always easy. I did not succeed.

We started making progress. We decided to move the council chamber. We gutted a building and decided that the next council chamber would be at that location on the ground floor and therefore accessible. We did not get that far because we did not manage to get the funding to build a new city hall, but that is another story.

In any case, that is where we are today. All elected officials, anyone who is in a position of authority, all departments, organizations and Crown corporations under the minister's responsibility must keep this in mind and steer policy in that direction. If a portion of infrastructure budgets is not dedicated to improving the quality of life of people who cannot access the full range of services they are entitled to, to the same degree as all other Canadians, then we will have failed.

I will speak to Bill C-81 and review a few points for people listening to us, because this is important.

The purpose of this bill is to benefit all persons, especially persons with disabilities, through the progressive realization, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, of a Canada without barriers, through proactive compliance and enforcement measures of accessibility standards that regulated parties must respect and uphold. Upholding these standards is another important aspect.

Sometimes, a grant is provided to install a ramp. However, the ramp has to be maintained. After five years, a hole may appear in the ramp and someone in a wheelchair will not be able to use it. If it cannot be used, it is no longer accessible. The ramp needs to be maintained. It is great to receive a given amount of money, but these structures have to be maintained. That is why the accessibility plan requires us to report after a certain number of years. That is an important element of the bill. It is a good initiative.

The requirement for all federally regulated entities, including private enterprises, to create multi-year accessibility plans, set objectives and present a report on what was done has been included in the bill. That is what I was referring to in the question I put to the minister just before giving my speech.

It is good to set an example, but that is only the first step. This needs to happen everywhere. We have to ensure that all Canadians get the message—not just those working in federally regulated sectors, but those working in large and small businesses as well. Thinking about the accessibility of our buildings should be second nature.

The Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization is a Crown corporation tasked with creating standards. I am always a bit afraid of new agencies. I always worry that more money is being invested in the offices than on the ground. That is one of my concerns. However, if we do not start somewhere, we will not get anything done. It is a vicious circle.

Personally, I hope that this organization will be more concerned with what is happening on the ground than with office management and expansion. We do not want to have everyone with disabilities working in the same agency. We want them to work everywhere, in all the federal government buildings, and not just in one place. That is something we must absolutely keep in mind.

We have supported this bill and we will support it now, because it is a necessary piece of legislation. Clearly, we would have liked it to go a little further. We would have liked it to be less permissive with regard to the minister’s discretion, and we would have liked to see the minister require a little more of the people who will have to implement the bill.

We proposed some sixty amendments, but only three opposition amendments were agreed to. I hope that further improvements will be made to this bill in the future. As I see it, there are still about 57 good ideas that are not reflected in this bill.

I think this shows that there is still work to do. Whatever party forms the next government, it will still have work to do. Everyone knows I cannot give a speech without saying that I hope my whole team and I will be part of the next government. It is hard to deliver a 20-minute speech without being partisan. The members opposite know me.

The Senate adopted 11 amendments to Bill C-81, and those amendments improved the bill tremendously. I think it is a step in the right direction. Thanks to the Senate amendments, American Sign Language, Quebec Sign Language and indigenous sign languages will be recognized as the primary languages for communication used by deaf people in Canada. That is in line with stakeholders' recommendations and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the Harper government ratified in 2010.

Even with the amendments, the bill uses permissive language, as I already mentioned. If possible, I hope that the ministers who will be implementing the bill will change “may” to “must”. If they make this personal, they will be able to do it. The bill says that they may do it, and I hope that they will.

As I was saying, these new standards will apply only to regulated individuals and entities, but it would be worthwhile to expand this and to use this bill as a model to help make life better for everyone.

In conclusion, I want to read a few excerpts from an open letter on the need to swiftly pass the Senate amendments, which was signed by a number of organizations. This open letter congratulates the minister but it highlights a comment made by Senator Chantal Petitclerc, which I really liked. She said that the committee's amendments reflect the maxim of disability communities: “Nothing about us without us”. This must absolutely guide our decisions.

This is what should guide ministers, agency directors and anyone who is called upon to participate in the development of these accessibility plans and all related measures.

Some very good ideas might come from people like us who do not have disabilities, but although we sometimes think we have the solution, that is often not the case. People with disabilities are able to tell us what the solution should be and how we can help them. That might cost a lot less than implementing our own solutions. I have seen this in the past. These individuals do not want the hottest Cadillac or the ultimate in accommodation. They want to live their lives and thrive like the rest of us, and the best way to help them is to work with them.

Many organizations want this legislation to be implemented quickly. I will name them, because they deserve to be recognized for the work they have done throughout the long process of getting Bill C-81 passed.

They are the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, AODA Alliance, ARCH Disability Law Centre, Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, Citizens With Disabilities-Ontario, Ontario Autism Coalition, Spinal Cord Injury Canada, StopGap Foundation, Travel For All, Older Women's Network; Physicians of Ontario Neurodevelopment Advocacy; Barrier-Free Canada; B.C. Coalition of People who use Guide Dogs, the Keremeos Measuring Up team, National Coalition of People who use Guide and Service Dogs in Canada, The Project Group Consulting Cooperative, VIEWS Ontario For the Vision Impaired, Communication Disabilities Access Canada, British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, DeafBlind Ontario Services, March of Dimes Canada, North Saskatchewan Independent Living Centre, Peterborough Council For Persons With Disabilities, Québec Accessible, CNIB Foundation for Ontario and Quebec, Electromagnetic Pollution Illnesses Canada Foundation, Ontario Federation for Cerebral Palsy, and the Rick Hansen Foundation.

That is just a small number of people, but they worked hard to encourage us to change our habits and ways of doing things. Having once been a member of one of these organizations, I know that we still have a lot of work to do. These organizations work so hard.

First, they work with their clients. Second, they try to persuade the government to change things. Third, they raise funds, because they do not have big operating budgets. Lastly, they improve the lives of many people living with the disabilities that have been mentioned.

In closing, I would like to thank everyone who was involved in introducing Bill C-81. I want to remind the government that 57 amendments could have been adopted to improve the bill, but all the same, the bill is a step in the right direction.

I thank all my colleagues who worked on the committee and did their utmost to speak for those who could not be there. It is our role, as members, to be a voice for the voiceless and to make sure they get a chance to speak when and where they want to.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at the last stage of debate on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, also known as the accessible Canada act.

Dedicated and tireless work has gone into this bill ever since it was introduced in the House last June. Many, many people spent considerable time and energy on this historic bill, including people with disabilities, stakeholders and organizations that have a role to play in making Canada accessible. More specifically, the disability community was heavily involved throughout the parliamentary process, and thanks to their efforts these people now have a bill that reflects their voices and priorities.

We should all be very proud of the hard work that went into this bill. Everyone who took part in this process understands the particular significance of this legislation.

This bill represents a historic milestone for the rights of persons with disabilities in Canada. It builds on our country's strong human rights system and is a major step in the ongoing implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Canada has certainly come a long way on accessibility. However, for millions of persons with disabilities across this country who continue to face barriers every single day in their communities and workplaces, this bill is long overdue. The proposed accessible Canada act pursues a simple, but essential, goal: to realize a Canada without barriers.

What the accessible Canada act is proposing is a major culture shift. Right now, our current system requires persons with disabilities to fight for access and inclusion. We have all seen it. We all know somebody who is facing challenges with their mobility, people who cannot hear and people who cannot see, who yet want to make a contribution to our society and live their lives fully. We have to take them into account. We have to address their needs.

The proposed accessible Canada act sets out to change that and create a Canada that is inclusive and accessible for everyone from the get-go. Canadians with disabilities are tired of being treated as an afterthought. This is what Bill C-81 sets out to do: to transform our perceptions of disability and ensure accessibility and inclusion from the start.

Improving the quality of life of Canadians with disabilities is a priority of this government. That is why we are not even waiting for this legislation to be enacted before taking meaningful steps. The steps that we are taking to improve the Canadian Transportation Agency regulations are a good example of this. The goal of these regulations is an ambitious one: to create the most accessible transportation system in the world.

Here I want to take a minute to thank the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is playing a pivotal and extremely important role in addressing the issues related to transportation. That is the kind of ambition that we need and which Canadians living with disabilities deserve.

We are taking a sectoral approach with this legislation. The opposition has criticized us for this, but it makes sense to take this approach since accessibility is everyone's responsibility. All departments need to take accessibility into account as they make decisions, devise policies and prioritize spending. There must always be a focus, among all of the other priorities associated with legislation and regulations, on what those do with respect to accessibility. That is why, for example, in the transportation realm, we are strengthening the powers of the Canadian Transportation Agency. This will have a significant impact across the country for Canadians living with disabilities.

Our government has devoted special attention to accessibility in the transportation sector, which has been made a priority item in this bill. We are committed to protecting and promoting the dignity and human rights of people with disabilities by ensuring that we have a transportation system that is truly accessible from coast to coast to coast.

I myself take the train every week, I fly frequently, and I use other modes of transportation from time to time. We are very conscious of the fact that using the modes of transportation we take for granted can make travel very challenging, if not impossible, for certain people with disabilities.

In the federal transportation sector, service providers will be required to develop accessibility plans and provide progress reports, as well as respond to the feedback generated by the process. They will also be required to consult people with disabilities in the development of those accessibility plans so as to ensure that the community is reflected in the plans now and in the future. They will also have to implement meaningful organizational and culture change with respect to accessibility.

The bill sets out additional requirements to guarantee that the government proactively assumes its responsibilities when it comes to identifying, removing and preventing barriers. Where barriers do exist, we need to have stronger redress mechanisms.

This is our opportunity to achieve yet another historic milestone for disability rights in Canada. Here, I want to take a second to speak about the incredible leadership of our Minister of Public Services and Procurement on this particular file, as well as the leadership of our Prime Minister, who, for the first time in our history, has given the issue of accessibility the importance, the priority and urgency it deserves.

Accessibility and inclusion benefit everyone. The proposed accessible Canada act will not only improve the day-to-day lives of millions of people in Canada, but also have broader positive economic and social benefits. Ensuring accessible workplaces and employment practices means taking advantage of a large and untapped and talented labour market. Making goods, services, facilities and programs accessible means benefiting from the business of a major client base. Removing and preventing the barriers that stop persons with disabilities from fully participating in our communities means levelling the playing field so that every person can live a full and meaningful life. This is what Canada is all about.

We now have the chance to address the systemic barriers and inequity that still exist today. The barriers faced by persons with disabilities are real and tangible. To take down those barriers, we need to get Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, passed as soon as possible. We cannot afford to wait. Persons with disabilities have so much to offer our society. They are willing, eager and able to participate and contribute and we need to insist on their much-needed social and economic participation.

We have the opportunity to make Canada truly accessible and inclusive. We must do our duty as the federal government and pass the accessible Canada act without further delay. Canadians expect an innovative and forward-thinking transportation system that is dependable, safe and accessible.

The bill ensures that these objectives are met, especially when it comes to promoting the human rights of persons with disabilities, and that Canada is recognized as a global leader.

Today we literally have an opportunity to make history. We have been extremely flexible and open to all the proposed amendments. By passing Bill C-81, we will take another step toward an inclusive society where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. We will no longer have a system where persons with disabilities have to struggle every day to obtain basic access.

It is essential that we pass this bill to bring down the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in Canada. We must get this bill passed as soon as possible to start working together for a barrier-free Canada. The real work will begin once the bill has been passed, and we must do it together.

I will conclude by asking all members of the House to take a few seconds to think about the following.

All members know somebody who is facing challenges with respect to a handicap. We all know people in that situation, and we all know they face barriers in society that they should not have to face. All members know that we have an obligation, as a responsible government, to do something about that.

I urge all members to pass the bill as quickly as possible. The time has come, and the discussion is over. This will be historic and important for all Canadians for years to come.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Disability Awareness Week

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

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday I was honoured to help kick off Disability Awareness Week celebrations at key industries in Saint John.

Disability Awareness Week is a time for all of us to promote accessibility and inclusion, and to celebrate the incredible social and economic contributions that Canadians with disabilities make to our communities. It is also a time for us to redouble our commitment to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities.

Our government is doing this by advancing Bill C-81, which represents the most significant advancement of rights of persons with disabilities in Canada since the advent of the charter. I was thrilled to be able to contribute to the strengthening of this historic legislation at committee, and I look forward to standing up for the rights of persons with disabilities by standing up for this legislation later this week.

I will always stand up for the rights of persons with disabilities in Saint John—Rothesay.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that with respect to consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today and speak to Bill C-81, the barrier-free Canada act.

This proposed act aims to make Canada more accessible for all people but especially for those with physical or developmental disabilities. An act like this is essentially good. It works to ensure and enshrine the dignity of the human person. So often today we find that the inherent dignity of the human person is cast aside for various reasons, perhaps out of ignorance. More often than not, the victims of society's disregard for human dignity are those among us who have to deal with a physical or developmental disability.

I would like to share my earliest and first experience with someone outside of my house who has become family to me. I call him my brother. His name is Ian McCluskey.

Ian is 29 years old. He is a high school graduate. He is a brother, a son and in the last year, a very proud new uncle to Monrow McCluskey. Ian is compassionate and hilarious with a sharp wit. He is focused and smart. Ian also happens to have been born with Down's syndrome, but he is never less than, and he is a wonderful man. He is my brother and a really great guy. He has taught me so much about myself. Ian adds so much to the lives of everyone he has gone to school with, worked with, his biological family and his extended family, of which I am fortunate that Ian includes me as part of. He is certainly deserving of all the dignity of any person.

A society and a government's recognition of the dignity of the human person is a foundational building block for a just and moral society. This must be paired with the rejection of the idea that some people are worth less than others and can so easily be rejected and cast to the peripheries. That is why the bill before us is so important, because people are inherently good and worthwhile.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, discrimination on the basis of disability. The Canadian Human Rights Act recognizes that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated without discrimination and, in particular, discrimination on the basis of disability. However, what are rights and freedoms, particularly human rights, without recognition of the value of people and their inherent dignity as human persons?

Sure, we can point at the natural law saying that as humans we have a set of universal rights that have always been dictated by our nature and the nature of the world, or we can say that we have rights because the state prescribes them to us. Either way, the fact remains that we must know the dignity of the human person if we are to be a just and moral society.

Over the last century, we have seen exactly what happens when a state throws human dignity away. We know the atrocities undertaken by violent regimes. Under those regimes, the people that this very bill pays special attention to would have been disposed of, because they were seen as worthless. Many members of the House were alive when this was happening in Cambodia. People with physical or developmental disabilities were killed wholesale. It is not like this was some far-off time. We do not have to try to imagine. The Cambodian genocide happened in the 1970s. Therefore, we do not have to think too hard or too far back. We know what it is like when the dignity of the human person is cast away. It happened, and we need to strive to make sure that it never happens again.

A massive part of making society more accessible is to remove barriers to community. People find their highest good when in community and are able to feel that they belong. Early in my life, in my own home, I learned from the greatest teachers I have ever had or will ever have, my mom Anne and my dad Chris. My mom is visually impaired and has dealt with blindness her whole life. In spite of the challenges that has presented her with, she is a university graduate and brilliant woman who has taught me more than any textbook or teacher on any number of subjects. I am sure my mom learns more and reads more in a week than I do over many months.

One very important thing my mom taught me about was this very subject: the value of community. My mom served as a director on the L'Arche board in my community. As many will know, L'Arche is the creation of Jean Vanier. He was able to experience this through his work with the intellectually and developmentally disabled before he recently passed away. He was the son of a governor general. After visiting asylums in France and seeing the suffering of the patients who were wholly excluded from society, Jean Vanier set out to build a community where people with and without intellectual disabilities could live and work alongside one another as equals.

His first community started in a rundown house northeast of Paris that was without electricity or running water. Vanier said of the two men who came to live with him in the first house, “What was surprising to begin with was Raphael and Felipe had both been terribly humiliated, pushed away, put into an institution. Their families didn’t want them anymore, and so I welcomed them. And then, this gradual discovery of how they were opening up, rejoicing, and becoming someone.”

That first house eventually expanded, becoming the first of 154 communities across 38 countries that today form the network that I previously referenced as L'Arche International. By creating a barrier-free environment where these people could work and belong, Jean Vanier created a lesson for all of us, especially in this House, that lesson brought to me very early in life by my mom, a great teacher.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but comes after years of government foot dragging. The slow pace and generally lethargic attitude of the government when it comes to important legislation is, I would say, astonishing. That has had a negative effect on many people, like the people this bill makes provisions for.

We can look at the record of the previous Conservative government mentioned by the speakers before me this evening to see effective legislation that was passed in successive years to help people with disabilities. That Conservative government established registered disability savings plans. These plans allowed parents and the families of children with disabilities to set aside money for the future in an account where it can grow tax-free until it is needed.

I see that I have just a minute left before we adjourn. I am not through all of the remarks I would like to deliver, but I will say that this bill begins to address the dignity of the human person and that this is truly important. Human beings rely on all sorts of relationships, recognizing the necessity of collaboration. The spirit of this bill is commendable and a step in the right direction. It recognizes the inherent human dignity in people with physical or developmental disabilities and it is an important step in the right direction for all of us.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for talking about his own disability. I did not realize that he was hearing-impaired. It is an invisible disability, and one that so many Canadians deal with all the time.

He underscored how it is important that we move forward fast. Does the member not agree that Bill C-81 is really a huge step forward and that we must move forward for all people with disabilities in Canada?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I see the clock and it is extremely late. I appreciate that as I look around, I see many people who have been here all day. Although we cannot recognize them, I note they are here in Ottawa. I welcome them, and I want to thank them for everything they have done, as they have sat through this debate and listened to what we have put forward.

Before I get into my speech, I want to thank the member for Whitby for her comments, because she triggered me into thinking about something I discussed today.

Today I had an opportunity to meet with the Canadian Paralympic Committee. I met a gentleman by the name of Tony Walby, who is on the board of directors for the CPC and is also the chair of CPC athletes' council. We had a great discussion, and we talked about disabilities.

Mr. Walby was a judo athlete, and he unfortunately developed a visual and hearing impairment and was no longer able to compete as an athlete in judo. Now, after getting onto the CPC's board of directors, he is doing tremendous work with the organization.

In the conversation we had, we talked about disabilities. He said to me that disabled people do not want to be called “disabled”, and I agree with him 100%. Calling them “disabled” makes people believe there is an impairment and a challenge. They are not disabled. They are the same as everybody else in the world; they just happen to have a disability that impairs what they do. That is an important thing we need to point out to all Canadians.

I will start with that. I appreciate the comments I have heard tonight, and, again, I appreciate the comments from the member for Whitby, who spurred me to put that out there.

I am happy to be back here today to discuss amendments that were put forward by the Senate of Canada with respect to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. It is always a pleasure to speak to important issues like this one, and I appreciate the work that has been done on the bill. I do think it will go a long way toward making a difference for Canadians living with disabilities.

The support evident from all parties gives many of us an opportunity to talk about some of the issues in the legislation that are important to each and every one of us.

When I first spoke about the bill in the fall, I had a few issues with it. Mainly, I felt as though it did not contain enough real, tangible measures to produce results for those in Canada who live with disabilities. The intentions were good; however, the legislation does not actually accomplish anything that will help people with disabilities and what they need. They wanted something that would have an impact on their lives, and I feel as though the amendments we are discussing today will help them going forward.

One of the biggest issues I had with the initial version of Bill C-81 is that I felt it was rushed. The Liberals took quite a long time in bringing this matter to Parliament, yet when the bill was first introduced, it fell short of many expectations that the Canadians with disabilities community had. Although the Liberals had years to consult, there were gaps in the legislation they put forward that needed to be addressed. While the bill is still not perfect, with many of my colleagues pointing out its many imperfections, I do feel that the amendments put forward by the upper house help to identify and rectify some of the gaps.

I am glad to see that one of the amendments made to the bill puts a specific timeline on the matter. By adding a specific year or period of time by which a Canada without barriers will be achieved, a sense of urgency is created. That urgency is necessary, as disabled people in Canada have been waiting many years for this legislation to become law. In this case, the bill requires a “Canada without barriers, on or before January 1, 2040.”

While this timeline might seem like a small part of this legislation, I feel that it is one of the most important aspects. Not only does it light a fire and force the federal government to get moving on the matter, but it also gives those who have been waiting for a Canada without barriers some hope that things will truly get done in the future.

I have always felt that an important part of what we do here in the House is to ensure that the outcomes of legislation we put forward are measurable. We want to be sure that we get results when we say we will get results, preferably before the deadline of January 1, 2040.

The one issue I do have with the timeline indicated in the amendments is that it is quite long. People in Canada who are living with disabilities want action and they want it now. There are people in this country who have lived their entire lives facing barriers each and every day and they want to know that their government is committed to addressing issues of accessibility in a timely manner. Setting a goal that is over 20 years in the future may give the impression that this is not as much of a priority as it should be.

We on this side of the House would have preferred deadline of 10 years, as we believe that it would be a reasonable timeline for achieving a Canada without barriers. We know that many times action does not begin until a deadline looms. We do not want this to be the case with removing barriers to accessibility, and the setting of the deadline 20 years down the road is concerning. I am hopeful that organizations will do everything to have accessibility measures in place long before that timeline expires.

One thing that we all hold dear in this beautiful country of ours is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It sets out what we as Canadians and people residing in Canada can come to expect in how we participate in society and what rights we have as individuals. A number of the amendments in Bill C-81 seek to ensure the following:

Nothing in this Act, including its purpose of the realization of a Canada without barriers, should be construed as requiring or authorizing any delay in the removal of barriers or the implementation of measures to prevent new barriers as soon as is reasonably possible.

Simply speaking, this means that no agency in Canada would be able to create and set standards that are inconsistent with what is set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, if barriers to accessibility can be removed before the legislated timeline of January 2040, they absolutely should be. There is no justification for delay.

Another measure contained in the amendments to Bill C-81 that I feel is essential to the success of the bill is as follows:

persons with disabilities must be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures.

This is key. As members of Parliament, it is our duty to consult and work with those who are affected by legislation that we put forward here in Ottawa. It is only logical that when it comes to creating a law that will lead to a Canada without barriers, we speak to those people who actually face the barriers.

It is one thing to consult with disabled Canadians, but it is another to have it enshrined in law that they must be involved in the development of public policy that affects their everyday lives. The only people who truly know what challenges they face and need to overcome on a daily basis are those who live with disabilities or care for someone with a disability. I am pleased that it will now be a requirement that this community have a voice at the table going forward.

Another amendment to Bill C-81 addresses intersectionality. Intersectionality is defined as “the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination...combine, overlap, or intersect, especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups.” This may apply to many aspects of our identity, such as race, gender and class, and it certainly applies to people in Canada who live with a disability.

Initially, intersectionality was not a key part of Bill C-81. Many disability advocacy groups across the country called for this aspect of the bill to be strengthened, and I am happy to see it included in the proposed amendments.

While it would be wonderful to say that we live in a country where discrimination does not exist, we all know that it is unfortunately not the case. Canada is a progressive country, yet unfortunately, there will always be some level of discrimination present in our society. I feel that people living with disabilities in Canada absolutely understand that, because they face a level of discrimination that most members of the House, including me, will likely never experience. Any legislation that we put forward and expect to become law needs to address the fact that discrimination happens and is inappropriate and will not be tolerated.

The amendment that addresses intersectionality is necessary. By incorporating intersectionality into the measures outlined in Bill C-81, laws, policies, programs, services and structures will be required to take into account the intersectional forms of discrimination faced by persons living with disabilities.

Ultimately, organizations would have to recognize and account for intersectional discrimination when formulating their accessibility plans. This may not be easy, but it is what disabled people need and deserve. They have every right to participate in society, just as anyone else does. Unfortunately, many are all too familiar with the layers upon layers of discrimination they might face just doing things like going to work, running errands or going to an appointment. As I previously stated, many advocacy groups have called for the inclusion and strengthening of intersectionality in this bill. I am happy to see that the amendments have provided for that.

One amendment to this bill that I personally heard some feedback on is with respect to sign language. Some members here may know my personal history. As has already been indicated to people, I am hearing impaired as a result of a hit and run that I sustained as a teenager. I am fortunate that it is a partial hearing loss. Although I can still communicate with spoken language, over the years I have been slowly teaching myself sign language. However, one must use it in order to keep using it. Unfortunately, I have not had that opportunity, so I have failed in much of what I know, but I am learning more. I encourage everyone who is listening here today to continue to learn sign language given how important it is.

Being hearing impaired makes it extremely challenging to communicate, not only in crowds, but also where there is background noise. It is frustrating when all I can do is smile and nod as if I heard the person speaking to me. There is a huge mental challenge in dealing with this issue. It is one that I go through at many meetings, and I know that people with hearing disabilities are challenged with it day in and day out.

Invisible disabilities are not as widely talked about when discussing Canadians living with a disability. When I go around the riding, oftentimes I talk to students about getting involved and the great things we do in this country. I ask them if they think I am disabled. Every now and then there is one person who puts a hand up because he or she thinks it is a trick question, but most of them say no. Then I tell them my story. I try to point out to them the fact that there are many people in this world who have invisible disabilities that we do not know about and do not talk about.

While physical health is important, so is mental health. Every person, from every walk of life, deserves to feel valued, loved and respected. We all have different challenges that we must face. However, if we can accommodate a group of people who typically feel marginalized, and allow them to feel included and appreciated, that is never a bad thing. By passing legislation that would create a Canada without barriers, it is my hope that those within the disabled community will feel recognized and heard. We see them, we care about them and we want to do what we can to make their daily lives easier.

The amendment to Bill C-81 that concerns sign language is crucial. It includes and recognizes the use of American, Quebec and indigenous sign languages as the primary languages of communication used by deaf people in Canada. I am very glad that these languages have been included in this bill, as the deaf community is one that must be acknowledged when we discuss Canadians living with disabilities.

Some people do not realize there is more than one kind of sign language. There are many that exist around the world, similar to spoken languages. There are between 138 and 300 different types of sign languages used worldwide. The UN only recognizes 45 of them. Each language has its own unique grammar, syntax and vocabulary and are legitimate languages in their own right. They deserve to be given the same status and recognition as any spoken language or other sign language. Therefore, I am pleased to see that both the Quebec and indigenous sign languages have been given representation in this legislation, because we need to represent Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and not just those who might use the more common American sign language.

For the deaf community, using sign language can become part of a cultural identity. As a government, it is important that is acknowledged. We need to ensure there are high levels of standards for those who use sign language, whether it is ASL, Quebec sign language or an indigenous sign language. All Canadians should have the right to communicate in a way that works for them and to have their language recognized as legitimate and as having value.

Another component that was included in the amendments to this bill is one that would ensure the Canadian Transportation Agency, the CTA, cannot respond to complaints about barriers to accessibility by reducing existing human rights protections for passengers with disabilities. Those with disabilities, especially of a physical nature, understand how difficult travel can be. Air transportation in particular can be very cumbersome. Some cannot safely and confidently travel by plane at all due to such limitations as specialized wheelchairs and other necessary equipment.

I have a constituent who faces limitations when it comes to travel. I would like to read an excerpt from a letter that she sent to me, which outlines her struggles with travel. It reads, “My name is Kennan Dorgan and I live in your constituency. I commute from Grenfell to Regina three days per week to attend a fabulous program at the University of Regina called Astonished. My dream is to fly to Alaska to visit my sister. I have a complex physical disability and I use a wheelchair for mobility. I cannot sit independently from my wheelchair and airplanes do not have designated wheelchair spots. Every summer I spend at least 108 hours of challenging and exhausting driving time to visit with my sister in Alaska. A flight would take 15 to 20 hours.”

Her letter goes on to say, “Despite the oversight of both the CTA and Transport Canada, there are no provisions to improve accessibility to aircrafts for travellers who, because of their disabilities and for safety reasons, cannot sit in a standard airline passenger seat and must remain seated in their personal wheelchairs. These individuals are prevented from travelling any way except by land vehicles.”

This young lady spends over 108 hours in a van every year so that she can spend time with her family. In fact, she and her parents are currently preparing for their annual drive up to Alaska. They will be leaving within the next couple of weeks. While the amendments to Bill C-81 may not specifically address her issue, I do feel it is important to present real life situations that are being faced by real Canadians who live with a disability, yet want to take a family vacation just like anyone else.

I also met a lady from Vancouver a few months back while I was travelling with my wife. This lady had her disabled adult son with her. She graciously shared her experiences of travelling with her son. It is not an easy thing to do. He loved to travel, even with his severe disability, on ships and on planes. She had to have a team of family members with her to ensure that her son could be carried from point A to point B. Oftentimes, in his wheelchair he could not access certain areas of the ship. It was the same for any portion that required travel by plane.

She made it work, as do many families who care for someone who lives with a disability. However, I could see that it was a major struggle.

While Bill C-81 may not address that issue outright, I do think it is important to bring attention to it as the amendments do touch on the rights of the CTA. Over the years, I have heard from a number of Canadians who struggle with travel, and I do hope that this amendment can be a starting point to address that issue going forward.

We have heard from many Canadians about this legislation, and many groups that are promoting this legislation. I support that, and my colleagues around this House support that movement. This is a first step. It is a first step to put forward legislation which, as we see with the amendments that have been made by the Senate, we can improve and start with a base. However, the base is the base. It needs to be advanced and it needs to be advanced as quickly as possible. The faster we do this, the faster we include people with disabilities with all Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today is May 28 and the hon. Andrew Telegdi, who served in the House as the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo, was not only a friend but a mentor and family. My favourite quote of his that I appreciated was “My Canada is an inclusive Canada”.

When we talk about Bill C-81, I would love to hear from the member what she believes about inclusivity, that if this legislation is passed sooner than later, how it will benefit not only her community but communities across the country, that as much as it is only a step in the right direction, it is an important step that we should be able to take as soon as possible and why this legislation should pass sooner than later. I know that talking is important, but I believe that actions are more important and I would love to hear her perspective.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to speak to Bill C-81. I know that we have had a number of individuals who have spoken to this piece of legislation. Even with their criticisms of the legislation, there has been a camaraderie in the House to see it move forward.

One of the reasons I came to be a member of Parliament was to make sure that we were moving forward with legislation that would help those who are most marginalized and vulnerable in our society. I think this legislation does that.

Before I go on, I want to give thanks. We are sitting extra hours and it is almost 11 p.m. I want to thank the pages who are here, one of whom brought me some water which is most appreciated because I will be speaking for 20 minutes. I want to give a special thanks to the individuals who are giving the interpretation up in the gallery. I think that is really important and it speaks to one of the Senate amendments. I want to thank everybody here who is helping to ensure that this beautiful place, the West Block, operates in a fashion that allows us to continue this really important debate.

I want to thank a couple of people who are in the gallery, Nevin and Kyle. They have been with me this evening. They walked me over here. Speaking so late in this place, it could be a bit difficult for individuals to be here. They decided to come here with me tonight. I really want to thank them for being in Ottawa.

When talking about this specific legislation, Bill C-81, with members in this place and the other place, committee members, stakeholders, witnesses, all Canadians, it really speaks to what our democracy is about. It is about the ability for Canadians and legislators to come together to bring forward a piece of legislation that will allow everybody in Canada to feel that this country is more inclusive and that they see themselves in this piece of legislation.

It is not necessarily only individuals who have disabilities, but it is all Canadians who can be proud of this piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that will identify, remove and prevent accessibility barriers, level the unemployment gap and create more inclusive spaces for Canadians within the federal jurisdiction.

I want to applaud the government on this particular piece of legislation. Of course, I was a former member of the government and I appreciate this piece of legislation because it is not just about disabilities.

I have said on my Facebook page and my Twitter feed that I want Canadians, who are watching the individuals in this place from all across Canada, to pay attention to this legislation. It shows the leadership of Canada in this particular area. It shows that not only in the federal jurisdiction, but within workplaces, communities and schools, we need to make our spaces more accessible. We need to make them more inclusive. It is also a demonstration of the collaborative approach where we have hundreds of stakeholders who appear before committee and hundreds of stakeholders who have written in. Many people from my town of Whitby have written and I am going to take the time to name those individuals.

Often we see form letters or campaign approaches to writing members of Parliament. When we look at them and every one is exactly the same, we think that maybe those individuals did not take the time to research or look at the particular legislation when they were writing about. However, we have to look at this with a different lens, which I am happy to do. These individuals took the time to write to their member of Parliament to say that they wanted to ensure the proposed legislation was passed before the House rose. They wanted to ensure that their Canada include them.

I want to thank Thalia Liam Sang, Beverley Dooley, Shafaq Butt, Sylvie Boucher, Jacinth Spenler, Chris Gervais, Fiona Casey and Madison Taylor for taking the time to write me as their member of Parliament and to say that their Canada included them. Their Canada includes people who have disabilities. They want to be represented by their member of Parliament for Whitby. However, to be clear, this seat is a borrowed seat. I have said that I am not running again. I am contemplating whether I will run as an independent, but this is a borrowed seat. Therefore, this seat belongs to the people of Whitby, and I am responsible for ensuring their voices are heard. I am more than pleased to mention these names in this place.

As I have said, I have put this out on my social media platforms and a few people have responded. Dawn Campbell responded on Twitter and said that we needed to push the government.

Government members should not sit in their seats and feel comfortable. I have always said that when people come into my office, I should not feel comfortable. I should be very uncomfortable. The people of Canada and the people of Whitby hold the most powerful voices. They hold the most powerful tool to ensure their governments do what they want to see happen. Their votes are the most important tool they have.

However, Dawn Campbell wrote to me to say that she that digital accessibility was important. I sat on the INDU committee and listened to testimony of individuals who had visual impairments. They still get reports that are not written in Braille. It is 2019. How is that a thing in 2019 that a person could write to the Government of Canada and not get reports written in Braille? If any other constituency in the country were not able to access information from its government in a language that was accessible to it, it would be a little excited about that and would make some noise about it.

On that point, I want to applaud the Senate. For the people in Whitby and across Canada who are watching, one of the Senate amendments was to ensure this legislation would include the use of American sign language, Quebec sign language and indigenous sign language. I have to applaud the government for accepting the amendments. It ensures we have truly inclusive legislation. I do not want to throw shade on the government, but when we talk about diversity being our strength, it has to be more than just a checkbox.

People cannot look at the federal government and think that this is just about a check box. It is about actual active inclusion. Active inclusion involves ensuring that individuals with disabilities in politics, in business, in their communities have access to everything we take for granted on a regular basis.

For example, if a business is going on a company retreat and that retreat is not accessible to every employee, it make the person feel less included in the corporation. It makes those individuals feel like they do not belong. What happens with those individuals? They go to work one morning feeling 100%. When they go to the retreat and find they cannot access it, that feeling goes down to 80%.

I want to reference the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin who talked his son Jaden. I have the ability to speak in the chamber about the fact that our differences make us unique. The member did that quite eloquently today. I want to thank the member because it reminded us of the fact that our differences may make us unique.

When we go to our company retreat and it is not accessible for those with disabilities, how does that make one feel? How does that make one participate in meetings, or events or other circumstances around that business? I had the opportunity of being the parliamentary secretary for international development minister. It allowed individuals to give their full selves. They are allowed to raise their hands and say that it is not accessible. They are allowed to raise their hands and say that this is not appropriate. This place has the largest megaphone in the country. I want to thank the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for his comments earlier today.

I also want to thank the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility. The member of Parliament for Delta had the opportunity to come to Whitby. While she was there, she said something really profound. It made me believe with my whole heart that Bill C-81 was not just paying lip service to people with disabilities, but was really trying to change the status quo, change the landscape of Canada around accessibility issues, not just in Parliament but in businesses, in communities and in schools across the country.

She said that living with a visual impairment had given her the tools to allow her to see what other people could not see. I want members in the chamber to understand this. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility is visually impaired, but her life has been built around the ability to see what others cannot see, because of that impairment. Her environment gives her the experience and the skills to talk about legislation like Bill C-81.

When others in companies talk about return on investment or talk in communities or schools, they are able to see things we cannot see. When we talk about making sidewalks more accessible for persons in wheelchairs, it is also making it more accessible for moms. I am a mom of three. It allows my child to ride up the ramps with their bike. It allows seniors to go up with their walkers. It makes communities better.

I would be remiss if I did not speak to one of the greatest organizations in Whitby, brought forward by the former member of Parliament for Whitby, the Hon. Jim Flaherty, the Abilities Centre in Whitby. It is an icon in our community, one in which individuals are not made to feel like they need to be accommodated by our community but are welcomed in our community. I am very proud of that place.

I also want to talk about a couple of other individuals in Whitby, Allyson Partridge-Rios and her husband Andy. They volunteered for me. They are great individuals. Alison has cerebral palsy and epilepsy and Andy has an acquired brain injury. Before I came here, I worked for 10 years. I had a company that was a health care-based research management firm. I was the co-chair of Canada's first epidemiology study around neurological conditions. I worked with individuals who had Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, brain injuries, cerebral palsy. I saw what these individuals could contribute to our community.

They contribute not a disability, but an ability to bring their experience to everything we do, to bring their knowledge, their experience, their insight to our policies, to our return on investment for our companies and to our communities. Alison and Andy wanted me to mention that this legislation would give them peace of mind. It would help ensure inclusivity and accessibility, while supporting each other with their diverse needs. We are discussing exactly that today.

I also want to mention an individual in my riding, Niki Lundquist. She has been a great supporter, a great friend and she has never ceased to speak out about issues that are important to the people of Whitby. She never ceases to speak out about issues that are relevant to ensuring our community is better-off.

I will take this last minute to speak for Nikki, Nikki wants to ensure this legislation passes. She wants to ensure we do everything possible to look after those in our community who are most vulnerable, ensuring they have the support of their government.

I will not have the time to speak to the Senate amendment about intersectionality, but my constituents have spoken to it. They have done so in a way that allows us to understand that as individuals with different intersecting identities move forward throughout our country, they are challenged. With the amendments, this piece of legislation would make it a more inclusive, a more accessible and a more Canadian place.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Bill C-81—Notice of time allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, from the debate tonight, it is clear that the opposition will not let this legislation move forward. I just want to reassure Canadians that we will use whatever tools are necessary to ensure that we take this important step forward. Yes, there is more work to do, but this is historic legislation that needs to be passed.

Therefore, I would like to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

It is unfortunate that the opposition finds this humorous. This legislation is not funny. It is important and in the best interests of Canadians.

Accessible Canada Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this debate. This is not a debate that is inappropriate, quite the contrary. I will give two reasons why. The discussions and debates we will be having this evening, tomorrow and so on throughout the week are so vitally important.

First, the issue of disability rights in this country has been a marginalized discussion, certainly for as long as I have been in Parliament. We have not had full evenings of debate. We have members of the deaf community here this evening, and they are watching, to see what it is that we bring up about Bill C-81 and how we can improve it.

Second, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, the issue of regulations and how to improve the bill are extraordinarily important.

The reality is the discussions and the debates that we have on this issue, far from shoving it under the carpet, are vitally important to getting the kind of bill that actually makes Canada more accessible. The government is patting itself on the back tonight, saying that we have bill, and it is weak but the Senate did improve it. The point is exactly thus, the fact that the bill was so weak to begin with that the Senate has already managed to improve it means that if we worked hard and assiduously over the next few weeks, we could make this bill better still. We could actually make it accessible.

The problem for anyone who is aware of the situation for people with disabilities in our country, the appalling situation that people with disabilities live under and the lack of accessibility, means that we have a duty to get this right, not just shove it under the carpet and move on to something else, saying that it is a weak bill that needs more improvement. The reality is we have a responsibility.

I hope that the government takes that responsibility seriously over the next few days as we sit until midnight to actually make those improvements. The government rejected over 100 amendments from the opposition. There was no willingness to improve the bill, despite the fact that there were so many witnesses who came forward and suggested, in very concrete terms, how this bill could be improved.

Fortunately, we have some Senate amendments that add, very appropriately and very importantly, the recognition of American sign language and la langue des signes du Québec as languages that are used by the deaf community. It is very important communication. I know only rudimentary American sign language, but the beauty of the language, when someone is fluent, is quite extraordinary to watch. It is something I deeply appreciate.

As other members of Parliament are sharing their experiences, I would like to share my experiences, coming in as the executive director for the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and working over the years to try to improve accessibility for the services that we offered across the mainland of British Columbia.

As members know, the situation of people with disabilities in this country is dire. Half of the homeless, and the growing number of homeless that we see in our country, are people with disabilities. Half of the people who have to go to the ever-increasing lineups around food banks in this country, just to make ends meet, are people with disabilities. The absence of services means that in many parts of this country, people with disabilities have to hold bake sales to try to fundraise, to get the accessible tools, essential tools, such as a wheelchair.

In Canada, we are far behind the rest of the world in terms of accessibility issues, and Canadians with disabilities pay a terrible price. When I was executive director for the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, I would often drive up early in the morning to get to work. Sometimes, as I came to that building on the west side of Vancouver, there would be a woman or man from the deaf community who had spent the night under the awning at the back of the building, because they had no place to live. They had no place to go, so they went to the one place where they knew services would be provided.

We would try to sort out their situation, to help them, to provide the services they were not getting from a federal government and, at the time, the B.C. Liberal provincial government that simply did not seem to care about housing as a human right.

That is my experience of the disability community, people who are incredibly resilient, but have received very little of the supports that they should be getting as Canadians with rights.

We talk about the billions of dollars given to the corporate community, overseas tax havens and $4 billion for a pipeline. The government seems willing to unleash the faucet as far as resources go, but people with disabilities have been starved of resources for decades and it is time that it changed.

When I was at WIDHH, we worked with other organizations, the Coast Mental Health, the B.C. Paraplegic Association and the CNIB. We created the first province-wide employment program for people with disabilities, the B.C. Employment Network. We established that because we knew that people with disabilities have so much to contribute, but so often doors were shut in their face for employment because there was no bridge, no way for those people with disabilities to get in to see a potential employer, to go through an interview, to learn the job and then to contribute to that business.

When we started the B.C. disability employment network, we started creating those bridges. That meant for a deaf British Columbian when they went to a job interview, there was a sign language interpreter. We have many talented sign language interpreters in this country and they could assure that there was a contact and communication with the employer and then training to make sure that the person learned the job.

For people in wheelchairs, the B.C. Paraplegic Association was a pioneer in this respect. Often it would mean nothing more than simple ramps and accessible doors that allowed people with disabilities to enter and leave the workplace. We provided that bridge, those supports.

For a wide range of other disabilities, we provided those supports to make sure that there was a contact made with the employer. The employers may not have been ready initially to provide those resources. The fact that they were provided for them allowed them to get to know those Canadians with disabilities in a new and meaningful way. What happened? Time after time those employers hired the people with disabilities. Once those people with disabilities learned the job, they stayed longer in employment, so it was a win-win situation by establishing that bridge and making sure that those people with disabilities had access to employment and access to that workplace so they could contribute for many years.

That is my experience in terms of people with disabilities, but let me talk about my experience in another country and that was the first time I went to the United States with a better understanding, thanks to people in the deaf community, of what it meant to have disabilities.

My first trip to Seattle really opened my eyes in terms of how far ahead the United States is in terms of where Canada is. I did not have that much money, we were working at WIDHH, but went to a conference in Seattle and I stayed at a very low-end motel called the Jet Motel. It is the far end of the strip at the Seatac International Airport. It was far away from the airport, a very cheap and low-grade motel. In the room the shower was completely wheelchair accessible. I asked at the front desk about a TTY to communicate and was told there was TTY and a whole range of other accessibility supports. I said, “This is a low-end motel, why do you have all this?” They told me it is because it is the law. It is the law to have accessibility for Americans everywhere in the United States.

Even in some of the highest-end hotels in Canada, we do not achieve that degree of accessibility because it has been built on a volunteer system. We have not built the kinds of accessibility that are so vital to ensure inclusion and to ensure that people with disabilities everywhere in this country can contribute to their full potential. That is what makes me so sad about Bill C-81.

The Liberals are applauding and patting themselves on the back for what is such a small first step. It would not even have been as good as it is without the incredible pressure, thankfully, from people with disabilities who were saying that it was not good enough and applying more pressure to ensure that things improved. Instead of seeing it as something inclusive that all members of Parliament could participate in and accepting the over 100 important amendments and improvements offered by the opposition parties, the amendments were systematically rejected and the potential for an improved bill was lost.

We had something that could have moved us so far along, closer to the model in the United States, where there is an obligation, a duty, to ensure accessibility, and where there is transportation and accommodation right along the line, with an insistence and obligation to open doors for people with disabilities. We could have had that. All of us would have been overjoyed in the House to adopt such legislation. However, the involvement of the opposition parties was stymied. The many amendments that came forward often very thoughtful, extremely well researched and well crafted. They were simply rejected out of hand.

When it comes to Bill C-81, we have a bill that had tremendous potential. That potential has been lost so far because of some government intransigence. People with disabilities in this country deserve better. We have heard some remarkable stories tonight of people who have family members and close friends with disabilities and who have been in the workplace. We have members of Parliament who have disabilities and understand them first-hand. We have far fewer members of Parliament with disabilities than we should have. If this Parliament actually reflected the real division of the population and the number of people with disabilities across this country, we would be talking about having dozens of people with disabilities in the House of Commons.

I see in the gallery members of the deaf community who are extraordinarily eloquent. I hope one day some of them will be on the floor of this House of Commons contributing to its work and making sure that we do build that inclusive society, because that is what would make such a fundamental difference.

We had the bill brought forward by the government. We had some debates initially. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, everyone supported the principle of greater accessibility. There is not a single member of the House of Commons who said that in principle they disagree with accessibility. Every single member from every single party and every single independent member stood together to say, “Yes, on principle let us pass this, because we all support the principle of accessibility. Let us get it to committee, let us hear from witnesses, let us hear from people with disabilities and let us make a difference there.”

That is when it really came off the rails. It was at that point that many amendments were offered. There were nearly 120 from four of the opposition parties. Those amendments, which were brought forward in a thoughtful and honest way, were turned down.

The bill came back to the House. A number of us, including the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, raised those issues. When witnesses were speaking to the importance of ensuring that this be an obligation, and not just something the government can pick and choose and give exemptions to whole ministries, why not ensure there is a framework and some standardization? A number of my colleagues have spoken to that as well.

When those questions were asked, the government's response was that it was just going to pass the bill through. Then it went to the Senate, and fortunately the Senate started setting some clear objectives. Its members talked about recognizing American sign language, Quebec sign language and indigenous sign languages. Those were all important components.

In the debate we are now faced with, members of the opposition are recognizing that we have made some progress and want to make some more. They want to make the bill even better. They want the bill to put us close to the standards we see in places like the United States. Let us make the bill such that when travellers with disabilities check into a motel, even if it is a low-end motel at the far end of an airport strip in an international airport area, or take any type of transport or deal with a government ministry, they will feel they are a part of those things and not see barriers that stop them from actively accessing and being part of society.

The figures are grim. It is a fact that in our land, where we are seeing increasing concentration of wealth, more and more Canadians are struggling. As I have mentioned before in the House, Canadian families are now struggling with not only the worst debt load in our history, but the worst debt load in the history of any industrialized country. That is the legacy of the last four years.

When we are dealing with this situation, it would seem important that we take a more dramatic step to bring the bill forward and improve it, as it impacts people with disabilities above all others. The lineups at the food banks across this country are getting longer, tragically, yet it is estimated that half of the people in those lineups are people with disabilities.

Is the bill enough? Well, it is only a start. We need to make it even better. We have a number of weeks in which we can to do that. When I think about the growing number of homeless people in our country, half of whom are people with disabilities, I remember, as I mentioned, the tragic cases that I would see on occasion when I walked into the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in the morning. Some people simply did not have a place to stay and went to the institute because they knew they would be helped.

We have to ask ourselves if we are doing enough in Bill C-81, with the Senate improvements, to actually make a difference in their lives. That is the real question we have to ask ourselves honestly, as parliamentarians. This is not a time for any of us to rest on our laurels and simply say there are some good things in the bill and that it is sufficient. Given the dire situation of people with disabilities in this country and what they mandate us to do as members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to go much further.

Earlier tonight, a Liberal speaker talked about regulations, and a number of members of Parliament have raised the notion of having very strong and robust regulations. We also have the ability and opportunity to improve the bill. We have a responsibility to about 15% of the Canadian population. These are people with disabilities who are not, in any number, represented in the House, but who came to committee, offered suggestions and asked for improvements, and who found that the government was not willing to listen.

Here, as parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to listen. We have the responsibility to speak out. We have a responsibility to question the government about why it it did not accept amendments and did not make the bill stronger. Even with the passage of the bill, why are we still so far behind what the Americans with Disabilities Act offers to Americans with disabilities?

Canadians with disabilities deserve better. It is true that we will be voting in favour of the bill, but it is a lost opportunity if we do not take the time that remains in debate to make the bill better, to make the regulations stronger and to make the bill more reflective of what Canadians with disabilities truly need.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I may owe my colleague from Regina—Lewvan some money for promoting my family's business in Regina, in Wascana, right beside the office of the Minister of Public Safety. There is a hole cut in the wall so we can spy on him when he is in the riding. I am kidding.

Yes, I would absolutely agree with my colleague from Regina—Lewvan that communicating Bill C-81 is going to be integral to ensure that every federally regulated entity in Canada understands what is going to be asked of them as part of this legislation. What is also important is that they understand that there are no regulations or standards included in Bill C-81 as of yet. It is pretty much a blank slate and that is going to cause a problem with business owners or departments not understanding what is going to be asked of them. When this is given royal assent, there is really nothing enforceable on that first day.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was not something I had time to raise in my speech, but the member is exactly right. There were stakeholders at committee who raised this very issue. For example, Mr. Neil Belanger, the executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, was at committee. They were consulted as part of the process of developing Bill C-81, but when he looked at the bill when it was first presented, first nations were not mentioned anywhere in the legislation. My colleague, the MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster, put forward amendments to try to include first nations as part of Bill C-81, but they were refused by the Liberal members on the committee.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am a father of an adult child who has both cognitive and mobility disabilities. Our daughter, who is now 30, will live with us for the rest of her life. When I read Bill C-81 and think about a barrier-free Canada, I think of barriers in terms of accessibility, but also barriers to opportunity. I hear time and again that we are at the eleventh hour and we are trying to get this done just to get something done, which is better than nothing. It is a step in the right direction, but I would say that we are trying to do the best we can to remove all barriers so that regardless of the disability or encumbrance, people are able to realize every opportunity that comes their way.

One of the things I have noticed in Bill C-81 is that there is no mention of first nations. It is a marginalized community and it is not recognized in Bill C-81. I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment as to why first nations are not mentioned in Bill C-81 and if it was an oversight or intentional.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is getting a little off the Bill C-81 discussion, but I will say that when we look at the Auditor General's report on the call centres with the CRA and seeing millions of calls dropped, there is certainly a concern with how we are servicing all Canadians and not just Canadians with disabilities. However, I would like to keep my focus tonight in respect to the people who are watching and who may be here this evening on Bill C-81.

I would not call Bill C-81 an attack on people with disabilities. I think, as they would say, it is a step in the right direction. The interesting comment I have heard from stakeholders and those who have discussed this with us is that it is better than nothing.

When it comes to legislation, I think we really want to do things right. I did not work extremely hard to get elected to have royal assent on legislation that is better than nothing. I wanted to be here to ensure that when we enact legislation it is the best we can possibly do. However, one of things that we are seeing with some of the concerns that I have raised this evening is that, in some ways, it is not better than nothing. In some ways, it would actually make life more difficult for people with disabilities.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

My intervention this evening was to talk about the concerns within Bill C-81. There is no question that I would say that I talked about the legacy of Jim Flaherty with the registered disability savings plan and the enabling accessibility fund. The previous Conservative government had a very strong track record when it came to legislation to address people with disabilities. However, the focus tonight is addressing some of the shortfalls within Bill C-81, and that is my discussion this evening.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Senate amendments with regard to a barrier-free Canada and this legislation, Bill C-81.

As a member of the HUMA committee, I worked very hard with my colleagues from all parties to see this legislation through. I know there has been lots of discussion tonight about why there are so many Conservatives and members of the NDP and the Green Party speaking to this legislation. Now we have had a Liberal get up to speak about it. Many of us worked so hard on this legislation and we all want an opportunity to speak to it and the amendments put forward.

As I said several times today, this was a unique piece of legislation when it came through the committee. When I say it was unique, I mean that the members of the opposition parties, the Greens, Conservatives and NDP, almost tabled identical amendments. There were more than 60, almost 70, amendments that were almost identical word for word. It is pretty rare, I would say, when three opposition parties are so in sync with feedback from stakeholders. We absolutely support the intent of Bill C-81 and have all voted in support of it through the process.

Our opportunity here today is to talk about and shed light on some of the shortcomings of this legislation and highlight our hope that whomever is in government after the election this fall, they will work hard to address some of these gaps in Bill C-81 to try to strengthen the bill and meet some of the concerns that are still out there and that have been raised by our stakeholders, and certainly by members on the opposition benches.

I do have to admit that I am pleased that the minister has said she will support the more than 10 amendments brought forward by the Senate. I think these do go a long way toward addressing some of the key concerns raised by stakeholders during the discussion and debate at committee stage. However, I am a little frustrated that although we are supportive of Bill C-81, there are a lot of gaps and shortcomings in it as a result of the Liberal members on that committee not supporting our amendments. I think they supported three that dealt with grammatical changes to the legislation, and not really anything definitive or of any substance. However, the Senate's coming forward with these amendments, I think, is certainly a step in the right direction.

What makes me proud of the opportunity to speak on Bill C-81 is that it certainly continues the legacy of one of my favourite politicians, our former finance minister Jim Flaherty. He left a lasting legacy in the House and I think almost all members in this Parliament would agree. Mr. Flaherty brought forward the registered disabilities savings plan and the enabling accessibility fund. They are two key pillars and historic policies that have made significant differences for people across the country with disabilities. In fact, the minister of accessibility said at committee that these policies were a game-changer for Canadians with disabilities, who are able to live much easier lives as a result of these programs. Certainly, in saying that I think some of the policies and steps in Bill C-81 are going to build on that legacy, which is one of the reasons why the Conservative Party will be supporting Bill C-81, as we have through every step of this process.

I had the opportunity earlier this year to travel to Israel with a group of disabled Canadians from Ontario on a trip that was organized by Reena and March of Dimes. This was a unique experience for me and some of my colleagues. We have all had experience working with people with disabilities and critical organizations in our ridings, but this was the first time I have had an opportunity to spend an extended period of time with the people from these groups, Reena and March of Dimes, on such a long trip from Toronto to Israel and then while touring Israel. We saw how behind we are in Canada in removing barriers for people with disabilities. The whole idea of this trip was to see what Israel is doing to address some of their issues. It really was eye-opening to see what legislation and policy, and individual businesses, NGOs and charitable groups are doing to address their issues.

One facility that we toured was almost like a small town specifically for people with disabilities, where they had started small businesses that people with disabilities were able to operate and raise money. This reminds me of my colleague from Carleton and his opportunities bill, which he tried to put through earlier in this Parliament. His bill would have addressed something similar.

One of the examples in this community was a wine-making facility. The grapes were brought in and crushed to make the wine. Olives were brought into another area to make olive oil. The grinder was rejigged to make it accessible for people in wheelchairs. We were all given an opportunity to try it, and it was not easy. It was a challenge for us.

It just goes to show that when we allow groups and organizations that opportunity and ingenuity to really take things on themselves, and also put policies in place that encourage the removal of those barriers, it gets to the essence of Bill C-81.

I am also proud to say that on that trip I made some lifelong friends, people like YaYa and Joshua. If Joshua is watching tonight, I have not forgotten his invitation to tour his apartment in Toronto. I am really looking forward to doing that later this summer.

To see the excitement in the eyes of these Canadians as they toured Israel and saw some of the opportunities that are available there for people with disabilities but are not available to them here in Canada really showcased the fact that we have some work to do here in Canada. I am hoping that Bill C-81 will take us in that direction.

I do want to stress the fact that we do support Bill C-81, but we do want to take the opportunity in these discussions tonight to highlight some of the concerns that stakeholders have raised about the bill.

The first and almost unanimous one from stakeholders was the lack of any timelines within Bill C-81. I am happy to see that in one of the amendments by the Senate, they have asked that Canada be barrier-free by 2040.

As opposition members, we put forward an amendment asking for Canada to be barrier-free by 2021. The Liberals voted against that amendment, saying that having deadlines in the legislation as a result of these groups would not help federal departments be proactive in removing barriers until the very last minute.

I would argue that if we do not have a deadline, if we do not have metrics involved to measure success, how are we going to know if we are achieving anything? To see that timeline of 2040 in the Senate amendment is critical. I am pleased to see that the Senate paid attention to the amendments that we brought forward at committee, and from stakeholders.

I am going to talk about three or four amendments out of the more than 60 that were brought forward. Again, these came directly from stakeholders, directly from witnesses that provided critical testimony at committee.

The first one is critical. The minister and my colleagues across the way in the Liberal government have talked about a no wrong door policy. I appreciate what they are trying to say and their nice language. However, stakeholders are arguing that they do not want no wrong door; they want the right door. They want one door.

The issue here is that when people with disabilities want to file a complaint and have an issue with a federal department or a regulation that has been imposed, they may be confused about where to go. We certainly heard that from stakeholders.

If I am a Canadian with a disability and have an issue, I could go to the accessibility commissioner, the CRTC, the Canadian Transportation Agency, or the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board. The idea that the Liberals have put forward is that if people go to the wrong door, they will be redirected to the right door and that that door will help them with their concern or complaint, or their issue with the regulation.

My concern with having all of these different bureaucracies deal with a complaint is there would be very little, if any, consistency on how the complaint would be handled. If I go to the accessibility commissioner, would my concern or complaint be dealt with in one manner and if I go to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, would that complaint be dealt with in a different manner? If the CRTC puts forward one regulation or guideline on a barrier, would that be the same regulation or guideline as the CTA would put forward?

I will argue, and I think anybody who has dealt with the bureaucracy in government knows, that the more cooks in the kitchen, the more unlikely there will be any consistency in that recipe. Therefore, I am hopeful that, through the discussions we have had in these debates today and going forward, this will be one element of Bill C-81 that my colleagues across the way, or whoever is in government after October 21, will work hard to try and address.

This is not an amendment that was just raised by the Conservative, NDP and Green members who participated in the debate on this issue at committee. It was brought forward by just about every single stakeholder who provided testimony at committee.

I want to take a brief minute to read a quote directly about this issue. It is from a person who has been mentioned many times today, David Lepofsky. He is the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and is renowned in Ontario for his advocacy and work for people with disabilities. Ironically, he was also on our trip to Israel. The man is an unbelievable resource when it comes to Israeli history. I certainly enjoyed riding on the bus with him and picking his brain.

His comment on this is:

The federal government response to date has been inadequate. It simply said, “We'll have a policy that there will be no wrong door. Whichever agency you go to, no matter how confusing it is to figure it out—and believe me, it is confusing—if you go in the wrong door, we'll send you to the right door. Problem solved.” No, it isn't, because all that does is fix the problem of which door you go in. It does not solve the substantial problem that happens once you're inside that door. It means we have to lobby four agencies to get them up to the necessary level of expertise. It means we have to learn four different sets of procedures, because they may all use different procedures once you get inside the door. It means we have to go to agencies that may not have any expertise in disability and accessibility.

Further on he comments:

The fact is simply that the design of this bill, splintering among these agencies, serves only two interests: the bureaucracies that want to preserve their turf and those obligated organizations that would rather this law have weaker standards, slower implementation and weaker enforcement. That is not consistent with the federal government's commendable motivations and intentions under this legislation.

That is a direct quote from Mr. Lepofsky, the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, one of the foremost experts in Canada. He is talking about Bill C-81, the barrier-free Canada act, and his concerns with this key part of the legislation.

We are not raising this issue to try and delay this process. We are discussing these issues tonight to try to ensure we find ways in the future to strengthen this bill.

The next issue I want to raise which also was not addressed in the amendments that were brought forward by the Senate but was certainly a key amendment we brought forward at committee is the fact this legislation allows exemptions for different federal departments. We have heard tonight, and my colleague in his speech talked about it, that the government wants to ensure that every government department meets these regulations and standards.

The first problem with that is there are no regulations and standards in this legislation. It is very weak when it comes to any sort of metric to measure accountability or success. It also allows any federal government department, and this relates to only federally regulated entities, to request an exemption. Federal government departments would not have consistency across the board on how they implement whatever regulations or standards a future government imposes.

In my opinion, the federal government should be the one that is taking the lead and setting the example. Our hope in the committee, when we discussed this, was that the federal government would pass Bill C-81 which would send a message to the private sector and other entities across Canada that the federal government is taking this on and that they should be doing much the same.

What kind of message does it send to our stakeholders who took a lot of time out of their busy schedules to participate in this process? It sends the message that this is historic legislation but we are not going to ensure that it is measured the same across the government. Various departments, for whatever reason they bring forward, can request an exemption that could be granted by the minister. This sets a very poor example. We put forward amendments at committee to remove the ability for federal departments to request an exemption and those amendments were denied.

I am hoping we have a third chance. That was also discussed at the Senate but was not included in its amendments. I am hoping that we also have another opportunity in the future to address the exemptions. If we really want to talk about legislation that is historic and is a game-changer for Canadians with disabilities, we have to ensure that the federal government, and every department within that government, meets those standards. We cannot have a different playing field across the federal government. It again adds to that concern when it comes to the four different departments and those four different levels of bureaucracy that are going to be handling concerns and complaints.

The other issue I want to address as part of the discussion is the standards or the lack thereof. There are unknown timelines, no metrics to measure success and no accountability. We talked in committee about those things being added in the future.

My message today for my colleagues in this House is let us not forget that part of this bill. We do not want to pass this bill, have it get royal assent and then have it sit on a shelf somewhere. There is a lot of work left to put the meat on the bones of Bill C-81. I want to encourage my colleagues that we pick this up in the fall to ensure that we do that.

To that point, I want to mention a quote from another stakeholder who brought this forward. This is from Michael Prince, a professor of social policy at the faculty of human and social development at the University of Victoria. He said:

This bill, to me, with respect, reflects that it was written in the bubble of Ottawa. This is written from the point of view of traditional management focus, organizational focus. This is not people-centred. This is about departments making sure that in the negotiations and drafting of this bill, exemptions and deals were cut.

Further on he said:

This is basically a machinery-of-government bill. There's not much social policy or public policy in this bill. This should be about people front and centre. I get that we have to have administrative enforcement and compliance, and on that note I'd like to see a lot more about incentives and education.

That again just goes to the fact that there are concerns from stakeholders with this bill.

My colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin talked a great deal about permissive language. I will not go into that in detail as my colleague has already done that.

What has been talked about is that the motto of Canadians with disabilities has been “nothing about us without us”. All of us in this House can agree with that. It is very important that we all support Bill C-81. We are doing that. It is also important that we remember that phrase “nothing about us without us”. We have to ensure that Canadians with disabilities are included in this bill. Unfortunately, in my opinion, many of the concerns that they raised, which we tabled as part of those dozens of amendments, were not passed and were ignored. I am hoping as we move forward we will remember “nothing about us without us”.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, this has come up many times over the debate today, but I want to stress the fact that we are debating this because our stakeholders have told us that there are shortcomings within the legislation. As much as we support Bill C-81, there is no question that our stakeholders have told us there are still some gaps that they would like addressed. This was very clear when we had every opposition party in the House agree on more than 60 amendments to the bill. However, the Liberals at committee voted down each and every one of those amendments. In fact, we sat until midnight to try to get this through committee as quickly as possible. Therefore, I am thankful the Senate agreed with our amendments and that the minister has agreed to support some of them.

However, one amendment was not supported, and that was the fact that there were too many doors to try to address an issue. That was from stakeholders. For example, there is the Accessibility Commissioner, the CRTC, CTA, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board. There will be no consistency in how these regulations or complaints will be addressed.

I would like my colleague to address one of those major concerns as brought up by our stakeholders.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue the speech I was making earlier. It is a little strange to continue after seven hours. I feel like I need to reiterate what I said before, but I will not tell all of the stories I told before.

It is very important to reiterate for people just tuning in to the debate on Bill C-81 that this is a rare situation in the House of Commons, in that the government has put forward legislation and all of the parties are supporting it. We have a great opportunity. As we are having the debate and as we are discussing the pros and cons of the legislation before us, stakeholders know that this bill will in fact pass. What we are doing right now is an important part of the process. It is an opportunity to have a conversation about it in the House of Commons and to bring up some of the concerns that stakeholders might have.

We are dealing with a bit of an odd situation this time around in that the purpose of the debate is to bring forward concerns and have the opportunity to talk about what we have heard from stakeholders. Most times we have the opportunity to actually ask the government questions in the process of the debate. However, what we have noticed over the last couple of hours of this debate, and anticipate tonight in the debate, is that the Liberal members of Parliament are not going to speak. They did not speak earlier.

There is an interesting consequence of that. I am being heckled by the government House leader right now saying that they want the bill to pass. However, everybody in the House knows that the bill is is going to pass. What we have before us now is an opportunity to debate the merits of the bill as amended, to talk about the benefits of it, to maybe talk about some of the challenges that have been brought up by stakeholders and have the opportunity to ask each other questions.

We would hope there would be Liberal members of Parliament willing to stand up to speak to the merits of the bill and then to take questions from the opposition members, from both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, who have valid concerns that we have heard from stakeholders. These concerns will not be a surprise to the government, because the government has heard those concerns at committee.

The bill has been before committee. Stakeholders have reached out to members of all parties, presumably, to make their views known. There are still some concerns that remain. I will speak to a couple of those concerns. Most of the concerns revolve around the question of whether the bill, as supported by all parties, will create real action, meaningful action and have a meaningful impact for Canadians with disabilities.

While everybody agrees that the bill should be passed now so that we have something before the election, that this is indeed a step forward and everybody in the House agrees that this is a step forward, many of the stakeholders expressed concerns that the bill in fact could have been better.

This is an important part of the conversation, to have this discussion in the House of Commons and be able to go back and forth, talking about how we, as parliamentarians, might make life better for Canadians with disabilities, even moving beyond this bill. Some of us will be here in the next Parliament and will have further opportunities to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities. This debate is an important part of the process. However, we do not have the opportunity, interestingly, in this debate to actually ask the government questions, because the government is not putting up any speakers in this conversation. That seems rather odd, given that everybody in the House knows that this bill is going to pass.

I would point out one of the questions from stakeholders. I will not even put it in my own words. I am going to refer to a brief from ARCH Disability Law Centre, which was posted after the Senate committee passed its amendments. In this brief, while the ARCH Disability Law Centre urged parliamentarians to pass the bill and, again, all of us are in favour of doing that, it stated:

A number of weaknesses remain in Bill C-81. One such weakness is the use of permissive language “may” rather than directive language “shall” or “must”. This language gives government and other bodies power to make and enforce accessibility requirements, but does not actually require them to use these powers. For example, the Bill allows the Government of Canada to make new accessibility regulations but does not require them to do so. Therefore, there is no assurance that such regulations, a cornerstone for advancing accessibility, will ever be made.

It goes on to state:

In addition to the amendments, the Senate Committee reported 2 observations to Bill C-81. The first addresses the concern expressed by many in the disability community that federal funding may continue to be spent on projects that perpetuate barriers. The observation encourages the federal government to ensure that any federal public money should not be used to create or perpetuate disability related barriers when it is reasonable to expect that such barriers can be avoided. The second observation emphasizes the importance of training in achieving a barrier-free Canada. It encourages the government to create standardized, effective training to ensure that all persons in Canada can expect the same level of access to all government services.

The brief from the ARCH Disability Law Centre goes on to say, “ARCH is pleased that in response to submissions by disability communities across Canada, the Senate made a number of important amendments to strengthen Bill C-81.”

Members from all sides of the House who have spoken to this have commended the Senate committee for making those amendments and the Senate for passing them.

Of course, at that time, the Senate had not passed the legislation, but the brief from the ARCH Disability Law Centre urges the Senate and the House of Commons to act quickly to allow enough time for the bill to finish it journey through the legislative process, before the fall federal election is called.

That journey through the legislative process includes debate in the House. The bill was amended, it has come back before the House and we have an opportunity to debate it.

Again, the government is in full control of the House agenda. The government has used closure dozens of times to limit debate in the House and to force votes. It can certainly do that in this case if it chooses to do so. However, there is absolutely no question that the bill will be passed within the next couple of weeks for sure. It could be passed this week if the government so chooses to ensure it does get passed this week. However, there is absolutely no question and no debate that I have heard among parties, at least the parties that have official standing in the House, that the bill will pass. The bill has unanimous support in the House and it will absolutely pass and become the law of Canada.

It has taken three and a half years and four different appointments to the disability file, with respect to ministers in charge of this file, by the government. It is unfortunate that it has come down to the last month the House is sitting to get the bill passed. In fact, it is unbelievable. It is also unbelievable that after all that time, we are sitting in the House of Commons and we are being denied, as an opposition, the chance to question government members of Parliament on important views and important questions that stakeholders have with regard to the bill.

I am sure government members will have questions of me, and I am glad to take those questions. I would really like to have that opportunity. I cannot refer to the presence of government members in the House, but earlier today there had to be a quorum call to get the right number of members in the House to continue the debate.

My hope is that over the course of the next three hours, given that we are staying here later to discuss and debate legislation on the government agenda, government members will stand, debate the legislation, speak to the merits of it and then take questions from members of the opposition on it.

It is really important to me to reiterate the fact that when the legislation was before the House, we supported it then. We supported it at each reading. At committee, the Conservative members moved more than 60 amendments, amendments that had been brought forward by stakeholders and the Liberal government accepted three of the over 60 amendments.

I am getting corrected. Apparently, a Liberal member is now correcting me, saying it is actually 70 amendments. I do not know who is heckling me over there. It is hard to tell.

The fact is that we moved over 60 amendments and three of them were accepted. Those amendments were put forward by stakeholders. It is an important part of the debate to have the opportunity.

If the hon. government House leader wants to speak, Madam Speaker, perhaps she could get up at some point in this debate and defend her government's legislation and answer some questions from members of the opposition. She is heckling across the floor.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, moving a motion to extend the sitting hours of the House is not a great way to close out the last session of the 42nd Parliament of Canada. We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.

Once again, we take issue with the means the government is using to get all members to work a little harder because the session is ending and these are the last days of this Parliament. The other items in the motion do not concern the extension of sitting hours. We take issue with the government's approach, which prevents the opposition from doing its job properly. It is handcuffing the opposition and moving the government's agenda along as quickly as possible, not based on what parliamentarians may have to say, but on what the government wants.

This is not new to us, given how the government has handled the legislative process throughout its mandate. The government has been unable to advance a decent legislative agenda. I am the opposition agriculture and agri-food critic. I spoke to my predecessors, and we have been waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to introduce a bill to improve the lives of Canadian farmers since my appointment two years ago.

When I look at all the agriculture documents and bills this government has introduced since it was elected in 2015, it is clear to me that the government has achieved nothing. Absolutely no legislation was proposed to improve the lives of Canadian farmers.

However, numerous bills were introduced. Now, the government is saying that the situation is urgent and that we must move quickly and pass this legislation. A number of bills were not passed by the government, and now time is of the essence.

Of all of the bills that were not passed, some never even moved forward. We have, for example, Bill C-5, introduced on February 5, 2016; Bill C-12, introduced on March 24, 2016; Bill C-27, introduced on October 19, 2016; Bill C-28, introduced on October 21, 2016; Bill C-32, introduced on November 15, 2016; and Bill C-33, introduced on November 24, 2016. The Liberals have had four years to move these bills forward.

All of a sudden, the government claims that these bills need to be passed urgently. After the vote this evening we will debate Bill C-81, which was introduced on June 20, 2018. It has been nearly a year. We are being told that this bill is urgent and must absolutely be passed, but the government was unable to bring it forward earlier.

If this is so urgent, why did the government not bring up this bill more regularly in the House? Why did we not talk about it on a regular basis? All of a sudden, we need to pass it quickly because the Liberals have realized that they are going to run out of time. The government was unable to manage the House. It was unable to give parliamentarians an opportunity to do their work and to speak about important bills. The Liberals have realized at the last minute that they have forgotten this and that. There is an election coming up in the fall and now parliamentarians have to do the work to pass this or that bill.

The government chose to impose late sittings on the House for 18 days while also moving a time allocation motion, which means that we will not even have the chance to talk about it for long. If we refer to the Standing Orders, the government could have extended sitting hours for the last 10 days of the session, as provided for in our normal parliamentary calendar. That is what it could have done, and it would have been entirely doable.

I would like to talk about one of the Standing Orders. Even though the standing order that governs the extension of sitting hours in June has been in effect since 1982, it is not used every year. In some cases, special orders were proposed and adopted instead, usually by unanimous consent.

Parliamentarians are here to represent the people in their ridings. According to the Standing Orders, anyone who wants to change the rules to move things along has to seek the unanimous consent of the House.

Unfortunately, this government does not really seem to care about unanimous consent. It does not really seem to care what the opposition thinks or has to say even though, just like MPs on government benches, we represent all the people of our ridings. The least the government could do, out of respect for Canadian voters, is respect people in opposition. We have a role to play.

Unfortunately, our role is not to agree all the time and say the government is doing a good job. On the contrary, our role is to try to point out its failings so it can improve. Basically, the opposition's role is to make the government better by pointing out its mistakes and bad decisions so the government can reflect on that and find better solutions for all Canadians. However, the government does not seem willing to take that into account.

On top of that, there are two opposition days left. I mentioned the negative effects of the motion. The government is proposing to extend the hours in the House, but what it failed to mention is that it is going to deny the opposition the opportunity to have two full opposition days to address situations that are very troubling to Canadians.

For instance, during a normal opposition day during which we might hear from a number of stakeholders, we could have talked about the canola crisis, which is affecting thousands of canola producers across Canada. This crisis, which involves China, is costing Canadian canola producers billions of dollars. For all members who have canola farmers among their constituents, it would have been an opportunity to express the concerns of their fellow citizens and farmers in their regions. Perhaps we could have convinced the government to take action, such as filing a complaint through the World Trade Organization to condemn China's actions or appointing an ambassador, for example. As peculiar as it may seem, Canada currently has no representative in China to speak with Chinese authorities.

We could have had such a debate here in the House.

The one thing that the members across the aisle seem to have forgotten is that members of the House are not the government. The government is the ministers, the cabinet members. In this chamber, people have the right to speak their minds in the hope of swaying the government.

It is true that the government is formed by the party with the most members elected to the House, but it is also up to backbench members of the ruling party to try to persuade their government and speak for the people they represent, such as the farmers in their ridings. Sadly, the members on that side of the House seem to be divorced from reality. They seem to be blind to the government's desire to crush Parliament, to crush the MPs who are trying to do a good job of representing the constituents of every riding. I think that is a real shame.

We have absolutely nothing against extending the sitting hours of the House, but if it is intended to cover up the government's mistakes and its inability to properly organize the work of the House, then I think that is disgraceful.

The government is using this kind of motion to not only make us work more, which, as I mentioned, we agree with, but also deprive us of our last remaining tools, like the voting marathons everyone remembers. We held those voting marathons to make the government realize it cannot do whatever it wants in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not the tool of the government. This motion to extend the sitting hours also prevents us from using that tool, which was a powerful means for us to send the government a message.

After making such grand promises of transparency and openness, this government has failed spectacularly to deliver. Sadly, its latest motion on the rules of the House just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has no respect for the work of the House. It saddens me to see a government ending its term on such a sour note.

Resuming debate

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if members were to review Hansard, they would find that legislation can pass very fast in the House. It can pass from second reading to committee stage to third reading virtually in one day, if it is deemed to be supported by both sides of the House through unanimous consent.

I am very sensitive to the Bill C-81 issue. If every member of the House were to speak for one minute, that would be 338 minutes. In terms of speaking, it is just not practical. That is the reason why we have caucuses and why we go to committee. There are plenty of opportunities.

I believe that those who want to get engaged could bring it to their House leadership, and even the independents are always afforded the opportunity if they go through the House leadership teams. It does not mean they have to go through the House leadership teams, but if it is something important, that is one of the things I would recommend. However, it is not compulsory. Everyone has the opportunity to stand and address the House when the floor is vacant.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed out that there are legitimate tools the government needs to use in order to pass legislation. He has talked about time allocation, extending the hours and things like this, but the frustration on the opposition side is that, if we count them, there are 20 bills the government wants to move forward and there are only 20 days remaining.

He brought up the example this morning of Bill C-81 regarding accessibility, saying there has been some obstruction on this side. I was in the House earlier today and would have liked an opportunity to speak to the bill. As many people in the House know, I have a son who has been diagnosed on the spectrum, and it is a very important bill. Sixty amendments were put forward at committee, and the government chose to include only three. Our job is to make it a better bill, and if we can do that, all of us win. I commend the government for bringing this legislation forward, because it is important legislation, and I will be supporting it. If it is not a perfect bill, it is a start, and we can move forward with that.

There are 20 days remaining, and there are 20 bills. Does my colleague really think there is enough time to properly debate these 20 bills in the next 20 days? Does he not think the government should have had better organizational skills to get these important bills passed?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a parliamentarian for almost 30 years. Most of those years were in opposition. I can tell the member that I know how to recognize a filibuster when I see a filibuster.

At the end of the day, the member will have to reconcile within his House leadership team why the Conservative Party chose not to pass Bill C-81 this morning. To try to imply that there are endless members who want to speak to it or that it was necessary to prolong the process, I would welcome a debate where we could both go into a community and have that endless debate. I feel very comfortable with the experience I have. He would have to justify it within his own House leadership.

For me, personally, I look at the behaviour of the official opposition. Let us keep in mind that the official opposition, on several occasions, has become tired of sitting and has attempted to adjourn the House. The opposition will cause the bells to ring to prevent debating bills or will attempt to adjourn for the day. They would adjourn debate on other pieces of legislation. These are all tools that are used to prevent legislation from passing.

I will give the Conservatives this much. They are very good at being the opposition and I hope they are going to stay in opposition for many years to come.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my friend's comments were even more ridiculous than usual.

When the government insists on debasing our institutions through its corruption, we will hold it to account, whether it is budget day or any other day. That is exactly what we did and what we will continue to do. Canadians expect us to defend the integrity of their institutions, whatever the issue of the day is.

I want to respond to some of the things the member said about Bill C-81. I think he should know better than to present misleading information about what actually took place with this bill.

The government waited until very late in the life of this Parliament to bring this bill forward. It rejected multiple opposition amendments at committee that would have strengthened this bill. The government therefore sent a flawed bill to the Senate, which necessitated amendments to be proposed by the Senate, which meant that after amendments were proposed, the bill would have to come back to the House.

Still, when the bill came back to the House, the government did not bring the bill forward at the earliest opportunity. It could have been brought forward last week. The government could have used Standing Order 53 to try to expedite it. I suspect there would have been interest in doing that from this side of the House.

However, to expedite the debate beginning, because the debate has to take place, the government chose, after all these mistakes, to bring this bill forward for the first time this morning. Absolutely, the opposition is prepared to debate and highlight the areas in which the government has fallen short, and ultimately to support the bill's passage. That is a certainty.

The member accused me of filibustering, but I think he knows that if I was trying to filibuster something, I would still be talking on it right now. I gave a speech. I delivered important points about the government's failures on the bill. Why is the government so upset? It did not want the bill to be criticized.

We support the bill but there are things that the stakeholder community believes needed to be included in it that were not included. The importance of the topic is precisely why these points have to be made. If it was not an important topic, we would not need to talk about it. However, given the critical importance of the topic, we needed to talk about it.

Could the member tell us why the government failed to bring forward this bill yesterday or last week? Why did it fail to bring forward the bill at the earliest opportunity it could?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we had a very good example this morning with the member across the way.

Contrast that to another example where we had legislation which members of the New Democratic Party recognized that they actually liked. I think it was Bill C-37. I could be wrong on that but if members did a quick check of Hansard, they would be able to find out when members of the NDP supported time allocation. They wanted us to pass that legislation. They recognized the value and importance of that legislation. That is not the only time they did that. The NDP members on a couple of occasions have recognized that they like the legislation and want it to pass and have therefore supported our bringing in time allocation.

What we know is that all parties in this House actually support the concept of time allocation, if it is deemed necessary. Even when I sat in opposition, Peter Van Loan would bring in time allocation, and I remember standing in my place and supporting it, because if one is not getting the support and co-operation from opposition parties in particular and from the government at times, one may need to use time allocation. A lot depends on what is happening in the opposition benches.

I know the government House leader continues to want to work with opposition members. If the government House leader asks how many speakers a party would like to put forward on something or how quickly might we be able to get a piece of legislation through, it is not some sort of trap for the opposition parties. It is to allow for more debate on issues which the opposition members would like to have more debate on.

There are bills that are relatively non-controversial, like Bill C-81, which is historical legislation. I am not going to say that members should not be debating the bill, but based on my 30 years of parliamentary experience, when the will is there to see a bill pass, it passes really quickly as opposed to there being a filibuster. Maybe it would have been better to allow Bill C-81 to actually pass today. I would argue that would have been the right thing to do.

I listened very closely to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan across the way. All he would say is that it will pass in due time and before the next election it will be passed. He indicated his support for it on behalf of the Conservative Party. The member is playing a game and he knows it. If the Conservative Party really wanted to, that bill could have passed and we could have been debating something else right now. We needed to get an indication to help facilitate debate inside the House.

There are many issues that I would like to debate and, in good part, I have been fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity to do that. The NDP House leader talked about an issue which I am very passionate about: pharmacare. That is not an NDP issue, although the NDP tries to claim it as one. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an issue today because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring that we expand our health care system. That is the reason the NDP is talking about it today. It was years ago, when we first came in as government, through a standing committee that the idea started to really flourish.

I participate in a caucus and I have many discussions with my colleagues. We understand the value of it. We understand that we have to work with many different stakeholders. Then the NDP members catch wind of it and all of a sudden they say that they to get out in front of the Liberals on it. That is balderdash.

The NDP does not get credit for something of this nature. If anyone should get the credit, it is Canadians. It is Canadians who have been communicating, whether through the Prime Minister or through members of our caucus, about the importance of pharmacare. That is the reason we have prioritized it. We are looking forward to the report we will be getting toward the end of June.

NDP members talk about housing as if they are leading the file. Who are they kidding? I enjoy listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. He is one of the most able-minded individuals I know, and he understands the issues of housing in Canada.

In the last federal election, the commitment the NDP made with regard to housing pales in comparison to what this government has put into place. I find it somewhat humorous that the NDP has attempted to stake claim to an area in which this government has moved forward.

From day one, whether in regard to budgetary measures or legislative measures, this government and the Prime Minister have been focused on Canada's middle class. Let us talk about our first piece of legislation. Bill C-2 provided a tax cut to Canada's middle class. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going into the pockets of Canadians. At the same time, the legislation allowed for a special increase in tax for Canada's wealthiest 1%. By the way, the Conservatives and the NDP voted against that.

That was a legislative measure. In our very first budget, we committed to a tax-free Canada child benefit program. Again, this is putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of almost nine out of 10 families, although I could not tell members the actual percentage. That initiative literally lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and the Conservatives and NDP voted against it.

That is why I say that from day one, this government, whether through budgetary measures or legislative measures, has been very active at ensuring we continue to move forward. However, in virtually every initiative we have undertaken, and Bill C-81 is more of an exception, opposition parties have fought us.

Let us recall the last federal budget. Before I comment on some of the content of it, do members remember the day of the federal budget? It was not a good day for parliamentarians. The Minister of Finance wanted to address the House and Canada. All sorts of stakeholders were waiting to hear about the budget. Do members remember the behaviour of members of the official opposition? They were yelling and slamming their desks. They did not want the Minister of Finance to be heard. In my 30 years of parliamentary experience, I had never witnessed that sort of inappropriate behaviour coming from the official opposition. It was embarrassing.

The Conservatives are very focused on trying to discredit the person of the Prime Minister. We can hear it in their speeches. It is the personal attacks, whether directed at the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. That is fine. It is the Stephen Harper type of politics, with more and more of Doug Ford's style getting into their caucus and in their policies. It is scary stuff.

One member opposite said that he is going to join our caucus. I believe that could happen sometime soon. If I were to speculate on the Conservative leadership at the end of the year or in 2020, I am thinking it could be Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, maybe the opposition House leader, and I do not know who else.

The bottom line is the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination instead of being a constructive opposition party. That is okay, because as they focus on that negativity, we will continue to focus on Canadians. The results are really showing in a tangible way.

I made reference to the hundreds of thousands of children, and there are also hundreds of thousands of seniors who have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result of this government's actions. In the last three and a half years, we have seen one million new jobs created by working with Canadians. We have seen incredible investments in infrastructure. In the last budget alone, there is a commitment to municipalities. In Winnipeg, I believe it is about 35 million additional dollars. If members were to drive around some of our streets, they would get a better appreciation of why that is such an important investment.

I started off talking about the historical legislation of Bill C-81. We have indigenous legislation that is before the House on language and foster care. These are critically important issues. It is historic legislation. These are two pieces of legislation that we still need to pass. That is why I am here standing in my place saying that we still have 19 days to go. Unlike the Conservatives and the New Democrats, we are prepared to work until the very last day. We are prepared to work late. We have a legislative agenda and we are committed to passing that legislation. We know that this government works for Canadians in every region of our country every day.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I get under way with my comments, I want to reflect on the previous speaker's comments and address many aspects of them during my speech.

If we look at what has transpired over the last number of years, we have seen a great deal of change in committees. I sat in opposition when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and I understand very clearly that when he was the prime minister, opposition members' amendments were never passed at committee. It just did not happen, unless one were a government member. Opposition members did not have their amendments passed during the time I was here under a majority Stephen Harper government.

However, to try to give the impression that this government has behaved in the same fashion is just wrong, because it is just not true. This government, on multiple pieces of legislation, has not only approached standing committees in a different fashion from the previous Stephen Harper government, but also, members will find that the current government has accepted numerous amendments to our legislation, whether they be from New Democrats, Conservatives or even the Green Party. That is something we did not witness under Stephen Harper, but something that we have seen here.

Also, in response to the opposition's effort to claim there has been no change, we can just look at the parliamentary secretaries. When I had sat on the procedure and House affairs committee, the Conservative parliamentary secretary was there and led the committee. As the parliamentary secretary related in regard to that particular committee today, I do not even attend that committee.

There is a substantial difference between this Prime Minister and Stephen Harper. There is a lot more transparency and accountability with this Prime Minister than the former prime minister on a number of different fronts.

However, for those who might be following, we are having this debate because the government has decided, as previous governments have done in the past, including Stephen Harper's, that as we get into June, there will at times be a need to have extended sitting hours. There is nothing new in that. As I said, Stephen Harper did so, and prime ministers before him have also done so. We have extended hours because, like Canadians, we believe that we should continue to work every day that we sit, and if we have to put in extra hours to pass more legislation, why not?

It is interesting listening to the Conservatives talk about last-minute legislation. What do they expect? We are now at the end of May. Do they just want the government to shut the doors and stop debate on all legislation? Maybe the NDP and Conservatives would like to operate that way, but we as a government are committed to working hard for Canadians every day, and members will see that with the different types of initiatives we have taken, whether it be legislative action, budget actions or just trying to build consensus.

Today is an excellent example, because we saw a lot of games being played by the opposition parties. They ask why we bring in time allocation or closure, and they challenge us, especially me when I stand to talk about the benefits of using time allocation. However, so that those listening can understand what is actually taking place, they need to recognize that there is legislation the government has introduced that the NDP will never, ever support, unless we delete the entire bill by way of an amendment. That is an absolute guarantee: there is legislation the NDP will never, ever support.

The trade agreement is a good example. We have had a number of trade agreements from this government, and every time, the NDP members vote against them. If it were up to them, agreements would never be allowed to go to a vote. Equally, there is legislation here that we have introduced that the Conservatives would never, ever support and have voted against. They will go out of their way to prevent the legislation from passing.

We could have the Conservatives saying no to legislation, with the NDP, the Greens and the government saying yes, but if the Conservatives wanted to, they could prevent the legislation from passing. All they have to do is to speak to the legislation, propose an amendment and speak endlessly. We had a good example of that today.

We are talking about disabilities and Bill C-81. What are the principles of the bill? The main principles are inherent dignity, equality, opportunity, barrier-free government, autonomy, inclusive design and meaningful involvement. This is legislation that every member in the chamber, I believe, will vote in favour of. No one is going to dispute it.

Then we had the first Conservative speaking to the legislation, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who spoke for 95 minutes—

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader definitely experiences things very differently. When it comes to Bill C-81, I encourage her to talk to people from the communities that are going to benefit from that legislation. I know there are people on Parliament Hill right now who just heard her comments. She seems to be a little confused as to what she is referring to. This is historic legislation, and the amendments that came from the Senate were probably given. It is true that the Conservatives never would have accepted amendments from the Senate. The difference is that we accept them quite often, because we know they improve legislation.

Where the Conservatives would have said no really quickly, we actually pondered the legislation. When it comes to Bill C-81, people seem to know that the Conservatives support the legislation but will not let it come to a vote, because the Conservatives will put partisan politics ahead of Canadians every single time.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we really are seeing is a scandal-ridden government that is in its final days and has mismanaged the House entirely. Bill C-81 is another example: The government's response to the Senate amendments only came to us on a Thursday before we rose for the one-week break. We came back after the constituency break, and we have not had a chance as caucus to look at the government's response. What did the government members do at the last minute? They brought the legislation here today.

This is an important piece of legislation, and the government has done virtually nothing to help persons with disabilities. In fact, it has done everything it can to hurt them. We all remember what the government has done to people with diabetes, and we know what it has done to individuals who were working at Library and Archives. This is the problem with mismanagement.

I know that my hon. colleague, the government House leader, is well staffed, and maybe this is why we are getting short opposition days. She is maybe experiencing Wednesdays differently from the way we experience Wednesdays. However, of the last six opposition days, three were on a Wednesday and one was on a Friday: Wednesday, March 20 was an opposition day; Wednesday, May 1 was an opposition day; Wednesday, May 15 was an opposition day, as was Friday, April 5.

I would like the member to correct the record and admit that she has consistently given the opposition short days so that we cannot do the job we need to do, which is holding the Liberals to account.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Whitby is hearing from constituents when it comes to Bill C-81 and other pieces of legislation. We will be debating that legislation tonight and we will have extended hours. If the member has not had an opportunity to speak to that legislation, I look forward to working with her to ensure that she is provided the opportunity to represent the voices of her constituents.

I want to see Bill C-81 receive royal assent. This is an important week when it comes to persons with disabilities. It is the third year that we have celebrated National AccessAbility Week, and I know there are good people on the Hill who came to see the Minister of Accessibility speak to this legislation.

I want to see it advance, and when it comes to other pieces of legislation, if I cannot find a way forward through working with the opposition parties to be able to advance that legislation, I will use the limited tools I have available. Every time I use those tools, I can assure members that I use them with regret. I do hope we are able to find a better way forward.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where the hon. government House leader left off with respect to the resources used when we extend the hours in this place. I note the pages, the staff and others have to be here for that particular period of time.

There are a couple of pieces of legislation that I know concern constituents in Whitby. I have received emails about them. One is Bill C-81. During debate earlier today, we heard an assurance that this piece of legislation will be passed.

If we are going to be extending House hours and using more resources, I would like reassurance from the government House leader that the pieces of legislation that are important to Canadians, which we have been sent here to debate and discuss, are going to be passed in a timely manner before the House rises.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when our Prime Minister says that in Canada diversity is our strength, he is not only talking about the shells we occupy but he is also talking about the diversity of opinions, regions and experiences, and the list goes in. There is definitely a diversity of interpretations right here, because what we said in the campaign was that we were against the improper use of omnibus legislation and the improper use of time allocation.

Under the previous government there was no desire to consult and ask. We were told how many days would be given, and that was it. If we did not comply with the hon. Peter Van Loan, then he would use his tools. I have tried to ask how much time is needed for debate. Sometimes I have received answers and sometimes I have not. Members can see clearly that there are times we receive answers and there are times we do not.

When it comes to Bill C-81, I publicly state that we have received amendments from the Senate. The minister has now stated that we will be accepting all those amendments. There is no reason we should have to use time allocation, yet we are not getting commitment from the official opposition that it will let that legislation go.

The legislation has been scrutinized. It has been to committee, returned to this chamber and been through all stages in the Senate. It has come with amendments, which we have accepted, yet the Conservatives will not let that legislation go. Therefore, there is no way for us to get that legislation to a vote if I do not use those tools.

The members opposite need to take partial responsibility and understand why those tools are being used. We could advance, and if they do not want to, it is their prerogative and the choice they are making. However, I will ensure that the government advances the mandate that Canadians gave us. When it comes to Bill C-81, we are talking about a more accessible Canada. Who could be against that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opposition House leader's acknowledging the importance of extending hours so that we can discuss important legislation that actually benefits the lives of Canadians. Most of the motion is exactly, word for word, the motion that has been submitted in previous parliaments. Within the extension of hours motion, members who will not be running again will be provided time to make a speech, because it is important that they do so.

When it comes to the opposition days the member is referring to, within the Standing Orders, a portion of those days can be allotted to Wednesdays and Fridays. My intention will always be to provide them on longer days. As long as we can advance government legislation, I will ensure that we are able to find a collaborative way forward. If that is not the desire of the opposition, then I am restricted to limited tools and limited days to provide those days. I encourage the opposition House leader, as well as her colleagues, to let us know how much time is needed so that bills such as Bill C-81 can be returned to the Senate. There is no reason we cannot have that finished today so that it can receive royal assent.

Accessible Canada Act

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague.

Bill C-81 will improve accessibility in all areas under federal jurisdiction so that all Canadians, regardless of their abilities and disabilities, can participate fully and inclusively in Canadian society.

This bill, which we introduced last June, was improved at every stage of the process. Our government welcomes the Senate's proposed amendments. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Senate's proposed amendments.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-81, an act to enable a barrier-free Canada. I would like to reiterate the Conservative pledge to work with all parliamentarians towards its swift passage.

On that note I thank the minister, the government, other members of the opposition, people with disabilities, businesses and public servants who have come together through this process to put forward a positive if imperfect bill.

Regardless of these imperfections, this late in a parliamentary cycle it is important that we move swiftly to get it passed. There are important improvements that will help remove the barriers faced daily by Canadians with disabilities. This bill, with all of its imperfections, deserves to be passed, and the House can count on full Conservative co-operation to ensure that it does so as quickly as possible.

Now that we acknowledge the foregone conclusion that the bill will pass, and we have commitments from members of all parties to make it happen quickly, I want to use my brief time to highlight the next steps that we must all take in order to ensure a truly barrier-free Canada, one where Canadians with disabilities can fulfill their full potential. I will focus my remarks on the issue of jobs.

We know that a job is the best anti-poverty plan that exists. That is important to this discussion, because fully 27% of people with disabilities lived in poverty as of the Canadian Survey on Disability in 2012. That number falls from 27% to 8% for people with disabilities who have jobs.

Amazingly, that same Statistics Canada survey demonstrated that the poverty rate among people with disabilities who had jobs was actually lower than the poverty rate for the general population. In fact, if we put two people side by side, one who has a disability and a job and the other who has neither a job nor a disability, we would find that the working person with a disability was significantly less likely to be living in poverty.

I use this statistic to demonstrate that it should not be considered a foregone conclusion that people with disabilities must live in want. To the contrary, their natural God-given skills, industry and perseverance allow them not only to support themselves but also to prosper. Unfortunately, there are numerous physical and governmental barriers that stand in the way.

An Employment and Social Development Canada report from some years ago said that of approximately 795,000 working-aged Canadians who are not working but whose disability does not prevent them from doing so, almost half, 340,000 of these people, have post-secondary education. Let me reiterate that. There are 800,000 people with disabilities who are not working even though their disability does not prevent them from working, and almost half of those people have university educations.

The evidence suggests that they desperately want to work and will seek out opportunities to work, but that numerous barriers stand in the way. Many of the physical barriers are addressed in this bill, but there are other governmental barriers that remain in place.

Income and other social support programs often punish people with disabilities for working. Allow me to quote an organization called Return on Disability. It is an organization that specifically invests in businesses that do a good job of hiring people with disabilities and serving customers with disabilities. I quote:

Anecdotal evidence suggests that these programs represent a barrier to employment, as individuals who risk building a career must at some point forfeit their benefits.

Let me give an example. Once a minimum wage-earning person with a disability in Alberta earns $1,150 a month, they face a clawback of their disability support assistance of almost 100%. It takes 12 full working days for someone on minimum wage to earn that amount. On the 13th day, the government starts reducing the benefit by $1 for each dollar earned. On top of that clawback, the worker pays income and payroll taxes, not to mention gas and carbon taxes to drive to the job in the first place. The combined effect of all these taxes and clawbacks leads to the outcome that someone can lose $1.25 for each extra $1 they earn. That is a negative wage. Every extra hour the person works actually makes them poorer. Ironically, the same government that was in place in Alberta, which was hiking the minimum wage, was punishing the same workers for receiving that increased wage. As the wage went up, the clawback sharpened, and the person was actually worse off.

These disincentives for work are not only discouraging but can also be scary. In Alberta, a single disabled person loses the Alberta adult health benefit program once he or she earns over $16,580. Ontario is almost as bad. People with disabilities who receive the Ontario disability support plan income support payments are penalized if they work. Simply put, for every $2 they make above $200 a month, their ODSP benefits are reduced by $1. This is on top of other clawbacks to housing, child care benefits, bus pass support and drug benefits that could support mobility devices, hearing and visual aids, medical supplies, respiratory devices, transportation allowances and so on.

These penalties have the effect of making it next to impossible for many people who are disabled and desperately want to work to do so. We call this the marginal effective tax rate, a fancy way to describe what people lose for every dollar they earn. We know from the data that it has an effect on the ability of people in these circumstances to work. According to Stats Canada, 94,000 people with disabilities say the reason they do not work is that they would “lose additional support”. Also, 84,000 do not work because they expect their income would drop if they did. These numbers come from Stats Canada surveys and include only people who used to work or who indicated that they are physically capable of doing so.

Let us unpack those numbers. Almost 100,000 Canadians who have a disability and who are physically capable of working have told Stats Canada that the reason they do not is that government programs would punish them if they did.

The solution to this, of course, is to adjust our tax and benefits system across levels of government to ensure that people always gain more from their wages than they lose to clawbacks and taxes. There are a number of ways to do this.

First, we could adopt the opportunity for workers with disabilities act, a bill I introduced early in this Parliament, which received support from members of the NDP, the Green Party and some Liberals. That bill would make it a condition of the Canada social transfer that provinces adjust their tax and benefits systems to ensure that people always keep more in wages than they lose in taxes and clawbacks.

Second, we could look at adjusting the workers benefit disability supplement and the disability tax credit, both of which have the potential to make work more financially rewarding. Jim Flaherty originally designed that benefit. It was then called the working income tax benefit. He specifically had in mind people with disabilities, because of course this was a long-standing passion of his.

The idea was to basically give the working poor, and particularly the working poor who are disabled, a pay raise on their earned income, allowing them to springboard over the welfare wall, which holds so many hard-working and promising workers back.

For the people who still cling to old stereotypes about people with disabilities, there are countless examples of those who have incredible workplace achievements and potential. There are real life stories that support this statement.

As one father of an autistic child wrote, “Charity is a good start, but it isn't a game changer....Charity wasn't what people like my son really needed; they needed jobs. Only a job could give them a place in the world.” Randy Lewis, that father, created jobs for people like his son.

As senior vice-president of Walgreens, he launched a massive hiring drive to employ about 1,000 people with disabilities at the retail giant's distribution centre. He writes in his amazing book, No Greatness without Goodness, “With a paying job...they would be part of our world—not relegated to the shadows and reliant on the charity of strangers. Work would fill their days, offer healthy challenges, and provide relationships. Work would mean independence.” That 1,000-person hiring spree turned into a massive financial success for Walgreens.

The company reported that the distribution centres, which are incredibly competitive and competing on the basis of fractions of pennies, requiring 100% accuracy on where products go through the system, were successful and profitable even through the transition period as a result of, not in spite of, the decision to hire 1,000 people with disabilities to do the important work. They earned full wages and did the same jobs as everyone else had done, in many cases doing them better.

In Canada, we have similar anecdotes.

Tim Hortons franchise owner Mark Wafer hired a young man with Down Syndrome, named Clint. He turned out to be his best and most loyal worker. He did all the same tasks as his co-workers and made the same money, with no government wage subsidy or workplace tokenism. He arrived early, left late and never stopped all day long.

This impressed his boss, who had overcome a disability himself. “I grew up 80% deaf, having to fight for my rights”, said Wafer, who owns five Tim Horton's franchises, “but I always believed that the only way to live a full life is to have a paycheque and that paycheque has to come from the private sector.”

Wafer has put his money where his mouth is, having now employed over 100 workers with disabilities, people like Clint. Furthermore, he has made it clear this was a business decision. His five franchises were among the best franchises in the entire Tim Hortons chain, beating other peer group averages on the measurements of success, including the speed to serve customers and the outright profitability of those franchises.

In fact, he often has a chuckle comparing the performance of his workers to the performance of so-called VIPs who show up on Camp Day, people like politicians and sports celebrities who work in Tim Horton's one day a year to raise money for the Tim Hortons camp. He has compared the statistics on how long it takes for customers to get served on that day to the speed with which his workers, who have disabilities, are able to serve those same customer and shows that the so-called VIPs are blown out of the water.

He has demonstrated the enormous success and potential of reaching out to people who have disabilities and hiring them in the workplace. In fact, they are not just anecdotes. Of the million Canadians with disabilities who work, 328,000 of them have severe or very severe disabilities.

We know this kind of success can be replicated. As I said earlier, at Mark Wafer's Tim Hortons branch, his turnover was only 40% a year, while the industry average was 100%. He reduced turnover by hiring people with disabilities. This was important because one staff turnover cost him $4,000. Based on 16 metrics used to measure the operations of the stores, Wafer said his business outperformed the others. He said, “I don't run a better business. I have a better workforce.”

Similarly, the two Walgreens distribution centres, where 40% of the workforce have disabilities, became the most efficient in the company's history. He said, “Once they fastened onto the work, most have laser-like focus. Not only did they work hard, they didn't want to quit.” They sorted, packaged and sent off thousands of different products worth millions of dollars to dozens of stores every week. This required speed, frugality and flawlessness. The slightest error would send products to the wrong place and empty shelves would send unsatisfied customers to the competitor.

Speaking of the management at Walgreens, he said, “We all agreed that spending extra money” was not what was needed. “No one had to say so—it just was. He went on to say, “In a business that plots the difference between success and failure by one-eighth of a penny, loss show up quickly and can be disastrous.”

He points out that his hard-nosed business-driven approach was perfectly compatible with having a workforce that included people with disabilities. In fact, many of them outperformed those who had no apparent disability at all.

In Canada, we have some great examples of new innovations. A company called Meticulon in Calgary helps people with autism become information technology consultants. They have the opportunity to earn $24 an hour doing IT work, mostly in Calgary's energy sector, but now broadening out to other fields.

Then there is the opportunity in reaching a bigger market. According to Return on Disability, over a billion people around the world have disabilities, representing a combined market of customers equal to a country nearly the size of China. There are major business opportunities for business owners who are smart enough to hire people with disabilities and serve customers with disabilities.

We need to remove some of the government obstacles that have stood in the way. Right now the biggest among them is the high levels of marginal effective tax rates that punish people, not just those with disabilities but all those who are on social assistance, for making the courageous decision of entering the workplace. In doing so, we sell people short, we deny them their opportunities and we fail to recognize their desire, which is similar to our own, to contribute to their fellow humanity.

Work is a basic human need, not just for a livelihood but for a life. There is dignity in labour, as Martin Luther King famously said. There is dignity in all labour, no matter what kind of work a person does. King famously said that if someone was a street sweeper, to then go out and sweep streets like Beethoven made music, sweep streets like Michelangelo made art, sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry, sweep streets so well that when the person entered through the gates of heaven, people would cry out that there stood the great street sweeper who did his job well.

Let us take this occasion, where all of us are united in this common goal, to recognize the inherent dignity of every person, including and especially those who have overcome disabilities and difficulties, and clear the way for them to fulfill their full potentials.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that it is a good sign that the government and the minister have decided to support the amendments from the Senate. When the bill was at the committee stage, Conservatives, New Democrats and Green Party members put forward dozens of amendments, and all of them, except three, were voted down by the Liberals, including many of the amendments that were brought forward by the Senate.

I want to highlight the fact that a lot of this could have been expedited if the Liberals had supported the amendments that came from stakeholders at the committee stage. One amendment that was not supported, and we have heard about this from stakeholders over and over again, was about the inconsistency that will come from having four different departments looking after complaints, advocacy and removing those barriers, including CTA, CASDO and the other boards.

I understand from the minister that it is a “no wrong door” policy, but what the stakeholders are looking for is the right door. By having four different administrations and four different departments trying to organize the barriers and regulations, there is going to be a lot of confusion. We have heard from stakeholders about consistency in how the complaints are going to be handled and how the restrictions and the new regulations are going to be rolled out.

Does my colleague not agree with stakeholders that having one consistent group, such as CASDO, oversee Bill C-81 would be a better option than establishing four different departments to do the job of one?

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the passing of Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act.

It is so symbolic to speak during National AccessAbility Week, when we celebrate the contributions of persons with disabilities and promote accessibility and inclusion across our communities and workplaces.

I would like to acknowledge all the energy invested in the proposed accessible Canada act by all those who have worked so hard to get us where we are today: persons with disabilities, stakeholders, industry and all who play a crucial role in improving accessibility in Canada.

In 1991, I was the victim of a random act of violence that left me a C5 quadriplegic. My life changed forever, and I saw first-hand the everyday issues Canadians with disabilities face, including tasks as ordinary as getting out of bed, going to the bank or getting on a plane. These became real challenges that were significant hurdles. Things became significantly harder due to the inaccessibility of the terrain. The problem was not my disability; it was the barriers put in my way. For instance, stairs can be a heck of an impediment to my progress.

Since entering politics 12 years ago, one of my goals has been to help Canada become a community where people with disabilities reach their individual potential and are recognized and valued as citizens. That is why I am so proud of our federal Liberal government's new accessible Canada act, the most significant piece of legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years.

Before I talk about the merits of the bill, it is important to note that this is not some stand-alone legislation meant to be the only thing our government is doing with respect to moving forward the lives of persons with disabilities in this country.

Our national housing strategy contains a significant focus on accessible housing. This includes the five new housing projects funded so far in Calgary, in partnership with organizations like Horizon Housing, YWCA Calgary, HomeSpace and many more. In addition, our infrastructure investments are being implemented with accessibility in mind. We are helping to provide more university and training opportunities to assist people with disabilities in becoming more involved in our labour force.

The accessible Canada act truly belongs to the disability community and reflects the priorities of persons with disabilities. To get here, we heard from over 6,000 individuals and organizations through the most accessible consultations ever held by government. All people who contributed to the legislation did so because they understood the importance of using their experiences to help drive the change needed for a better tomorrow, where everyone is included and no one is left behind.

Over three years ago, our government worked to develop legislation aimed at removing barriers to inclusion, to ensure that all Canadians have an equal and fair chance at finding success.

One of the things my disability taught me was the critical role that government plays in people's lives. I have always looked at it this way: Whether a person is born of a rich family or one that struggles, whether a person is born with a disability or acquires one along the way, that person deserves an equal and fair chance at success. This act would help level the playing field and promote equality of opportunity.

This bill pursues a very important goal: to make Canada barrier-free. Everyone is ready and eager to see the bill passed, and the organizations with responsibilities under Bill C-81 are ready to act in accordance. The CRTC, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board have all testified that they are ready to implement their respective roles.

Of course, the road to inclusion has been fought for a long time by individuals and organizations across this country, organizations I was lucky enough to work with and within, such as the National Educational Association of Disabled Students and the Canadian Paraplegic Association of Alberta, which have been pushing these rights forward for many years.

Federal accessibility legislation and leadership at the national level have been long overdue. Canadians expect the Government of Canada to lead when it comes to accessibility. That is a responsibility that our government is taking very seriously. It is important to underscore that this historic bill reflects the work and commitment of the disabled community, whose priorities and concerns have been addressed and are reflected throughout the bill.

This includes recognizing sign languages as the primary language for communication by deaf persons in Canada, clarifying that nothing in the act or its regulations limits the duty to accommodate of regulated entities, ensuring the timely implementation of this legislation toward the realization of a barrier-free Canada by 2040, and recognizing intersecting forms of marginalization and discrimination that persons with disabilities may experience.

The bill, built on the principle of “Nothing for us without us”, belongs to the disability community. Moving forward, the community's continued participation will be absolutely essential for the bill to be effective.

In many ways, the bill puts into legislation the best practices that top organizations follow. Looking back, I was very lucky to have institutions like the University of Calgary, with instructors who recognized the support I needed, or organizations like the one I practised law with, Dentons Canada, where I was very lucky to have the company provide the voice-activated computer and the assistance I needed to make it through my daily work.

I have been likewise very lucky in the accommodations I received when I was at the Alberta legislature and here, at the House of Commons. I have had incredible support from my wife, my family and my long-term caregiver, Liza, who have always stepped in and done all the things that were simply very difficult for me to do.

However, people with disabilities should not have to rely on this kind of luck. That is why we need legislation. With this legislation, we are creating a system whereby barriers are identified and removed proactively, and we are establishing enforcement mechanisms to ensure that regulations are respected and followed by businesses and areas under federal jurisdiction. It would create avenues for accessibility complaints through a “no wrong door” approach, and it would provide for oversight and monitoring of these issues and emerging accessibility issues.

By legislating National AccessAbility Week and bringing Canadians together to recognize the valuable contributions of persons with disabilities, this law would send a clear message that systems will be designed inclusively from the start. With the accessible Canada act, we are strengthening the collaborative approach for a country that is fully accessible and inclusive, where everyone has an equal and fair chance at success.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

It is truly an honour to speak this morning on this historic piece of legislation, Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. When I was elected, one of my priorities was to see us recognize the challenges faced by those living with disabilities, to raise awareness in my riding and across the country on how we can improve the lives of these friends and neighbours, and to enact legislation to ensure that we are moving forward on a barrier-free Canada. With Bill C-81, the federal government is leading by example, as this legislation would ensure more consistent accessibility in areas of federal jurisdiction.

Why is this important? It is because of people like Steven Muir, who works in my office. Steven lives with a developmental disability. I met him in Oakville and we became friends. Steven fell in love with Maggie, who lived in Ottawa. That presented some logistical challenges to their being together, and while it took a few years to work out the details, Steven left his job and his support network to move to Ottawa to follow his heart. Today, he is happily married to Maggie and I have had him working in my office since 2016. Steven deserves to be treated with respect and dignity, and that has not always been the case, in particular when it comes to employment and housing.

Karina Scali is another friend of mine who lives in Oakville. Karina has worked harder than most people I know to get a post-secondary education. She has faced barriers most of us would find insurmountable, including bullying at school, but she has persevered through all of it and is working toward her degree in early childhood education. She has struggled to find paid employment, not because she is not capable but because of her disability, and that is just wrong.

My friend Joe Dowdall was injured in a workplace accident, which put him in a wheelchair. Joe works at the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 793 and has been an incredible advocate at all levels of government. When I was elected, he told me that I need to work on improving the lives of those with disabilities and I promised him that I would.

I do not have time to share all the stories of my friends at Community Living Oakville and In The Loop Media, but they too have faced challenges in our community and deserve more from all levels of government and Canadian society. They are just a few examples of individuals who will be impacted by the bill before us today. There are thousands more, actually five million more, across the country with stories that are similar.

Bill C-81 would benefit Canadians by removing and preventing barriers to accessibility in areas under federal jurisdiction, including in built environments, employment, information and communication technologies, procurement of goods and services, the delivery of programs and services and transportation.

An important part of this bill is the appointment of an independent chief accessibility officer, who will be responsible for monitoring and reporting to the minister on the implementation of the act.

The bill outlines three duties for all regulated entities. They would have to create accessibility plans in consultation with people living with disabilities, they would have to set up ways to receive and respond to feedback from their employees and customers, and they would have to prepare and publish progress reports in consultation with those living with disabilities that outline how they fulfill their accessibility plans. The bill proposes to create the Canadian accessibility standards development organization to develop and model accessibility standards. In general, these standards would outline how organizations can identify, remove and prevent barriers.

An accessibility commissioner within the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be appointed and report to the Minister of Accessibility. The commissioner will be responsible for compliance and enforcement activities, as well as handling complaints for most federal activities sectors. The bill proposes a mix of proactive compliance activities, including, but not limited to, inspections, compliance audits and orders, notice of violations, penalties and more. The legislation provides individuals with the right to complain and receive compensation if they have experienced physical, psychological or monetary harm because an organization has not met its new obligations under the act and regulations.

It is especially meaningful to be speaking today during National AccessAbility Week, which has been held each year since 2016. Bill C-81 would see National AccessAbility Week officially start on the last Sunday in May.

The legislation also gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission responsibility for monitoring Canada's implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In that regard, I had the opportunity to travel to Israel on an inclusion mission organized by Reena Foundation, March of Dimes and Holland Bloorview. I know some of them are watching right now. What an incredible opportunity this is to see some of the groundbreaking work being done in that country to make it more accessible and inclusive.

I also got time to spend with some of the leading advocates of accessibility and inclusion in Canada. I got to know Yahya, who is living in supportive housing run by the Reena Foundation, a terrific organization that allows Yahya to live independently and with dignity.

David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance, joined us on the trip, and I had the chance to talk to him at length about the bill before us today. I am pleased to read that Mr. Lepofsky has stated that the Senate amendments reflect an important victory for those disability advocates who have devoted so much time and energy to strengthening Bill C-81.

This trip allowed me to explore what is possible alongside those living with a disability. What a unique and blessed opportunity it has been. It has has helped guide my perspective as I work in Parliament.

The Senate has made several important amendments to Bill C-81, and I applaud the government and the minister for accepting these amendments. These amendments include one that adds a deadline for realizing a barrier-free Canada. Adding a deadline was something that many disability advocates said was needed, and I am pleased to see its addition. The Senate amendments also recognize American sign language, Quebec sign language and indigenous sign language as the primary languages for communication for deaf persons in Canada. I know this amendment was extremely important to the deaf community, and it is great to see a sign language interpreter here with us today. These amendments and others made by the Senate have strengthened what is already groundbreaking legislation, and it is my sincere hope that all parties can work together to pass Bill C-81 as quickly as possible.

While the bill is historic, it is not enough to truly change the lives of Canadians with disabilities. We need a culture change in our country. Everyone needs to think differently about inclusion. We need to stop accepting the view that those living with a disability do not deserve a minimum wage. We need to build more inclusive housing so that people like Steven and Karina have a safe, affordable, inclusive place to live. Government alone cannot build an inclusive and accessible Canada. Every single Canadian needs to change their attitude.

Employers cannot only change a life, but can improve their business's bottom line by hiring staff living with a disability. Make no mistake that passing Bill C-81 will make a difference, and it will send the message that the federal government believes in the abilities of all Canadians.

I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to the Minister for Accessibility for her leadership in building an accessible Canada with this legislation and in so many ways, both big and small. The minister is a role model for many Canadians, and I thank her for all of her hard work on this bill.

I also want to thank my friend Senator Jim Munson who was the sponsor of this bill in the Senate. I can think of few parliamentarians who have been so passionate about inclusion for so many years. Senator Munson became emotional when Bill C-81 passed third reading in the Senate, posting on twitter, “This has been a good day for Inclusion—good day for Canada”.

To the minister and Senator Munson, to all the disability advocates and organizations who have been played a part in guiding and supporting us to where we are today, and to every person across Canada who has played a role in seeing this bill before us come to fruition, I thank them for their passion and commitment to creating an inclusive and accessible country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for her extraordinarily hard work in speaking to the concerns of Canadians with disabilities and in strengthening this legislation. I worked at committee with her on Bill C-81, trying to strengthen it. I welcome the amendments from the other place.

I also want to thank and laud the work of disability rights advocates like David Lepofsky, whose office was so helpful as we were trying to draft the most effective amendments we could. I share some of my friend's sense of this being bittersweet. I think we have to get this legislation passed. Disability rights advocates across Canada are calling on us to do it.

I also want to thank the minister. It is a rare thing when a minister in this place accepts previously rejected amendments in order to strengthen legislation. Many of my amendments and those of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh were rejected in clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, but now the minister has accepted some strengthening of the bill. We welcome that.

We hope that this legislation passes and gets royal assent. How can we be most useful in making sure that the promise of a barrier-free Canada is delivered?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take this time in the House to speak on the rights of people living with disabilities and Canada's responsibility as a signatory to the UN convention on those rights. The NDP supports Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, as amended by the Senate.

I am proud to have been part of a larger movement of stakeholder groups and civil activists who put a great deal of effort into attempting to make this bill the best it can be. We have supported it from the beginning and offered numerous amendments that would have helped the bill realize its ambitions to create a barrier-free Canada.

New Democrats have long believed that any accessibility bill tabled by the government should essentially be enabling legislation for Canada's obligations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Canada ratified this convention in 2010 but until now has done nothing to bring our laws into conformity with it.

I congratulate the minister and her team for their work on this bill and for her willingness to accede to the Senate's amendments. There are still numerous provisions within the bill that remain in need of fixing, and I would be remiss if I did not discuss them now in order to further our understanding on what is yet to be accomplished. This being a federal election year, I know our citizen activists are listening and gaining a better understanding of how they can effectively use a campaign season.

In its current form, Bill C-81 is inadequate to the expectation of fostering a society in which all our citizens can participate fully and equally. This cannot even begin to happen until all our institutions are open and completely accessible to everyone. This is truly what fostering a barrier-free Canada will look like. Unfortunately, Bill C-81 makes minimal movement in that direction.

We are not alone with our concerns. During Bill C-81's time in the House Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA, the federal government received extensive feedback on the bill's many shortcomings from people living with disabilities across Canada, as well as from their organized networks of advocacy. For example, last October an open letter was sent to the federal government, signed by no less than 95 disability organizations. Many of these same organizations also testified before HUMA. Disability organizations repeatedly pressed for this bill to be strengthened.

Our esteemed friend, David Lepofsky, is chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. He is an esteemed and respected mind, with legal expertise on accessibility rights. At the Senate committee, he stated:

Bill C-81, at its core and its heart, is driven by the commendable notion that the federal government will enact enforceable regulations called accessibility standards that will tell federally regulated organizations what they have got to do. But it doesn't require any federal accessibility standards to ever be enacted as enforceable regulations. People with disabilities need and deserve better.

Let me be clear: The regulations that the bill requires to be enacted within two years are on procedural things, not substantive accessibility standards. The federal government could meet that deadline merely by prescribing the forms that people with disabilities shall use if they want to give feedback to Air Canada or Bell Canada. People with disabilities need and deserve better than that.

The issues that Mr. Lepofsky cites in this quote remain unaddressed in the amended version of Bill C-81.

For New Democrats, this is a very serious issue. To understand why, let us look at the headlines. Last month, the Government of Ontario announced a multi-billion dollar plan for new subways in Toronto, but only if other levels of government, including the federal government, add billions to the allocation the province is committing to. That is not unusual. However, before it spends our money on a project like that, we need the federal government to be required to say that as a ground rule for getting federal money, certain federal accessibility requirements must be met. If money is requested from the federal government, here is what is required for accessibility. It seems very simple.

The minister has claimed she does not have the constitutional authority to impose accessibility requirements on provinces, but she does. She has what is known as federal spending power, and it is a power that is very substantial. We are all familiar with the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act says that if provinces get federal money for provincial health programs, they must meet federal accessibility requirements: not disability accessibility, but financial accessibility. If the federal government truly lacks this power, then the Canada Health Act has been unconstitutional for over three decades. If the federal government can attach strings to the CHA, then it can attach strings when it gives out money to local projects and not just federal buildings.

I commend the hard work that many stakeholder groups did during the Senate phase of Bill C-81. Our friends at the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, or AODA Alliance, along with the ARCH Disability Law Centre, among several others, lobbied senators with a shortened list of amendments covering the most important changes that need to happen to Bill C-81 if the bill is to become the kind of law that our people living with disabilities need.

In fact, we would like to thank all the disability organizations, numbering at least 71, that signed the open letter sent earlier this month to the House of Commons. They called on the House of Commons to ratify the Senate's amendments to Bill C-81. This open letter, which the Council of Canadians with Disabilities delivered to all MPs on behalf of its 28 signatories, all listed below, explains that these amendments improve the bill. The Senate formulated these amendments after holding public hearings at which disability organizations and advocates pointed out the need to strengthen a bill that the House of Commons originally passed last fall. The Senate got the message and formulated a short package of 11 amendments, which together fit on two pages.

I would also like to commend everyone who participated in the massive letter-writing campaign to the minister, the Prime Minister and all members of Parliament. It is always exciting to see concerned public action on any issue. It was not at all clear from the minister's Senate committee testimony that she would accept some of the amendments put forward, but I believe the campaign was a crucial component to making this happen.

Going into the Senate, prior to committee, major stakeholders proposed a distilled version of the changes they wanted to see in the bill before it became law. The amendments proposed for Bill C-81 before the Senate began debating it were a distilled version of the amendments they presented during the hearings before the House of Commons committee.

I would like to run through these very quickly, as they are absolutely essential if Bill C-81 is to be effective.

First, impose clear duties and deadlines on the federal government when implementing this law.

Second, set a deadline for Canada to become accessible.

Third, enforcement should be solely in the hands of the accessibility commissioner, not splintered across various organizations, such as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the Canadian Transportation Agency, which, as has been pointed out numerous times, have a sorry record of implementing the few accessibility obligations they already have, never mind new ones.

Fourth, we should ensure federal public money is never used to create or perpetuate disability barriers.

Fifth, we should ensure that the federal government will not be able to exempt itself from any of its accessibility obligations under the bill.

The Senate eventually accepted the following amendments to Bill C-81: first, setting 2040 as the end date for Canada to become accessible; second, ensuring that this 2040 timeline would not justify any delay in removing and preventing accessibility barriers as soon as reasonably possible; third, recognizing American sign language, Quebec sign language and indigenous sign languages as the primary languages for communication used by deaf people; fourth, making it a principle to govern the bill that multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination faced by persons with disabilities must be considered; fifth, ensuring that Bill C-81 and regulations made under it could not cut back on the human rights of people with disabilities guaranteed by the Canadian Human Rights Act; sixth, ensuring that the Canadian Transportation Agency could not reduce existing human rights protections for passengers with disabilities when the agency handled complaints about barriers in transportation; and, seventh, fixing problems the federal government identified between the bill’s employment provisions and legislation governing the RCMP.

As members can garner from comparing the proposed amendments with the ones the Senate approved, several crucial amendments did not make it into the bill. One of the more important of these dealt with the issue that Bill C-81 splintered enforcement and implementation in a confusing way over four different public agencies, rather than providing people with disabilities with the single-window service they needed.

As part of this, it leaves two public agencies, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the Canadian Transportation Agency, to continue overseeing accessibility, despite their inadequate track record on this issue over many years and in the very recent past. The NDP understands that this is an urgent issue which needs to be addressed urgently.

When the bill was in committee, I tabled amendments that would have closed the many exemptions and powers allowing public officials to exempt any organization from key parts of Bill C-81. The NDP feels the bill fails to effectively ensure that the federal government will use all its levers of power to promote accessibility across Canada. For example, it does not require the federal government to ensure that federal money is never used by any recipient of those funds to create or perpetuate disability barriers, such as when federal money contributes to new or renovated infrastructure.

This is a significant point because the federal government can easily require all projects utilizing federal dollars to meet accessibility standards. Experience tells us that without this requirement, federal agencies will contract out important work to third parties to save money, thus bypassing federal accessibility specifications. Our NDP amendments would have addressed this issue directly.

For example, inaccessible public housing could potentially be built and there would be little anyone could do about it, despite the government's repeatedly stated commitment to accessibility and disability issues.

While we commend the government for accepting the timeline of 2040 as the time when Canada is to become accessible to five million people, Bill C-81 nevertheless lacks mandatory timelines for implementation. It allows, but does not require, the government to adopt accessibility standards, yet does not impose a time frame within which this is to happen. Without these, the implementation process, even the start-up process, could drag on for years.

An egregious provision the bill lacks is the requirement that all federal government laws, policies and programs be studied through a disability law lens. This seems a strange omission indeed, as this is the proverbial low-hanging fruit.

It is crucial that societies eliminate these forms of discrimination, not just because doing it is the right thing to do but because it enables a previously ignored and sizable section of our population that contributes its talents and abilities to the betterment of us all. Everyone wins when everyone can contribute.

When it comes to ensuring accessibility for five million Canadians with disabilities, Canada lags far behind the United States, which passed a landmark Americans with disabilities act 29 years ago. Canadians with disabilities still face far too many barriers in air travel, cable TV services, and when dealing with the federal government.

Now that Bill C-81 is back in the House, it only needs to hold one vote to ratify these amendments. No further public hearings or standing committee study of the bill are needed. Once the amendments are passed during that vote, Bill C-81 will have completed its journey through Canada's Parliament. It will be law. It will come into force when the federal government gives Bill C-81 royal assent.

Major stakeholders have recently written to leaders of the major parties asking that they commit to bringing a stronger national accessibility bill before Parliament after this fall's federal election. That is why, while we support the passage of Bill C-81 as amended today, the NDP also commits that when we become government in 2020, we will bring forward a much stronger version of the bill, one that will correct some of its more glaring shortcomings.

As others have noted, yes, the bill is an important first step. However, people living with disabilities have waited so long, too long, to live in a country that allows their flourishing as citizens with full human rights realized. For instance, our neighbours and family members should not be told that they must wait until 2040 until they can, say, use functioning, accessible subway elevators, or use their own wheelchairs on international flights or attend an accessible all-candidates debate and so on.

Unfortunately, the present government has left the task of making Canada fully accessible to future governments. I confidently say that New Democrats are up to this task and genuinely committed to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his exhaustive efforts in describing the position of the official opposition on Bill C-81.

It was very interesting to hear about the history of legislation and, of course, about someone in our history like Jean Vanier, who created watershed moments. However, to be be quite frank, when the official opposition was in government, for 10 years there was inaction. What I am hearing now is a keen understanding of how legislation has to evolve and progress. However, I would like to hear from the member a little more about his insights into how government policies and laws should be viewed through a disability lens.

As the member knows, there was testimony with regard to the legislation being designed to stipulate a disability lens. Perhaps the member can talk a little more about using a disability lens, which is not actually articulated, and what he would envision it would look like.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the reaction and heckles by some members of the government very surprising. We know they do not like listening to opposition perspectives. We have seen multiple efforts by them to shut down debate on different issues. Yes, I am criticizing their failure to respond properly to proposals put forward by Conservative members and agreed to by members of other parties to strengthen the legislation.

Government members do not want to hear that perspective. They want this to be a day when we all agree on every detail. I said right at the beginning, very clearly, that we agree on the principle and that moving this legislation forward would be an improvement on the status quo. However, part of the purpose of the parliamentary conversation is to identify aspects of legislation that need to be improved.

The members across the way may not want to hear these criticisms. They may not want to hear about the fact that this legislation provides a possible exception, whereby a company like SNC-Lavalin might lobby the government for an exception. However, we need to talk about those things. We need to talk about how we strengthen this legislation and about some of the missed opportunities.

Members can be assured that this legislation will pass this session. However, these are criticisms that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader would benefit from listening to rather than heckling. In any event, it is an important part of the argument we are making. The fact that this legislation does not “require” the minister, but only “invites” the minister to take certain action, and the fact of the exceptions that exist are issues that need to be identified and discussed.

There is also the issue of the administrative complexity that I was talking about before the point of order was raised, and the rejection of an amendment that would have designated CASDO as the only body to develop accessibility standards, and the rejection of another amendment that would have designated the accessibility commissioner as the one body to handle compliance with accessibility standards and the adjudication of complaints. The fact that these amendments were rejected increases the relative complexity that people will face when they are engaging with these issues in the legislation.

Part of our job as the opposition is to reflect the feedback we have heard from stakeholders and to say, yes, the government needs to do better. It can do better. It should have done better. We support this legislation going forward, but we are asking for more for Canadians with disabilities, to facilitate the realization of a full vision of shared community, one in which we go beyond the minimum and do as much as possible together.

We proposed amendments, as well, to ensure that the process for making complaints and reviews by the accessibility commissioner would be fair. We proposed amendments specifically to clauses 117 and 142 to say that this would not allow organizations to be exempted from producing and publishing accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports. We proposed amendments to include stronger provisions for reviewing the accessible Canada act and monitoring the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As well, one amendment that was adopted and showed up in the Senate version eventually concerned sign language. It is important to note that we are glad to see this adopted through a Senate amendment, but it had been proposed at the House level as well.

One particular concern we raised about the coming into force of this legislation is that if clause 207 were left in, it would lead, according to the Statutes Repeal Act, to the act being automatically repealed within 10 years of receiving royal assent. That was perhaps a technicality, but one with important consequences that we sought to address.

In the course of proposing 60 amendments at committee, the government only adopted three, and they were not of the substantive variety we had hoped for. They supported two amendments to make reviews fair and accessible, which were improvements, and one amendment to the preamble that changed “Canadians” to “persons in Canada”. Essentially, it was a fairly technical linguistic change in the preamble, which was an important change in language, but the substantive concerns about the legislation we had highlighted were not fully addressed.

The Senate committee study provided some important perspective, and on the issue of the structure of this legislation, I want to read from testimony at the standing committee that studied this bill, in particular the testimony of David Lepofsky, the chair of Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. He is a real champion on these issues. He has done extensive work representing and reflecting the concerns of the community. I want to identify what he said about this bill. He stated:

Bill C-81 is strong on good intentions, but palpably weak on implementation. It's called an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, but it does not require a single barrier anywhere in Canada, ever, to be removed.

I will read that again as it is fundamental to the criticisms that I and others have made. He stated:

It's called an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, but it does not require a single barrier anywhere in Canada, ever, to be removed. People with disabilities need and deserve better than that.

Bill C-81, at its core and its heart, is driven by the commendable notion that the federal government will enact enforceable regulations called accessibility standards that will tell federally regulated organizations what they have got to do. But it doesn't require any federal accessibility standards to ever be enacted as enforceable regulations. People with disabilities need and deserve better.

Let me be clear: The regulations that the bill requires to be enacted within two years are on procedural things, not substantive accessibility standards. The federal government could meet that deadline merely by prescribing the forms that people with disabilities shall use if they want to give feedback to Air Canada or Bell Canada. People with disabilities need and deserve better than that.

This legislation splinters its enforcement and the setting of enforceable regulations among multiple federal agencies. From the minister's defence of her practice, she conceded that if she was starting from scratch, that isn't necessarily how she would do it. But her explanation of why she did it gives triumphant ascendancy to federal bureaucracy over disability equality.

Now the question is: What do we do about it? The question is not: Are you going to pass this bill, senators? You're going to pass this bill, so let's take that off the table. We all know it. We all understand it. That's the starting point.

That was the starting point for my remarks as well. I said that the Conservatives are supporting this bill, but that there are issues. There are issues the community has raised, and in terms of how we see the issue, and with the substantive aspects of the provisions of this legislation. Our support and the community's support to pass this legislation is clear, but there are big gaps.

I will go back to the testimony, which states:

The question before this committee is: Are you going to amend it first? What we say is that you must. The reality is this bill needs a lot of amendments not to make it perfect, that's a red herring, but to get this bill from the status of weak to one that is closer to what people with disabilities need and deserve.

In the House, there were a couple hundred pages of amendments. Hard work over the past weekend has led us to distill it down to a series of amendments before you that we proposed and you have received e-mails from some witnesses who support them, which fill a grand total of 3.5 pages and cover a few core themes.

I am only going to address a couple of them, but let me be clear, there is time to do this. You are going to vote in committee on May 2. I understand you will do third reading by May 16. We are working and approaching the federal parties to urge that, once amendments are passed if they are that the house consider them quickly, so the issue of swift passage of this bill, whether amended or not, is now, procedurally, not a bar to your being able to do what we need you to do.

Again, we will see this legislation pass, but there are issues that we need to address.

The testimony continues:

So what should you do?

Well, let me just focus on a couple, but I invite questions on all of what we proposed. Lets just turn to the headlines. Yesterday, the Government of Ontario announced a multi-billion-dollar plan for new subways in Toronto, but only if other levels of government, including the federal government, add billions to the allocation the province is committing to. Thats not unusual. But we need the federal government to be required, before it spends our money on a project like that, to say a ground rule of getting our federal money is you have to meet certain federal accessibility requirements.

Now, the minister came before you a week ago and said, We cant do that. We dont have constitutional authority to do that. Respectfully, the minister is wrong. Its called the federal spending power. Have you heard of the Canada Health Act? The Canada Health Act says that if provinces get federal money for provincial health programs, they must meet federal accessibility requirements. Not disability accessibility, but their financial accessibility.

If what the minister told you is right, then the Canada Health Act has been unconstitutional for over three decades since it was enacted. I would be staggered to believe that is the position of the current federal government. If they can do it there, they can at least attach strings when they give money, if they agree to, to local projects and not just federal buildings. You might look at me and say, Oh, come on, in 2019 we wouldnt use public money to build inaccessible public transit. Senators, go to YouTube, search on AODA Alliance and public transit. You will see a video we released during last springs provincial election that has thousands of views and media coverage where we document serious accessibility problems in brand new subway stations in Toronto that just opened within the past year-and-a-half.

This isnt about perfect, folks. This is about basic equality, so we ask for an amendment that would at least require federal ministers or their ministries, if they are agreeing to give our federal money to a province, a municipality, a college or university for a project like that, to put, as a term of the agreement, an enforceable term, just like the Canada Health Act, that accessibility requirements are required. Why should the federal government ever allow federal money to be used to create new barriers or perpetuate existing ones?

I will note, just as an aside, that this specific issue that he spoke about here, the issue of federal money funding infrastructure that may not meet a certain accessible standard, is one that the Senate flagged for our consideration, but it is not reflected in the amended provisions of this legislation. This is an area that requires, I think, more discussion and exploration by government on how we should ensure that the accessibility standards we expect are met, especially in new construction and infrastructure, so that we have taken the basic steps required to ensure that it is accessible to people. That is something that should be fairly obvious. However, if we do not put in place processes and mechanisms to ensure that the obvious happens, sometimes it does not.

According to Mr. Lepofsky, in fact, there was a claim made that it would somehow be unconstitutional to put these conditions in place. It is interesting, because we see a federal government that, in general, in so many different areas, is very heavy handed with what it tries to impose on the provinces, even trying to use federal spending to compel them to implement particular policies in provincial areas of jurisdiction. It is interesting how that separation is selectively invoked in some cases but not in others, which seems to be an excuse for inaction in this case.

The testimony continues:

Let me give you one other core amendment. My colleague from the CNIB said the minister last week had agreed to amend the bill to ensure that it does not curtail in any way the human rights code and the duty to accommodate. I hope the minister does that, but I dont hear her as having said that. I hear her as having said that she, as a former human rights lawyer, has ensured that this bill doesnt interfere with the duty to accommodate. But senators, it threatens to.

Clause 172 of the bill perpetuates a provision in the Canada transportation legislation that would let the CTA enact a regulation, and once it does so, to set standards for accessible transit, no matter how low that standard may be and no matter how deficient from a human rights standard it may be. As a traveller with a disability or others in my coalition or anyone in Canada, we are barred from asking anymore under the legislation's guarantee against undue barriers.

With that provision in the act, our position is: Please don't ever enact any standards under the CTA because they threaten to take away our rights. A simple amendment would repeal that provision from the act.

I will note that, in this case, this testimony led to an amendment. Of course, we are pleased to see that the amendment was made on that provision. That was one issue from this testimony that was, in fact, addressed, which is why we were pleased to see that change in the Senate amendments. The version of this bill that was originally proposed, and that the government appeared, initially at committee in the House, not to see any problem with, was, in fact, a version whereby the CTA could enact regulations that would be below the human rights standards and that would have the potential impact of lowering the standards that are in place for the protection of the rights of Canadians with disabilities. This indicates the importance of the Senate amendment process and the benefit of the fact that in this case, the government, although not responsive as much to House amendments, did come around in response to proposals on the Senate side.

The testimony from Mr. Lepofsky states:

Let me conclude by inviting questions on the other areas that we've raised. I'm telling you that we are not just about saying what's wrong. We are about proposing constructive suggestions for what's right, and the amendments we've placed before you are designed for a Senate that has a limited time frame to act, a commitment to respect policy decisions made in the House of Commons and an eagerness to ensure that these amendments can be considered by the house quickly and easily, with a realistic chance of them being taken seriously. They are designed to be tailored both to our needs and to what the minister said to you last week. So we ask you to take them all seriously. They are all substantive, and they all bear on the needs of all people with disabilities.

I conclude by saying this: I'm speaking for my coalition, but as an individual, I first came before Parliament 39 years ago as a much younger individual—my wife said I had hair back then when she saw the video—to appear before the standing committee considering the Charter of Rights. At that time, the Charter proposed to guarantee equality but not to people with disabilities. I and a number of other folks argued and succeeded in getting the Charter amended to include that right.

I leave you with two thoughts. First, the amendments we seek are aimed at making that right become a reality, not just as a matter of good intention but as effective implementation.

The government members who do not like hearing arguments against their bill may be encouraged by the fact that I am now coming to the conclusion of my remarks.

These were all important points to make. Here is a brief summary of the key elements I have highlighted in this bill.

The bill is about requiring regulated entities to make accessibility plans. It is a positive step, but it would not have the force and the pressure on the government in terms of compelling government action that many people within the disability community want to see. We tried to reflect those concerns in the context of a debate that happened here in the House the first time around and at committee. Unfortunately, all the more substantive changes were rejected in the House. The Senate put forward a number of amendments that were positive, but they would not fix the bill in every respect, certainly from the perspective of our caucus and those in the community.

Therefore, while we are pleased to support these amendments and this legislation, we will continue to call on the government to do better and to give reality to the promise that “better is possible”. That is what we are asking in the context of this legislation. The Senate amendments make improvements, but they do not go all the way in terms of the improvements people are asking for.

I talked a bit about who this legislation is for. It is important to recognize that the steps we take to facilitate an accessible, barrier-free society benefit people with disabilities, but they benefit all of us, because they give all of us an opportunity to live together in meaningful community and to learn from each other.

There are things that are not in the bill. In some cases, they are things that could not be addressed by a bill, and in some cases, they are things the government should have addressed but did not.

Legislation can ultimately only go so far toward addressing people's attitudes and culture. Building a barrier-free Canada is not just a political decision; it has to be a social commitment. It has to be something we all commit to leading on and acting on together as parliamentarians and as citizens. We call on business leaders and people from all walks of life to see what they can do to build and facilitate meaningful commitment, goodwill, friendship and love among people, regardless of ability or disability.

Those kinds of social and cultural changes are important. Legislation without that kind of social commitment is not enough to create a truly barrier-free Canada.

I want to again say that the work done by my colleague, the member for Carleton, on trying to ensure that disabled Canadians are able to access paid work, was very important. It was disappointing to see that bill voted down by the government. I hope that in a subsequent Parliament, we will be able to see progress on the initiative he put forward.

Not everyone is able to work, but there are many people who have a disability who are ready, willing and able to participate in paid work. They benefit our economy by doing so, but they also benefit from the community associated with work. They benefit from a sense of purpose and meaning that comes to many people from being able to go to work every day.

More needs to be done to support the kinds of initiatives we saw in that private member's bill. Maybe it will come back in a future Parliament. Maybe we will see other kinds of action that will seek to specifically address the issue of barriers that exist for disabled Canadians seeking employment.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. I am supportive of the bill. I am supportive of the amendments. I am hopeful that we will be able to see more action, and in the future, that we will be able to challenge the government. Rather than rejecting amendments in the House and sending them to the Senate and then accepting them at that point, maybe a novel idea would be to have some of these amendments adopted in the House in the first instance, which would skip the step of bringing the bill back to the House afterward.

There are some areas that could be better, but there are positive steps here. People can be assured that we will support the bill and support these actions. Going forward, we will continue to hold the government's feet to the fire. In the areas where it says it may regulate, we will apply the pressure necessary. We were not able to get from “may” to “must” in the legislation, but we will work to create a political imperative so that the government does not fail to act.

Those in the community who are following us today can be assured of our commitment to always hold the government accountable on these issues and to ensure, with the high-minded discussion around Bill C-81, that the objectives that were laid out are fully realized.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to address Bill C-81, an important piece of legislation that recognizes and affirms the inherent dignity of all people regardless of disability. It seeks to create the kind of policy environment and framework that facilitate full participation in every aspect of Canadian life for Canadians who have disabilities.

Those watching can be assured of the support of all parties in this House for this legislation. Today we will discuss some missed opportunities and some related issues on which we have not agreed with the government's actions. Specifically, for instance, we will discuss some of the issues around employment. We had a private member's bill from my friend, the member for Carleton, that dealt with facilitating the full involvement of Canadians with disabilities in terms of employment. There are areas of disagreement among the parties in terms of the best way to move forward and the best way to affirm these principles.

Nonetheless, those watching should know that we in the opposition, and all parties, are supportive of moving forward with this legislation. Whether the bill passes today or tomorrow, I am not sure of the exact timeline. However, I think we will certainly see this bill pass into law before the election. It will be good news and a positive step.

Before getting into some of the substance of the legislation, I want to pick up on something said by my colleague, the member for Foothills. He has done a lot of great work on this bill on our side, as have the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin and other members who have been part of the process. The member for Foothills pointed out that amendments for this bill that were put forward at the committee level by Conservatives, as well as by other opposition parties, were not supported by government MPs at the time of the initial study by the House of Commons committee. That is an important point, that they were not supported at that stage.

Notwithstanding disagreements about some of the particulars around amendments, we have supported this bill at every stage. After the bill passed third reading, it went to the Senate. The Senate made a number of amendments that reflected the same concerns that Conservative members of the House had been hearing from the stakeholder community, those representing Canadians with disabilities. Those same concerns that we heard were also heard by the Senate, and they were part of the discussion that happened in the context of that Senate committee.

The bill was amended somewhat at the Senate, and then it was brought back to the House. Now we are debating whether to agree to and support those Senate amendments. I think members will find, generally speaking, support across the parties for the Senate amendments, which make improvements on the text of the bill as it was.

Those who are watching should note how this legislative process works through the details, and how senators were able to be more influential over the legislative outcome than members of the House were. The government would not accept amendments that came from members of the House, but then accepted those same amendments that came from members of the Senate.

We have seen this in a number of cases. I recall Bill C-14, to which an amendment around palliative care was proposed. Actually it was not even just proposed at committee; it was voted on by all members in the chamber at that time. It was voted down. Then, in similar form, it was proposed by Senator Plett, and it passed in the Senate. It was then accepted as part of a subsequent message from the House of Commons.

We see this process happening, in general, in this Parliament, because of the relative lack of independence that we sometimes see in committees and the way committees are unfortunately quite controlled, and the relative independence of the Senate, certainly relative to the House of Commons. It is not as independent as maybe some like to claim, but it is relatively independent compared to the actions of members, especially government members, in the House of Commons. Senate action actually has a greater practical impact on the legislative process.

Again, although I am happy to see the incorporation of these amendments, I think we should be concerned about that, just as a matter of legislative process. We want this House and its elected members of Parliament to be strong in the exercise of their responsibilities.

Nonetheless, although we raise questions and highlight some of the means by which some of these issues have come forward, we are pleased to see these amendments. They reflect issues that have been raised by the stakeholder community and by members of Parliament from our party and, I believe, other parties as well.

With that said about matters of process, let me turn now to the particulars of the legislation, Bill C-81, that is before us. To summarize the content of the bill, in a nutshell, it is essentially about requiring regulated entities, that is, the public service and federally regulated workplaces, to develop accessibility plans. It also requires that the content of those plans be regulated and enforced.

As the minister and others have pointed out in some of the remarks they have made during this process, very often our human rights processes are complaints based. That is, complaints issues are considered when there is a violation or a potential violation of somebody's rights. A complaint is then made, and an adjudication happens around that complaint.

A point that the minister has made, and she is quite right in making it, is that this approach is not the full realization. It is important that people have those avenues available to them, but it is not the full extent of what we would like to see in this context. Rather, we would prefer to see a proactive approach, where we are ensuring the protection of rights from the beginning and not merely putting in place a system that allows complaints to be adjudicated after people's rights have been violated.

Seeking to have regulated entities develop plans, prepare and publish those plans, implement them and facilitate their enforcement creates the conditions for a more proactive approach to these issues, rather than simply a reactive approach. That is wise, worthwhile and something that all parties support. It would establish proactive compliance and enforcement mechanisms. These plans must be multi-year and involve the setting of goals, reporting requirements, mechanisms for investigation and a variety of processes that seek to ensure the realization of those plans to the fullest possible extent.

This legislation would also create an organization called CASDO, the Canadian accessibility standards development organization, and allocate $290 million over the next six years for its creation. This organization would work within the government to create regulations related to various aspects of the legislation around the built environment, employment, service delivery, information and communications technology, transportation and procurement, and always with the goal of the full integration of people with disabilities, facilitating their full participation within society, without barriers.

Failure to meet standards set by CASDO would lead to fines. It should be noted that the action of CASDO would be within federally regulated entities and directly within the federal government only. Nonetheless, the hope is that this legislation would involve the setting of standards that would then be adopted and become useful across all facets of Canadian society, including those outside the federally regulated workforce. There would also be 5,000 Canadians with disabilities hired for the public service, which is also encouraging to see. Our party, as people have seen, has been vocal on the issue of ensuring that those who have disabilities are not arbitrarily excluded from the public service.

This is the broad framework of the bill. It puts in place some mechanisms and processes to ensure there are no barriers to participation in society for people with disabilities.

Today we are in the process of debating issues related to proposed Senate amendments. The minister has spoken, and I would like to highlight the various Senate amendments that we are considering. Although the Senate did not incorporate all the changes that had been proposed at committee, in the House or that had been suggested by the broader disability community, all the changes that were made were reflective of those particular concerns.

First is the issue of including in this legislation a timeline for the realization of a barrier-free Canada; that timeline is 2040. The goal is that this work would be completed, taken fully to fruition, by 2040. The amendments also seek to clarify, though, that the setting of that deadline is not an excuse to wait until the proverbial night before to get the homework done. Rather, the amendments are to ensure the work is done by that point. They create that timeline or deadline but do not seek to permit any kind of delay or preservation of barriers in the name of it not being 2040 yet. That is an important element as well.

Growing up, I was always taught that deadlines are the mother of invention and that more gets done when there is the focusing effect of an upcoming deadline, so the work of the community and the Senate to ensure that there is a timeline in place for the implementation of these measures is quite commendable and important.

Another area of amendment from the Senate was that it asked that intersectionality be taken into consideration in this account. Amendments were put forward to recognize the multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination, the fact that people with disabilities may face discrimination as a result of an intersectional reality. Therefore, the planned response to barriers needs to be a response that takes that circumstance into consideration. We recognize that reality. We recognize the importance of the various plans that are put forward by regulated entities to recognize that intersectionality is part of the dynamic.

Further, the amendments put forward by the Senate seek to address the issue of preserving the existing human rights of people with disabilities. This was really more of a clarification, but the testimony heard in the House, as well as by the Senate committee, emphasized the importance of this clarification, recognizing that there are already obligations under various human rights codes, in particular in the case of federal entities under the Canadian Human Rights Act and other federal laws. Various groups highlighted the importance of clarifying that the new framework put forward with this bill does not in any way derogate from the existing recognized rights and obligations that are enumerated as part of those existing human rights codes. We recognize that aspect as important as well.

Through other amendments, the Senate sought to protect existing rights in the context of passengers with disabilities through the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The expectation is that many of the complaints would come through the Canadian Transportation Agency. This was put forward by people in the disability community. It is therefore important for the legislation to create enforceable standards around the action that this body must take in the removal of barriers. This is an important piece as well.

On the specific issue of transportation, I want to read briefly from a briefing from ARCH Disability Law Centre. It said the following:

However, subsection 172(2), a provision that is currently in the Canada Transportation Act, effectively means that once the CTA make these regulations and transportation providers, like airlines, comply with these regulations, they do not need to do anything more.

This is problematic because the regulations that the CTA sets may not meet the duty to accommodate protections that people with disabilities have under human rights law.

Under subsection 172(2), if a passenger with a disability complains to the CTA that an airline or other transportation provider should have accommodated his or her disability, the case would fail if the airline complied with CTA regulations. A more detailed analysis of this is available in the final legal report.

The committee did not repeal subsection 172(2), but adopted an amendment which would change it. The proposed amendment allows the CTA to find that there is a barrier to accessibility even if the transportation provider has complied with the CTA regulations. For passengers with disabilities, this means they can file a complaint with the CTA that they face an undue barrier in the federal transportation system and insist the transportation provider do more than what the CTA regulation requires.

The passenger with a disability could win his or her case even if the transportation provider complied with all CTA regulations. However, the CTA could only order the transportation provider to take corrective measures. The CTA could not order the transportation provider to pay the person damages or money compensation. This is different from other complaints to the CTA about inaccessibility of the federal transportation system. Generally, for these other complaints, the CTA can order the transportation provider to take corrective measures and to pay damages to the person.

Essentially, the argument that is being made is that although the amendment would improve the section, there still would be a gap. People in the community expect transportation companies, airlines, rail lines etc. to accommodate those with disabilities. The concern is that these entities might be able to say that they have met the standards of the regulations so they do not have to do anything more if in fact the case may be that they could and should do more to accommodate the full participation of a person with a disability.

The Senate amendment says that the CTA could well find that the transportation provider should have done more even if it attained the minimum standards set by the regulation, but it could not award damages in this case. That is an improvement made through the work of the Senate, but as the discussion around this illustrates, there is still a gap in what was asked for and what was expected.

The next amendment is around the issue of sign language. The legislation recognizes specific forms of sign language: American sign language, Quebec sign language and indigenous sign languages. It recognizes these as primary languages used by deaf persons in Canada. This has been an issue that the deaf community in particular has been long advocating on, and it has the support of all other stakeholders as well.

We have had many discussions in the House about the importance of language. We recently had a debate on indigenous languages, a legislative framework around indigenous languages, the importance of our two official languages and the experience and culture that are tied to the use of language in that context.

As well, I think we all recognize that the recognition of sign language is part of that picture as well as part of a broader, deeper appreciation of the way in which language is tied to culture and experience. Of course, for people who are limited in their ability to communicate in other ways, it is particularly necessary. It does have significance and meaning beyond the necessity of communicating in that form.

These are some of the amendments the Senate has adopted to the bill. They do not address all the issues that people in the stakeholder community and the wider community have been looking for, but they are steps forward and are things that are well supported by all members of Parliament. We are hopeful this will go forward and we will be able to see movement to get these amendments through.

In my remarks today I want to frame a little of the discussion around who the bill is for. In other words, why are the technical elements I have explained important and who do they matter to specifically.

In that context, I want to make a few remarks about Jean Vanier, about his vision of inclusion, but of something much bigger and greater than inclusion. As we talk about these issues, he is a figure on whom all of us should reflect. He is certainly the greatest known champion of people with disabilities.

He passed away earlier this month. His death was met with recognition and tributes from all aspects of our politics and many different aspects of Canadian society. He was a revolutionary figure practically in how he sought to facilitate the inclusion in society of people with disabilities. However, he was also a revolutionary figure intellectually. His experience as a philosopher and his way of thinking informed and contributed to his work. He was described in biographies as a philosopher and a humanitarian, which is an optimal and necessary combination. It is dangerous to be a philosopher without being a humanitarian and it is dangerous to think of oneself as a humanitarian without some attention to the philosophical roots of humanitarian work. We see that intimate connection between the ideas Jean Vanier sought to advance and the practices he championed.

Jean Vanier came from a privileged family. His parents were well known as well. He was born when his father was part of a diplomatic mission. He had a military career as well, but then he pursued a doctorate in philosophy. His dissertation would position much of the work he would do later. His dissertation was on happiness as principle and the end of Aristotelian ethics.

I feel a connection to that because I did my Masters dissertation on happiness measurement, which was also significantly influenced by Aristotle. The question of happiness is under-discussed in politics. It is important for a lot of the legislation. He was someone who brought in a philosophical framework to the work he did that was rooted in Aristotelian concepts of happiness. In the meantime, he drew on Aristotle's conception of happiness, which is different from a contemporary concept of happiness. This influenced his work with Canadians with disabilities.

Jean Vanier's desire for disabled people was not merely that they experience formal, structural inclusion or be able to get into the same spaces as everyone else. Rather, his desire was for them to experience love and happiness through community and friendship. Therefore, he sought to build communities of disabled and non-disabled people living together in meaningful friendship.

Vanier wrote this:

The cry of people with disabilities was a very simple cry: Do you love me? That's what they were asking. And that awoke something deep within me because that was also my fundamental cry.

He noted that the pursuit of recognition of their humanity, happiness and love was what people with disabilities were seeking, which was often denied to them by a structure that did not affirm their dignity. The thing they were seeking was the same thing that all people were seeking and that in fact they could and they would seek that together. That was Vanier's wisdom and vision.

He developed into his work, and would write subsequently about them, concepts of happiness informed by his work with people with disabilities. He drew very much on Aristotle's concept of happiness. Aristotle, writing in Greek, obviously uses the word “eudemonia”, which more directly is translated “the life well lived”. He argued in that context against notions of happiness that were more pleasure-based, more rooted in happenstance, the random benefit of good fortune generally in material terms. He had a richer understanding and appreciation of what happiness was.

Aristotle argues, and Vanier follows him in this sense, for the connection between virtue and happiness, that virtues are the qualities of character that allow life to be lived well.

We know as members of Parliament and as human beings that so much of human striving is in pursuit of happiness. We do not always agree on what that is or on how we strive for it, but so much of life is about striving for happiness.

More recently, our side has been very much influenced by the utilitarian school of thought, which argues that happiness is about pleasure over pain. This was the core of Bentham's concept of utilitarianism. Mill formerly follows it, but he reinserts aspects of Aristotle's definition of happiness with arguments that the cultivation of higher levels of happiness requires the development of a certain nobleness of character.

Vanier's passion for philosophy and the idea of happiness continued throughout his life. In 2001, he wrote “Made for Happiness: Discovering the Meaning of Life with Aristotle”. In it he talks about three utilitarian virtues: love, wisdom and justice. I want to read a quote from the book in which he talks about the importance of friendship and love as part of friendship.

He states:

Through friendship I communicated in the consciousness that my friend has of his own existence. For in the same way that we feel that we are alive and exist through activity and derive pleasure from it, so, through friendship, we feel our friend live and exist. And the union is so profound that the goodness of the life of our friend extends to us and gives us pleasure. In friendship there is almost a communion, a merging of two beings and their rightful good. The friend is an other self. Everything that I experience, he experiences.... In this friendship we continue to be two, but we are one in a great and noble activity that we accomplish together. Consciousness of the goodness of my friend fills me with just as much joy as if it were my own. My friend's happiness becomes my happiness.

This was his philosophical concept of friendship that was essential for happiness, facilitated by the virtue of love. It informed his practical vision for building communities that would include disabled and non-disabled people. We could call that inclusion, but it is a much richer and deeper concept of inclusion than a formal one. It is that we live in communities of love, good will and solidarity for each other with real friendship. We see others as another self and we identify with that kind of love for others. It is part of his concept of happiness, which entails friendship and living together while in community.

Jean Vanier, as I said, brought a rich concept of happiness, love and friendship into his work with disabled people. He saw people in institutions when he was living in Paris at the time of the founding of the L'Arche movement, who were being maintained poorly in the worst instance. He saw that very often the attitude towards the disabled resulted, in the worst instance, in people being maintained poorly, and in the best instance people being treated a little bit better in terms of their material condition. However, the real need was for the humanity of all people to be affirmed through communities of meaningful friendship and love, through which people were pursuing happiness together. That was his vision.

The radical practical idea started with Vanier personally getting a house and moving in with people who had disabilities. He saw that this was not merely an act of service done by him for other people; rather, it was about the development of shared community. He saw how through this reality of shared community he could learn from those people he was living with. He wanted other people who did not have disabilities to be able to learn and grow through these communities and friendships, which were meaningful and pursuing happiness together.

Jean Vanier said that “L'Arche and Faith and Light have been part of a real revolution.” So often in the past, people with intellectual disabilities were seen as a source of shame for their parents, or even in some situations as a punishment from God. Their parents and carers have often been seen as wonderful people, even holy, for looking after people “like them”. Today, it is becoming clear that it is people with intellectual disabilities who humanize us and heal us if we enter into real friendship with them. They are in no way a punishment from God, but rather a path toward God.

He understood that people with disabilities are in their fullest and most complete sense people. They are human beings with the same dignity and value as anyone else. They have both needs and things to contribute, which is obviously the situation of us all. Those needs and contributions are realized through meaningful community. He also understood that the value of social structures replicating insights and benefits of family-like structures.

I was recently in Bogotá, where I had a chance to visit SOS Children's Village to see some of the work they were doing. They made a very interesting point to me about the way we care for children who cannot be cared for by their families. I think it is a similar insight to Jean Vanier, which is that institutions' formal structures do not work nearly as well as, let us say, family-like structures. The way SOS works, at least in Columbia where I was, is that children are put into environments designed to be family-like. They are in homes. They have parents looking after them. Although they are not able to be with their own families, they experience a support structure that is meaningfully similar to that of a family and that leverages the kind of love, connection and friendship that is important in family structures. That was understood by Jean Vanier when he sought to do the same thing in how he structured the L'Arche movement with meaningful family-like communities where people would live together in communities of love and friendship.

Very shortly before he died, Jean Vanier received the Templeton Prize, which is a great international honour. He spoke about the work he did and the ideas and vision behind it. It showed us the kinds of sensibilities that should animate our work in this area. I want to read from part of his acceptance speech for the Templeton prize. He said:

L’Arche and Faith and Light have been part of a real revolution; so often in the past people with intellectual disabilities were seen as a source of shame for their parents, or even in some situations, as a punishment from God. Their parents and carers have often been seen as wonderful people, even holy, for looking after people “like them”. Today it is becoming clear that it is people with intellectual disabilities who can humanise us, and heal us, if we enter into a real friendship with them. They are in no way a punishment of God but rather a path towards God....

To be with is to live side by side, it is enter into mutual relationships of friendship and concern. It is to laugh and to cry together, it is to mutually transform each other. Each person becomes a gift for the other, revealing to each other that we are all part of a huge and wonderful family, the family of God. We are all profoundly the same as human beings, but also profoundly different, we all have our special gifts and unique mission in our lives.

This wonderful family, from its earliest origins and since then with all those who have been spread over this planet from generation to generation, is composed of people of different cultures and abilities, each of whom have their strength and their weakness, and each of whom is precious.

The evolution of this family from the earliest days until today certainly has entailed wars, violence, and the endless seeking of domination and more possessions. It is also an evolution wherein prophets of peace have continued to cry out for “peace, peace”, calling people together to meet each other as beautiful and precious.

Many of us in our world continue to yearn for peace, and for unity. However so many of us remain stuck in our cultures where we are caught up fighting to win and to have more. How can we become free of the culture that incites people, not to responsibilities to the human family and to the common good, but to individual success and to domination over others? How can we get rid of the tentacles and the shackles of this culture, to become free to be ourselves, free of our oversized egos and compulsions, free to love others as they are, different yet the same?

To be with is also to eat together, as Jesus invited us: “When you give a meal don’t invite your family, friends or rich neighbour, but invite the poor and the lame, the disabled and the blind, and you shall be blessed.” To become blessed, says Jesus, is to invite the poor to our table (Luke 14).

Let us be very clear that it is not the guests who are blessed because they enjoy good food at a party, but rather the host is blessed by his encounter with the poor. Why is the host called blessed? Isn’t it because his heart will be transformed as he is touched by the wonderful gifts of the spirit hidden in the hearts of the poor? This has been the gift of my own personal journey and those of many others. We have been led by those who are weak onto the road of the blessedness of love, of humility and of peacemaking.

To be transformed, first we must meet people who are different, not our family, friends and neighbours who are like us. Let us meet across differences—intellectual, cultural, national, racial, religious and other differences. Then from this initial meeting we can begin to build community and places of belonging together.

Community is never called to be a closed group, where people are hiding behind barriers of group identity, interested only in their own welfare or their own vision, as if it is the only one or the best. It cannot be a prison or a fortress. Unfortunately, for a long time this was the rather closed vision of different churches and religions. Each one thought itself the best, with all knowledge and truth. Hence, there was no communication or dialogue between them.

Isn’t there a danger that we close ourselves up in our own professional, religious or family groups where we never meet those who are different?

Community, on the other hand, is a place of togetherness in spite of differences, of people united in love and open to all other people. A community then is like a fountain or a shining light, where a way of life is being lived and revealed, open to others and attractive to them. It is a place of peace, revealing a way to peace and to unity for the human family.

Community is a place of belonging where each person can grow to become fully him or herself. It is belonging for becoming.

We belong to each other so that each member can become more human, more loving, more free, more open to others, particularly to those who are different. When each member can develop their unique gifts and help others to develop theirs, members are no longer in competition but in collaboration, in cooperation and in mutual support.

To become is not to prove I am better than you, but rather supporting together each other in opening up our hearts. Thus community is a place of transformation. Community is a place of belonging where each one may be transformed and find human fulfilment.

What alternatives do we have for human growth? Belonging which is too rigid stifles becoming; on the other hand too much individual growth or becoming without belonging can become fighting to get to the top, or else it can become loneliness and anguish. To win is always to be lonely, and of course nobody wins for long.

Community then is not a closed group but a way of life that helps each person to grow to human fulfillment. The two key elements of community are mission and mutual caring for each one. We come together for a purpose that is the mission, and also to be a sign of love or rather to grow in love for each another. It is a mission that defines why we are together, and being together we learn to love one another.

At L’Arche and Faith and Light our mission is to provide community where the most fragile person is the heart of the community, and can grow in their humanity and in their capacity to love.

Community then becomes a place where we learn how to love each other. To grow in love is a long and difficult journey, and it takes time. L’Arche and Faith and Light are not just places where we do good to people with intellectual disabilities. They are places of relationship, where we grow in love together.

But what is love? This word has been flung around for all sorts of emotional experiences as well as acts of bravery of solders, fighting out of love for their country. For me, love is to recognize that the other person is a person, is precious, is important and has value. Each one has a gift to bring to others. Each one has his or her mission in the larger family of humanity. Each one reveals the secret face of God.

We need each other, to grow in this sacred love, which implies love of those who are different, of those who get my goat and drive me up the wall, because of difference of ideas, temperament, culture, approach and so on. Community is a place where we rub up against each other’s sore spots.

Hopefully we can in this way rub off some of the tiresome and sour traits of our characters, so that we can become our real selves. To love then is to see in the other, the heart of the person hidden under all that annoys us. That is why to love, in the words of St Paul, is to be patient, which is to wait, and to hold on. It is to believe and to trust that under all the mess in the other person is their secret being, their heart.

In L’Arche some of the people we welcome have deep anguish and even violence. They are difficult to live with in community. We have to be patient and to believe that their true self will gradually emerge. We also have to be patient with ourselves as well, and believe that if we try to love and become open to a spirituality of love, our own true selves will also gradually emerge. If we love, if we truly love other people and believe in them, then they are transformed, and we also will be transformed.

Community then is a place of healing, of transformation, and of humanising people. It’s a place where we are commissioned to grow in love, and in forgiveness, and this is real work. If you don’t want to be transformed and to grow in love, then don’t partake in community! When we find the strength to accept people as they are and to meet them in their secret being, they open us up to love.

These remarks by Jean Vanier are so profound and so critical, not just to this particular debate but to all of the debates we have in this place, because they talk about the way in which we can and do live in community with each other. That is, we understand the balance, if you will, or the necessary combination for belonging and becoming and the importance of having open-ended communities where we invite other people in and seek to learn from them.

The relationship we have with people who come from different backgrounds, people who are disabled or people who may have been historically disadvantaged for a variety of reasons is not to feel that they are in need of somebody else's charity, but, rather, to include each other in full community and recognize the way in which we become in community, we belong in community and we learn from each other.

This is something I have observed in my own interactions with members of my family. I have a beautiful cousin who has Down's syndrome. She was one of the flower girls at my wedding. I will always remember a story that my uncle told. It was a story about how he had learned from her, and sharing the story was a way in which we all learned from her. It was about a time when he and his children were at a hospital, where there was a lady, whatever her circumstances were or whatever bad news she had just heard, standing outside a hospital room crying. My uncle told his children that they should mind their own business, make sure they do not stare, walk past and move on. While he was giving these instructions, it was too late. His daughter Anastasia had already wrapped her arms around the woman who was crying, hugging her and crying with her.

This is an example of the kind of response by somebody who may not have the same socially programmed inhibitions that tell us not to interfere in each other's lives, but, rather, had an unbridled openness and empathy that led her to immediately show love in this way for this total stranger. It was her capacity for unlimited love and pursuit of community that opened my uncle's eyes and my eyes through that story to things that maybe I needed to learn, things that maybe we all need to learn, through greater community with people who have developmental differences and different kinds of experiences, but have so much to contribute.

That is the idea and philosophy of Jean Vanier. That is what the objectives of this bill are all about.

We need to remember that putting in place a framework that seeks to create a country that is free from barriers—

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very exciting that we have managed to get into Bill C-81 the recognition of American sign language, langue des signes québécoise and indigenous sign language as the primary language for Canadians who are deaf. This is something I heard loud and clear and that I was very pleased to have supported. It was a bit of a journey as we worked through the process of official-language designation versus primary language. I think we got to the right place.

We have to understand that to Canadians who are deaf, sign language is an aspect of self-identity and culture, and we owe it to all of them to make sure that we recognize that as we move forward toward an accessible Canada.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the minister and her government for approving or supporting these amendments. However, I would point out that the vast majority of the amendments were brought up at committee by opposition members, Conservative, NDP and Green, who all agreed that these amendments were important to the bill. Unfortunately, the Liberals on that committee refused these amendments. Therefore, I want to give the minister credit for standing up here today and voicing her support for these critical amendments.

The one question I would like to ask the minister, which came up frequently during the discussion at committee, certainly for our stakeholders, is on the issue of exemptions for federal departments. Federal departments would be able to ask for and be granted an exemption from the legislative regulations as part of Bill C-81. I would like to ask the minister if she is going to be diligent to ensure that any requests for exemptions through Bill C-81 would be strictly restricted or followed through to ensure that there was a good, valid reason for those exemptions to be approved.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and, of course, her partnership on Bill C-81. This bill belongs to all of us.

The elements in Bill C-81 are additional elements in an existing system. We have things in place. We have structures in place through the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which means that we are not starting from scratch. However, we are very aware that the sectoral approach taken in Bill C-81 has raised a concern that people will not know where to go first. Therefore, the leadership of both our government and these organizations has created, and we have built into Bill C-81, what we call a no-wrong-door approach, which means that wherever people go, it will be the responsibility of the system to point them in the right direction.

For example, if an individual had a complaint and went to the accessibility commissioner with it, and that complaint should have gone to the Canadian Transportation Agency, it would be the accessibility commissioner's responsibility to get it in front of the right people and not the responsibility of the individual filing the complaint. This would be required. We already have a memorandum of understanding with these organizations as they work to design this system in a way that would create that seamless service approach.

We are aware of that concern. Disability advocates have raised it with us. We are doing everything we can to make sure that it is at the back end and that we do not deal with these concerns at the front end through the experience of the person who wants some help.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a red-letter day for us and for people in the disability community because we are coming back to the House of Commons today with some amendments so that we can strengthen Bill C-81, which is a milestone. However, I would ask the minister to take this opportunity to assure Canadians that some of the most egregious concerns we had that were not met in the bill, even with amendments, are going to be addressed.

Mainly, people living with different abilities need to have a one-stop place they can go with their concerns. Right now, Bill C-81 would separate enforcement and implementation among four organizations. I would ask the minister to help us envision how we can move this forward. We know that it is a federal election year, and people in the disability community are diligently watching how we can move this forward in a campaign year.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, through Bill C-81, we would put in place mechanisms to ensure, as much as possible, that the funding we allocated would reflect the principles of accessibility. Where that was not possible, say for jurisdictional regions, such as provincial jurisdiction, we would build it into our policy and programs. I think of our national housing strategy and the Canada child benefit. The notion is that we have to recognize that disability is in and of itself a unique characteristic, and we would not be put in a position of putting funding into programs, policies or allocations that did not take accessibility into account. I will use the example of our national housing strategy. Built into that project is a carve-out for ensuring not just that the building code is met but that there are actually accessible units built, as a matter of course, in using this money.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as a person with a disability and as the Minister of Accessibility, it is truly an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-81.

Over three years ago, our government embarked on a journey aimed to make things better for a significant percentage of the population that has a history of being ill-treated or ignored. The time to act is now.

The time to propose a new system that would help address the barriers to inclusion faced every single day by Canadians with disabilities has come. The time to do things differently as a government, to ensure that all Canadians have an equal chance at success, has come.

I am extremely proud of the work we have done in creating this transformative piece of legislation that will improve the lives of millions of persons with disabilities.

This bill reflects the voices of thousands of persons with a disability, their family members and their friends, and it spans decades of advocacy. We could not have come this far without the strong collaboration of the disability community and its strategic and thoughtful work, which has been incredibly impactful.

I would like to recognize the excellent work done in the other chamber and by our Senate sponsor, Senator Munson, on the bill. Bill C-81 was carefully studied over the course of many meetings, and both chambers made amendments to strengthen this historic legislation.

Members of the disability community shared their views and experiences, many of them very personal. I am grateful for their engagement and dedication to the advancement of accessibility in Canada.

We took to heart the messages heard from these witnesses and proposed amendments to echo those voices and concerns. Our government supports all the amendments made to Bill C-81 brought forward in the Senate as we recognize that they reflect key priorities voiced by the community.

Let me provide members with a breakdown of some key amendments made in the Senate.

A significant change responds to the specific requests of witnesses that Bill C-81 set a deadline for the realization of a Canada without barriers. Accordingly, the purpose of the legislation, as well as the mandates of the minister and the Canadian accessibility standards development organization, would now reflect the objective of realizing a Canada without barriers on or before January 1, 2040. By adding a specific deadline, the disability community has stated that it would be able to hold government accountable on progress and ensure that accessibility remained a priority for future governments. To mitigate concern that this deadline could provide a reason for people to delay action on accessibility until the deadline neared, amendments have been made to add the words “without delay” to the preamble of the bill. These words would clarify that nothing in the act would permit any delay in the removal or prevention of barriers to accessibility.

I have also heard the community's strong call to recognize the importance of sign language to the deaf community in Canada. Therefore, I am pleased that Bill C-81 was amended to recognize American sign languages, langue des signes québécoise and indigenous sign language as a primary language for communication by deaf persons in Canada.

I would also like to acknowledge that we have interpreters on the Hill in Parliament today.

This legislation is intended to complement the existing human rights framework in Canada. Nothing in this bill or the regulations made under it would limit or replace the duty to accommodate, which is an established principle of human rights. That is why I support the amendment to clarify that nothing in the accessible Canada act or its regulations would limit a regulated entity's duty to accommodate under any other act of Parliament in any way.

We know that transportation services should be accessible for everyone. In response to stakeholders’ concerns, an amendment was made to allow the Canadian Transportation Agency to identify an undue barrier, even if a transportation service provider is not in contravention of an accessibility regulation.

This would ensure that the CTA could fully address barriers that persons with disabilities may face in the federal transportation system.

Further, adding stronger language on intersectionality in the principles of the bill responds to the disability community's desire to see greater recognition of the impact of multiple and intersecting forms of marginalization and discrimination that influence how barriers impact diverse groups of persons with disabilities.

As we work together to build a Canada that is more inclusive and accessible, we have an incredible opportunity to reshape the way we think about disability.

This legislation would send a clear signal to Canadians that persons with disabilities will no longer be treated as an afterthought. It is our systems, policies and laws that need to be fixed, not our people.

We can see the finish line. By concurring with all amendments made and swiftly passing Bill C-81, we can continue on this journey that will lead us to a society that treats all people with the dignity they deserve, a society in which everyone has equal opportunities to contribute and a society that is truly inclusive.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Whitby for that question, especially when it comes to actually dealing with pieces of legislation that are going to impact people's lives for the better.

I would like to assure the member that I will use every tool necessary to ensure that we advance this legislation. However, it would be great if opposition members would share the time needed for debate on those pieces of legislation so that we can ensure that everyone who wants to speak on it is able to. There is definitely a difference between members of Parliament standing up and speaking on behalf of their constituents and members of Parliament speaking to advance their party's line. Unfortunately, when we are advancing the party's narrative, we take away from the work we are doing in our constituencies.

I would agree that Bill C-81 is historic legislation. It has gone to the Senate and we have seen it return with amendments. The minister has considered those amendments, because they would improve the legislation. Therefore, there is no reason that we cannot see this proposed legislation move along quickly. Members will see that the government wants to see it move quickly, and Canadians will be able to see who will block that legislation from happening. Also, when it comes to Bill C-83, once again, we would like to see this proposed legislation move along quickly, and Canadians will also be able to see clearly who blocks that from happening.

It is clear that the government wants to advance legislation that works for Canadians, but the opposition would rather get in the way of government's advancing legislation at the expense of Canadians, and that is really unfortunate.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two pieces of legislation the member mentioned that are particularly important to the most vulnerable individuals in our community, and thus I do not mind extending the hours. She mentioned Bill C-81, which would identify, remove and prevent accessibility barriers and level the playing field especially for those with various disabilities. She also mentioned Bill C-93, the expedited record suspension, and, of course, we know that when it comes to simple possession of cannabis it negatively impacts indigenous individuals and people of colour disproportionally.

If we extend the hours, what is the likelihood we will get these pieces of legislation passed before the House rises?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 21, 2019:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division in relation to any government order requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2019, or at any time on Friday, June 21, 2019, shall be deferred;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) when one or several deferred recorded divisions occur on a bill at report stage, a motion, “That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass”, may be made in the same sitting;

(j) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m., except by a Minister of the Crown;

(k) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.;

(l) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (i) all remaining motions to concur in the Votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the question deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker will be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage;

(m) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 31st sitting day after the interruption; and

(n) Members not seeking re-election to the 43rd Parliament may be permitted to make statements, on Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members’ Business for not more than three hours, and that, for the duration of the statements, (i) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, (ii) after three hours or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall return to Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30, which allows for the extension of the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30. This motion would allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment. There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014.

Four years ago, our government came forward with an ambitious mandate that promised real change. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has introduced legislation that has improved the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. However, we have more work to do.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 82 government bills, and 65 of those have received royal assent. The facts are clear. This Parliament has been productive. We have a strong record of accomplishment. It is a long list, so I will cite just a few of our accomplishments.

Bill C-2 made good on our promise to lower taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. There are nine million Canadians who have benefited from this middle-class tax cut. This tax cut has been good for Canadians and their families. It has been good for the economy and good for Canada, and its results have been better than advertised. On our side, we are proud of this legislation. We have always said that we were on the side of hard-working, middle-class Canadians, and this legislation is proof of exactly that.

As well, thanks to our budgetary legislation, low-income families with children are better off today. We introduced the biggest social policy innovation in more than a generation through the creation of the tax-free Canada child benefit. The CCB puts cash into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted nearly 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

Early in this Parliament, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, we passed medical assistance in dying legislation, which carefully balanced the rights of those seeking medical assistance in dying while ensuring protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

Also of note, we repealed the previous government's law that allowed citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. We also restored the rights of Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections.

We added gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, passing Bill C-65 has helped make workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from harassment and sexual violence.

We promised to give the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers, resources and independence to properly do its job. We delivered on that commitment through legislation, and the PBO now rigorously examines the country's finances in an independent and non-partisan manner.

Through Bill C-45, we ended the failed approach to cannabis by legalizing it and strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis, as part of our plan to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the pockets of organized crime. Along with that, Bill C-46 has strengthened laws to deter and punish people who drive while impaired, both from alcohol and/or drugs.

These are just some examples of the work we have accomplished on behalf of Canadians.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this session of Parliament, and there is more work to do. Four years ago, Canadians sent us here with a responsibility to work hard on their behalf, to discuss important matters of public policy, to debate legislation and to vote on that legislation.

The motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House is timely, and clearly it is necessary. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make even more progress.

Passage of this motion would give all members exactly what they often ask for: more time for debate. I know every member wants to deliver for their communities and this motion will help with exactly that. We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks and we have the opportunity to add time to get more done.

I would like to highlight a few of the bills that our government will seek to advance.

I will start with Bill C-97, which would implement budget 2017. This budget implementation act is about making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home, and get training so that they have the skills necessary to obtain good, well-paying jobs. It is also about making it easier for seniors to retire with confidence.

Another important bill is Bill C-92, which would affirm and recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. The bill would require all providers of indigenous child and family services to adhere to certain principles, namely the best interests of the child, family unity and cultural continuity. This co-drafted legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of child and family services delivery to indigenous communities. This is historic legislation that is long overdue.

We have another important opportunity for us as parliamentarians, which is to pass Bill C-93, the act that deals with pardons as they relate to simple possession of cannabis. As I mentioned, last year we upheld our commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. It is time to give people who were convicted of simple possession a straightforward way to clear their names. We know it is mostly young people from the poorest of communities who have been targeted and hence are being left behind. This bill would create an expedited pardon process, with no application fee or waiting period, for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Canadians who have held criminal records in the past for simple possession of cannabis should be able to meaningfully participate in their communities, get good and stable jobs and become the contributing members of our society that they endeavour to be.

Meanwhile, there is another important bill before the House that we believe needs progress. Bill C-88 is an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This legislation only impacts the Northwest Territories, and its territorial government is asking us to act. This legislation protects Canada's natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous people and supports a strong natural resources sector. This bill will move the country ahead with a process that promotes reconciliation with indigenous peoples and creates certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

Earlier this month, our government introduced Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. This bill would create civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would provide citizens with an independent review body to address complaints about the CBSA, just as they now have complaint mechanisms in place for the RCMP. Let me remind members that it was our government that brought forward Bill C-22 that established the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians, which has tabled its first annual report to Parliament. We are committed to ensuring that our country's border services are worthy of the trust of Canadians, and Bill C-98 is a significant step towards strengthening that accountability.

We have taken a new approach. We, as a government, have consulted with Canadians when it comes to our legislation. We have seen committees call witnesses and suggest amendments that often times improve legislation, and we, as a government, have accepted those changes. We were able to accomplish this work because we gave the committees more resources and we encouraged Liberal members to do their work.

Likewise, currently there are two bills that have returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. I look forward to members turning their attention to these bills as well. One of those bills is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Our goal is to make accessibility both a reality and a priority across federal jurisdictions so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can participate and be included in society as contributing members. Bill C-81 would help us to reach that goal by taking a proactive approach to getting ahead of systemic discrimination. The purpose of this bill is to make Canada barrier free, starting in areas under federal jurisdiction. This bill, if passed by Parliament, will represent the most significant legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years, and for once it will focus on their abilities.

The other bill we have received from the Senate is Bill C-58, which would make the first significant reforms to the Access to Information Act since it was enacted in 1982. With this bill, our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency by revitalizing access to information. The bill would give more power to the Information Commissioner and would provide for proactive disclosure of information.

There are also a number of other bills before the Senate. We have respect for the upper chamber. It is becoming less partisan thanks to the changes our Prime Minister has made to the appointment process, and we respect the work that senators do in reviewing legislation as a complementary chamber.

Already the Senate has proposed amendments to many bills, and the House has in many instances agreed with many of those changes. As we look toward the final few weeks, it is wise to give the House greater flexibility, and that is exactly why supporting this motion makes sense. This extension motion will help to provide the House with the time it needs to consider these matters.

There are now just 20 days left in the parliamentary calendar before the summer adjournment, and I would like to thank all MPs and their teams for their contributions to the House over the past four years. Members in the House have advanced legislation that has had a greater impact for the betterment of Canadians. That is why over 800,000 Canadians are better off today than they were three years ago when we took office.

We saw that with the lowering of the small business tax rate to 9%, small businesses have been able to grow through innovation and trade. We see that Canadians have created over one million jobs, the majority of which are full-time, good-paying jobs that Canadians deserve. These are jobs that were created by Canadians for Canadians.

That is why I would also like to stress that while it is necessary for us to have honest and vibrant deliberations on the motion, Canadians are looking for us all to work collaboratively and constructively in their best interests. That is exactly why extending the hours will provide the opportunity for more members to be part of the debates that represent the voices of their constituents in this place, so that we continue to advance good legislation that benefits even more Canadians.

It has been great to do the work that we have been doing, but we look forward to doing even more.

[Chantal Maheu]

We've just begun those discussions and this outreach. As you are aware, we are fully supporting the legislation being considered in the Senate. We're also engaged in the staffing for the key position to support CASDO and the accessibility officers.

In terms of the preconsultation, we've engaged with stakeholder organizations to identify which areas they see as priorities and to begin that discussion that would inform the work that CASDO will do once it's established.

It's early discussions, but it is all to prepare for when Bill C-81 has received royal assent, so that CASDO is in a position to start its work immediately.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to everyone coming in this afternoon.

Mr. Robidoux, Minister Qualtrough was in and we were talking about Bill C-81. I was wondering, can you elaborate on the progress that has been made on the preconsultation phase so far?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Thank you.

First of all, we wanted to make sure that episodic disabilities were reflected and included in Bill C-81, which is definitely part of the definition. Second of all, we support the private member's bill. We really respect the work you all have done on your report. I look forward to provide our government response in the weeks to come, and of course, as I mentioned earlier about the RDSP, removing the requirement to pay back grants and bonds will significantly impact eligibility for individuals with episodic disabilities. It's a big deal for them. That's the quick list.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ministers, both of you.

My question is to Minister Qualtrough.

Thank you very much for your Bill C-81. People in the disability communities are very enthusiastic regarding when it becomes the law. As a committee we have done a study on Bill C-81 and now we are doing the study on episodic disabilities, M-192.

Can you give an update to the committee on the steps this government is taking to ensure Canadians with episodic disabilities are provided with the support they need?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Minister Qualtrough.

You were talking about the importance of being barrier-free. As part of the discussion at committee on Bill C-81, we certainly heard from almost every single stakeholder on the concerns raised that the bill does not go far enough, that it does not have the metrics to ensure success or the teeth to ensure that federally legislated businesses adhere to it.

Now, there were dozens of amendments that we brought forward that every opposition party agreed with. None of them were supported by the government. However, many of those amendments have come forward and have been accepted at the Senate. I'm just curious and would like to know if you're going to be supporting those amendments that have come forward from the Senate, specifically the addition of a timeline of 2040 for Canada to be barrier-free. Are you going to support those amendments?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Accessibility]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for my tardiness.

It's certainly a pleasure to be here today with my colleague, Minister Hajdu, to speak to the 2019-20 main estimates, particularly funding for disability programs, and to update you on the progress made as Minister of Accessibility.

Since 2014-2015, our government has been working hard to ensure that persons with disabilities are taken into account in all of our decisions and policies.

In this year's main estimates, you'll notice that there is an increase of $98.6 million to the Canadian disability savings grants and bonds. This is due to steady growth in total registered plans and participation in the program, which is very good news.

In like manner, we are proposing two changes that will better protect the long-term savings of Canadians with disabilities in budget 2019: first, eliminating the requirement to close a registered disability savings plan, RDSP, when the beneficiary no longer qualifies for the disability tax credit. This will allow grants and bonds to remain in the RDSP instead of having to be repaid to the government; second, exempting RDSPs from seizure and bankruptcy, with the exception of contributions made in the 12 months before the filing. This is to level the playing field in comparing amounts in RDSPs to amounts in registered retirement savings plans, which are currently exempt from seizure by creditors and bankruptcy.

As well, we're increasing our support with an investment of $12 million over three years for Ready, Willing and Able. This will help to improve the employment of persons with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorders who face unique barriers in finding jobs.

We also want to support the inclusion of Canadians with visual or reading impairments who cannot read ordinary printed material. By supporting that inclusion, we are eliminating barriers to employment and learning.

We propose to invest $25.8 million over five years, starting in 2019-20, to help make more reading material accessible for persons with print disabilities. To reduce barriers to daily activities such as paying for groceries, our government proposes to invest $500,000 in 2019-20, through budget 2019, to find ways to improve the accessibility of electronic payment terminals. One by one, these investments open the door to more opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Accessibility and inclusion are two of my biggest priorities. I'd like to provide further details on how we are making systemic changes to improve accessibility for all Canadians, including those living with disabilities.

The proposed accessible Canada act, which you all know very well, aims to level the playing field for everyone by proactively removing barriers in a number of priority areas under federal jurisdiction. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has heard testimony from many stakeholders over the past weeks, and recently completed the clause-by-clause analysis for this transformative bill.

The disability community has voiced its support for the swift passage of this bill, through the over 1,200 letters and emails I have personally received lately outlining the importance of this legislation to Canadians and the need for it to be passed into law. Our hope is that it will receive royal assent before the summer recess.

To make sure that the necessary structures are in place when the bill becomes law, our government has already started working on three key proponents: the establishment of the new Canadian accessibility standards development organization, the recruitment of the CEO and board of directors for this new organization, and the recruitment of the chief accessibility officer.

Finally, the pre-consultation process has started for the development of initial regulations under Bill C-81.

Thanks to these important steps, we know that once the bill has been given royal assent, we will be ready to take the lead.

I hope that this update on our planned expenditures in the main estimates, as well as on our efforts to promote the inclusion and removal of barriers for persons with disabilities, has been useful. I trust that it is has reiterated our commitment to continuing that work in the coming fiscal year.

As was said, my colleague Minister Hajdu and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Okay, a while ago, because yesterday it wasn't there.

There's also Bill C-81 on accessibility.

Can you talk about what more you want us to do?

[Helen Kennedy, Executive Director, Egale Canada]

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Egale was founded in 1986 and is Canada's only national charity that seeks to improve the lives of LGBTQI2S people by informing public policy, inspiring cultural change and promoting equal rights and inclusion through research, education and community engagement.

Our mandate encompasses advancing gender equality for LGBTQI2S women—that's lesbian, bi, trans, queer, intersex and two-spirit women—as we recognize that they often experience greater inequalities due to intersectional identities and therefore encounter compounded discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.

Because we're short on time—I only have seven minutes—I'm jumping right to my recommendations and I'm going to come back, then, to the main piece of the presentation. These are the recommendations that Egale is making to address our concerns.

We recommend the development of a national research and knowledge hub for gender equality, which will facilitate the mainstreaming of LGBTQI2S women within domestic public policy. We recommend that this include the formation of a national steering committee for LGBTQI2S women's rights.

The steering committee, led and organized by a national LGBTQI2S organization such as our own, will identify research and programmatic needs for LBGTQI2S women that align with Status of Women Canada's three priority areas and provide guidance on the research projects that ensures they employ a GBA+ analysis.

We will offer input on the development and improvement of programs/initiatives based on the research findings. We would foster partnerships with local and grassroots organizations to carry out research programs and initiatives and practise results-based management to assess the effectiveness of the programs and initiatives. We would also discuss current issues and policy developments impacting gender equality for LGBTQI2S women in Canada.

We would also recommend a national gender-affirming health care strategy that models the work and approach of Trans Care BC to ensure that there is comprehensive health care for older and aging women trans and gender-diverse non-binary communities that is physically and economically accessible and addresses their wide-ranging health care needs.

We would recommend that we incorporate within the new health accord measures that help to assess and integrate the health care needs of LGBTQI2S women and the broader community, including funding specifically allocated to services that tend to the mental health needs of diverse members of our community.

We would recommend that we ensure that Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, incorporate measures to address barriers that disproportionately impact members of our community who are living with disabilities, including ensuring that there are safe spaces in health care settings. These include requiring health care colleges—for example, nurses, social workers, etc.—to have frameworks in place to protect members of our LGBTQI2S service users and mandatory competency training in LGBTQI2S issues.

We would recommend a non-discriminatory intake and sign-up forms as well as processes in all health care services in order for our community clients to feel recognized and welcome. More competency and inclusion training in LGBTQI2S issues should be mandatory for all service providers, especially in the long-term care sector.

Jumping back to the reasons why we're making these recommendations, despite the advances in women's health in Canada, significant disparities of equality continue to affect members of the lesbian, bi, trans, queer, intersex and two-spirit older and aging community of women. It's particularly true in the area of access to social resources and the consequences of this lack of access.

There is also an immediate need for intersectional research that currently involves women to include LGBTQI2S older and aging women. The recognition of intersectionality and varying social locations is crucial to facilitating positive aging experiences and good end-of-life care.

Within Canada's aging population, there is significant heterogeneity not only in age, but also in terms of other social determinants and social locations. Sexual orientation and gender identity are key determinants in health, particularly when it comes to discrimination and social inclusion. The intersection of age, gender identity and sexual orientation is an important consideration, given the potential for the layering of ageism with discrimination. In the Canadian context, a need for targeted research with and on diverse groups has been recognized.

Despite efforts to be inclusive, the traditional focus of Canadian health research on women assumes that all women, regardless of age, cultural background, geographical location, socio-economic status, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity and categories of difference, share exactly the same experiences, views and priorities. We know this is not the case. The significant absence of disaggregated data and existing research on experiential and structural impacts of discrimination is felt by LBTQI2S women, both globally and in Canada.

It's also of particular concern for research involving LBTQI2S women. Women, seniors, sexual orientation and gender identity minorities continue to suffer from a lack of intersectional research in Canada. An intersectional approach is necessary so the full range of vulnerabilities, experiences and issues of diverse women are not obscured. The issues and priorities of many of our vulnerable women, including members of other groups, are usually excluded from mainstream women's health research.

Older LBTQI2S women are more likely impacted by social exclusion. Social exclusion has been linked to a wide range of issues, including poverty, poor mental and physical health, a lack of education and lack of political participation. There are no—

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I appreciate that. Thanks for the response.

I think C-81 is a step in the right direction.

I am fortunate enough to have an employee who's in a wheelchair, so I'm happy to be a sort of advocate for that. Mitch is here now. You can't see him because he's not on the screen but I can assure you he's a very eager and an efficient employee of mine. I'm happy to have him as part of my team.

[Kerry Gibson]

The private sector always leads by example from the government. It's not necessarily known to throw a lot of money at a situation or a shift without realizing, I suppose, that it's necessary. Within my own situation, with my own company, even just hiring women, period, I hire engineers and I fight to find female engineers. There are always obstacles to actually achieving this.

Yes, there has been a statistical spike in certain demographics such as millennials with PTSD, which makes it necessary to acknowledge that these things are a reality. They are part of our society and must be provided the means to integrate and to understand that these are not insurmountable obstacles, that there are tools out there. For instance, Israel leads in integrating the disabled into their communities. They have to. Their economy would fail if they hadn't. They provide the disabled with whatever tools are necessary to overcome their challenges so they can get back to work.

I think our government would see the economic benefits of having that intellectual capacity thrown into the workforce. Can you imagine all those people who aren't then supported by social services and all the benefits that can enable in our budgeting?

From a private sector perspective, I offer a lot of creative solutions in the work that I do. I am currently working on various files including equal pay and finding ways around the bureaucracy. I think the public sector has the ability to be a little more fluid where government has far more linear constraints. If there is some way we can work together to provide tools and mechanisms for the private sector to adopt C-81, for instance, I'd be fully on board to see that through.

[Kerry Gibson]

I think it's a wonderful start. I think Bill C-81 is.... Technically, it's 27 years overdue. The U.S. had the ADA 27 years ago. Even then, they're still scrambling to catch up.

I think that a lot of this will be about reporting and enforcement and providing the tool box necessary for everybody to comply with Bill C-81. It's a lot to throw on people all at once. I live in Vancouver. Even in Vancouver, at a current budget, I believe it's 320 years before we have curb cuts throughout Vancouver in all places. There are all these little nuances of what the expression of Bill C-81 will be. I think it will be necessary to throw a whole lot of money at it in order to catch up.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I just want to ask Ms. Gibson something really quickly.

Earlier in this Parliament, we passed Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. In this latest budget, the government made a commitment to hire 5,000 people with disabilities over the next five years.

I'm just wondering, in order to make good on that commitment and in order to try to incorporate veterans living with disabilities into those numbers, what do you think is needed beyond Bill C-81 and beyond that commitment, in order to ensure that it's made real?

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

Thank you very much.

I've had the pleasure of getting to know David Lepofsky as a friend as well as a valuable resource for my work. I'm the critic for people living with disabilities and worked very hard on amendments for Bill C-81 with a variety of different advocates, but nobody stands out like David Lepofsky. I'll ask you to comment on that in a minute.

I would love to see him in the Senate right now advocating the way that he tried to with this committee about the important amendments that are needed to Bill C-81. He recognizes them. He seems to have, people say, a legal mind, but I like to say it's a legal intuition. He understands how something needs to be applied. He can advance the application of a legal theory.

I read your report, Ben, which is such an entertaining read. It was so easy to get through. It was really a pleasure for me. I congratulate you on that piece of work.

When the Council of Canadians with Disabilities challenged VIA Rail in court about accessible passenger cars, that to me exemplified some of the work that he's done, the force of the advocacy that he had and how adamant he was that we could not have exemptions in Bill C-81.

That's another aspect, that some of these federal jurisdictions like VIA Rail could be exempt and that you don't have the ability to appeal. I really hope he'll be able to come through with the Senate and that the Senate will recognize that these are absolute needs.

Maybe you could talk about how, when you want to achieve something with a decision-making body, with someone who holds the power, sometimes people hold back on their advocacy work because they don't want to seem adversarial. They want to be friends and try to get on your side to get you to change your mind. I feel that David had this good instinct about that.

Maybe you would like to comment on some of the experiences you had in putting this report together. Maybe you could talk about how you recognize some of those tightropes that people have to walk when they are advocates and are trying to help create change from within, and then seeing that it won't work that way, they have to take a harsher approach.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks very much.

It's a real pleasure having you here, Ben, especially on a topic like Mr. Lepofsky, who all of us has had a chance to get to know quite well over the past year or so.

I really found it interesting in your report when you talked about how successful he was at advocacy and he had a very clear plan on how that would work. Now I know what to expect as we go through the Senate with Bill C-81 and what he's going to do. Maybe he'll be upset that you gave all his secrets away in your report.

I know many of us have spoken to David over the last couple of weeks regarding Bill C-81 as it goes through the Senate.

In your report, you talked a little bit on the need to strengthen Bill C-81 and some opportunities there to add some teeth to it. When you're going through this report, with everything that you've experienced, what are your two or three top priorities as Bill C-81 goes through the Senate? What are some of the things that you'd like to see as part of that bill to strengthen it, maybe from your own experiences and from your discussions with David?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good morning.

Pursuant to the Centennial Flame Research Award Act, the committee is happy to welcome back the 2017 recipient of the award, Mr. Benjamin Fulton.

The Centennial Flame Research Award is granted each year by this committee to a Canadian with a disability to conduct research on the contributions of one or more persons with disabilities to the public life of Canada or the activities of Parliament.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, this committee selected Ben as the recipient of the 2017 edition of the award. Ben's research focuses on the contribution of David Lepofsky, who we have all met because he has appeared before this committee. He is a respected Crown counsel, professor of law and disability rights advocate.

Incidentally, Mr. Lepofsky appeared again before this committee last fall during the review of Bill C-81, and I understand he's actually speaking, I think as we speak, on Bill C-81 in the Senate, which is great.

Committee members received a copy of Ben's report three weeks ago and again this Monday.

Thank you, Mr. Fulton, for submitting your report. I've had a chance to read it. I know we're all excited to have you back here to present your report.

I will turn the floor over to you. We're going to give you roughly 15 minutes to discuss your report, sir.

[Wolfgang Zimmermann, Executive Director, National Institute of Disability Management and Research]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Please let me start by offering my appreciation for the opportunity today to offer a few thoughts on the employment potential that the federal civil service presents for veterans. In this context, I would like to focus especially on veterans who have acquired a mental or physical health impairment, either on or off the job, during their employment with the Canadian Armed Forces.

As a brief personal introduction, I'm privileged to wear two employment hats at the moment, one being president of the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences, Canada's only statutory university ever created by private legislation and unanimous support of all members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and dedicated to education and research on all aspects of the workplace health cycle. We currently offer academic and continuing education programs in return to work and disability management.

My second role is as executive director of the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, established some 25 years ago by a significant group of employers, unions and government representatives with a mandate to drive innovation, thought leadership and best practice economic and social outcomes following onset of a mental or physical health impairment, creating win-win situations for disabled individuals, employers and society.

In this context, and to achieve these results consistently, we developed professional and program standards in return to work and disability management, created an ISO-style organization, the International Disability Management Standards Council, and today, the professional disability management competency standards are formally licensed in 64 countries around the world.

To bring the tremendous opportunity that continued employment within the federal civil service represents for disabled veterans, I draw on my own experience from many years ago working for MacMillan Bloedel, then Canada's largest forest products company, when, on my fifth day on the job, a 50-foot alder tree barber-chaired, came down on me and broke my back. The support of both the company and the union, now the United Steelworkers, and the B.C. workers' compensation board allowed me to continue working for the organization, first in forestry administration, a field I initially graduated from, and then, after retraining, as an accountant.

This was after my successful return to work, which also entailed developing physical accessibility to the administrative building of a completely inaccessible logging camp of almost 500 workers on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Much like a diverse corporation such as MacMillan Bloedel, then with over 20,000 and operating across a broad spectrum of businesses requiring both blue- and white-collar employees, there is absolutely no reason why the federal civil service, with about 260,000 employees across Canada, could not accommodate most disabled veterans for continuing employment.

Successful job retention with the pre-disability employer, in this case the Government of Canada, following the onset of a mental or physical health impairment requires three components that are a basis for any return to work effort anywhere in the world. These are creativity, because no two disability situations are alike and can vary based on a number of circumstances; collaboration between various stakeholders; and open and transparent communication.

At this point in time, assuming that Bill C-81, Canada's national accessibility legislation, is proclaimed, its requirement to hire 5,000 individuals with disabilities over the next few years creates a unique employment opportunity for disabled veterans. It does, however, require flexibility and creativity on the part of the Public Service Commission, thinking outside the box to review and remove, if necessary, bureaucratic impediments that take any number of forms from unnecessary educational requirements to more flexibility in delivering additional training.

There are a couple of suggested concrete steps. Effective job retention with the pre-disability employer requires early intervention, an absolutely necessary first step to ensure that psychosocial compounding of, let's say, a physical impairment does not render the individual ultimately unemployable.

Individuals who acquire a mental or physical health impairment, regardless of causation, need to be triaged successfully at the earliest possible time. This simply means determining the likelihood of continued employment with the old job, or if a change will be necessary, which could mean retraining or redeployment to another position either within DND or the broader federal civil service.

The current interface between DND and Veterans Affairs is often detrimental to the continuing employment prospects of disabled veterans, and could be dramatically improved. This is not to say that landing a job within the federal civil service is the final piece in the puzzle. When 70% of disabled individuals currently hired into the federal civil service don't make it through their probationary period, systemic issues well beyond this conversation need to be addressed.

Based on experience in many other jurisdictions, we are certainly most willing to provide a number of additional concrete steps that could contribute towards achieving much improved socio-economic outcomes for disabled veterans.

Thank you very much.

[Richard Matern]

One of our recommendations is on the accessible Canada act, Bill C-81, just to make sure that it incorporates measures to address barriers that disproportionately impact members of the community. That comes with the requirement that health care colleges have frameworks in place to protect LGBTQI2S service users, as well as mandatory competency training, which my colleagues have talked about. That's potentially one role.

Did you want to add to that?

[Richard Matern, Director of Research and Policy, Egale Canada Human Rights Trust]

Dear Chair and members of the Standing Committee, Egale is very pleased that you have undertaken this study on LGBTQI2S health in Canada. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here at your opening meeting.

My name is Richard Matern. I'm the director of research and policy at Egale. As Canada's only national LGBTQI2S organization, Egale works to improve the lives of our communities in Canada through informing public policy, inspiring cultural change and promoting human rights and inclusion.

As Lori talked about, and in spite of the many legal advances we've made, significant disparities in equality remain, especially in the health sector. Not only does the LGBTQI2S community in Canada face barriers and stigma within the health system itself, but it also faces significant challenges in social determinants that significantly impact health, such as income and food security, employment status and work conditions, as well as connections to social networks and community. This is especially pertinent for members of our community who are racialized, living with a disability or have other multiple marginalized identities.

Within the health care system, as Devon talked about, people routinely face barriers in accessing appropriate care, rooted in insufficient training for health professionals on cultural competence and population-specific health considerations. This also includes limited and inconsistent coverage for therapeutics and medically necessary surgeries associated with gender transitioning.

Additionally, I would add that intersex people continue to be subjected to non-consensual surgeries, stigmatization and withholding of information, despite these practices being contrary to international human rights law. It is estimated that 30% to 80% of intersex children undergo more than one surgery, and some have as many as five surgeries. Section 268 of the Criminal Code continues to allow non-consensual surgery by medical practitioners to alter the bodies of infants and children whom they perceive to be ambiguous.

Outside of the health care system, the social determinants of health act in complex and compounding ways to negatively impact LGBTQI2S people. Perpetual encounters with homo-, bi- and transphobia at school, in the workplace and elsewhere contribute to isolation and chronic stresses that can directly impact educational achievement, career progression and income levels. This added stress can lower mental health status and include a heightened risk of developing depression, anxiety, substance use and suicidality.

From my colleagues, you've heard a lot of stats around mental health and suicidality in our community. What I'll add is what we found in our Egale Youth Outreach Centre, which is a drop-in centre that we've opened for homeless and under-housed LGBTQI2S youth in Toronto, where we see first-hand the impacts of some of these larger systemic forces on the youth in our community. For instance, since we opened the centre in 2016, we've seen thousands of visits each year averaging over 100 unique client visits per month, with new intakes increasing by 127% and therapeutic interventions increasing by 417%. Last year, over half the youth visiting the centre were either lesbian or gay, while one third were transgender and/or non-binary.

The top three presenting concerns among youth were mental health, employment and family relationship issues. A significant number also expressed that they were at some level of risk for suicidality. Other concerns included housing, social isolation and substance use which, while not as common as the aforementioned specific issues, frequently arise as intersecting and ensuing challenges that staff are called to assist with from month to month.

Many of the youth are homeless or under-housed. They don't feel safe in the present shelter system. Many struggle to meet basic needs. For example, EYO's food program, in which 15 to 30 participants eat per day and rely on for their food per day, has been a crucial service that has required additional resources and partnerships in order to address the food insecurity faced by participants driven by poverty and low incomes.

Seniors in our community are also impacted. What we hear from the seniors we work with is that many in our community are isolated. They lack the familial and social supports of their heterosexual or cisgender counterparts and also in many cases have a lack of access to employer-triggered pension plans due to a lifetime of stigma and discrimination in the workforce.

While there is limited Canadian data available on the specific needs faced by LGBTQI2S seniors, as Lori has talked about, U.S. data quantifies the anecdotal evidence that we hear through our National Seniors Advisory Council. One survey demonstrated that 42% of LGBT older people are very or extremely concerned that they will outlive the money they have saved for retirement, as compared to 25% of non-LGBT older people. U.S. data also demonstrates that disability is overrepresented among LGBT older persons, with nearly half of a large U.S. sample of LGBT older adults reporting a disability.

As was mentioned by Devon, LBTQI2S seniors also fear going into assisted living centres and long-term care facilities. They often feel they must hide their identities and partners to stay safe from abuse and discrimination.

In a national consultation conducted by Egale and its National Seniors Advisory Council, it was shown that the top issue with the largest perceived impact on seniors in our community was the fear of being re-closeted in residential care. Particularly in cases of dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease, many seniors in our community worry whether their identities will be honoured and respected as their consent and autonomy are brought into question.

As you have heard, the study presents a crucial opportunity for the federal government to address the health challenges that remain for LGBTQI2S people to ensure adequate and appropriate actions are taken to establish new priorities, reprioritize key needs, recognize the gaps in services and provide solutions for the improvement of life for members in our community.

In order to address our concerns in this area, we make the following recommendations:

First, conduct large-scale consultations with intersex people living in Canada as an initial step towards reforming subsection 268(3) of Canada's Criminal Code, which continues to allow non-consensual surgery by medical practitioners.

Two, ensure that Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, incorporates measures to address barriers that disproportionately impact members of the LGBTQI2S community who are living with disabilities, including ensuring safe spaces in health care settings. This includes requiring health care colleges to have frameworks in place to protect service users from our community and mandatory competency training in LGBTQI2S issues.

Incorporate measures that support LGBTQI2S individuals living with a mental illness and in the criminal justice system, including the development of a national harm reduction strategy with specific funding allocated to address the mental health and addiction needs of LGBTQI2S individuals.

Ensure that the national food policy includes a plan to address food security among LGBTQI2S people, including those living in poverty as well as those living in indigenous and isolated northern communities.

Incorporate within the new health accord measures to assess and integrate health care needs that are faced by the LGBTQI2S community, including allocating specific funding towards services that attend to the mental health needs of diverse LGBTQI2S people across the country.

We would add, end discriminatory practices related to blood donation for men who have sex with men, and transpeople.

Also, develop a national gender-affirming health care strategy to ensure comprehensive health care for trans and gender-diverse communities that is physically and economically accessible and addresses their wide-ranging health care needs.

In line with the Canadian guidelines for sexual health education, implement consistent sexual and reproductive health education across all provinces and territories that is comprehensive and inclusive of LGBTQI2S health issues and experiences and is geared for adolescent and youth development.

Provide for accessible and affordable contraceptives, immunization plans and preventative sexual health care, including PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and PEP, post-exposure prophylaxis, within sexual health coverage across Canada.

Finally, recognize LGBTQI2S family planning and diverse family structures by training health care professionals, including IVF clinics, on inclusive patient care that does not make hetero-normative and cis-normative assumptions about family planning and fertility.

On behalf of Egale, thank you for your attention. We look forward to working with you further.

[Chantal Maheu]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

Specifically, in the estimates, at this point there's no funding that is targeted to remove barriers to accessibility. However, if I may speak more generally, as you know, this committee has spent a number of weeks studying Bill C-81. The whole purpose of Bill C-81 is to remove barriers to accessibility throughout the federally regulated system, including in the public service.

Bill C-81 will create a system where we will develop, manage and enforce standards of accessibility for Canadians across a number of priorities, including in transportation, communication and employment. It will also create an infrastructure where, for the first time, Canadians won't have to fight for their rights. The obligation will actually be on the organization to be accessible and to meet the standards. I think that legislation, which is now being discussed and reviewed in the Senate, will actually be historic in terms of advancing accessibility for Canadians.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for giving this information today and educating us.

You have asked for $5 million for the new bill, which is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, and $1.1 million for the accessible Canada initiative through the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. The $5 million is for the new accessibility secretariat under the new act.

Can you give the committee information regarding what the $5 million will be going towards for the secretariat? What is that, in the broad sense?

[Carla Qualtrough]

Yes, we continue to work both with disability organizations and with senators to make Bill C-81 the best law it can be for Canadians with disabilities.

[John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, but still you are taking away my opportunity to ask questions.

Minister Qualtrough, with Bill C-81, we had more than 200 amendments put forward, and we heard from disability groups that are extremely upset that none of those amendments were accepted, because they want to see some teeth in that legislation. Are you working with the Senate to put some teeth into Bill C-81?

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Accessibility]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello to members of the committee.

It's a pleasure to be here today with my colleagues to speak to the 2018-19 supplementary estimates funding, specifically for disability programs, and to give you an update on the progress that's been made with respect to my mandate as minister responsible for accessibility.

I'm going to try to provide a brief presentation, because I would like to give you as much time as possible to ask questions, and for me to reply to them.

Through supplementary estimates (B), we're making the following statutory authorities adjustments to the Canada disability savings program, which includes the registered disability savings plan. The first is a decrease of $44.2 million for the Canada disability savings grants. The second is an increase of $49.2 million for the Canada disability savings bonds. When combined, these result in a net increase of $5 million for the Canada disability savings program.

The Canada disability savings program is a long-term savings plan to help persons with disabilities and their families to save for the future. The increase of $5 million is due to continued growth in the program. This critical program supports long-term financial security for persons with disabilities. We're happy to see an increase in participation in this program, and we continue to explore ways in which we can improve its impact on supporting Canadians with disabilities.

Also, as per my Accessibility portfolio, ESDC is requesting additional funding for the administration of the proposed accessible Canada act, and to enhance the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. This represents an increase of $6.2 million in the 2018-19 main estimates presented to this committee by Minister Duncan back in May.

As you know, one of my priorities over the past year has been to have Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act adopted as quickly as possible. To do so, we listened to comments from Canadians whom the bill directly affects, and we worked hard to respond to them.

Honourable members, thank you for your dedicated work in studying the proposed accessible Canada act last fall. I was very proud that this bill has passed the House with support from all parties. Thanks to your effort, the proposed accessible Canada act is now before the Senate, and I hope it will continue through the parliamentary process in a timely manner.

In addition, I'd like to acknowledge the difficult and emotional work you are doing on the private member's motion M-192 regarding the protection of the needs of people with episodic disabilities caused by multiple sclerosis, among other things. I'm looking forward to reading your report in the spring.

For Canada to become an even more accessible and inclusive country for everyone, we must continue to support people with disabilities. For decades, people with disabilities have worked hard to make Canada more inclusive and more accessible.

Bill C-81 is a catalyst for change and reflects their work, their commitment and their contributions. It further strengthens this important bill.

In terms of timelines and priorities for the application of Bill C-81, the government is committed to timely and meaningful progress on implementation. New entities, such as the proposed Canadian accessibility standards development organization, will be operational within six to 12 months of royal assent. Initial regulations will be based on recognized and established standards, and as now required by the proposed legislation, the first regulations under the act will be made by 2021. The establishment of these regulations ensures the legislation will be reviewed by Parliament by 2026.

Honourable members, as Minister of Accessibility, my objective is to establish a Canada where persons with disabilities can participate fully in our society and our economy, and where they have an equal chance to succeed.

Thank you for your help in making this happen.

We are happy to take your questions.

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, last month, with the unanimous consent of the House, we passed Bill C-81, the most significant advancement in disability rights since the charter. With Bill C-81, we are creating a system to identify and remove barriers proactively so that all Canadians, regardless of their disability, can fully participate in society. Canada also recently acceded to the optional protocol for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, further strengthening the rights of Canadians with disabilities. We are acting, we are working with the disability community and we are going to build a truly inclusive and accessible Canada.

[John Barlow, Foothills, CPC]

I appreciate the testimony today. It's really great that all of you have brought some good solutions and recommendations, which is certainly much appreciated.

Over the last couple of days, we have heard quite a bit of pretty heartfelt testimony, in terms of being able to navigate the EI system, whether that's CPP.... Even in Bill C-81, as we were going through that process, we had lots of people....

There are four different windows to go through. We were really trying to push for one door in. The response we had from the officials was that people can go to any of them, and we'll figure it out and make sure they get to the right place.

My feeling in regard to people with disabilities is that we shouldn't make it harder. Let's try to find a way to make it easier, so that they can access those programs.

I have only a couple of minutes, so I'll try to be quick. What is your vision in terms of making it easier to access the programs we have in place already? Tammy, you look as if you're ready. What is your suggestion to make that easier?

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

Thank you, everybody, for being here today.

When I first looked at the motion, the first thing that popped into my head was, wow, we have a lot of work to do ahead of us, and trying to understand that three sessions—which is all this is—are not enough to change the world.

However, hearing the work that you folks are doing gives me great relief, knowing we're not starting from scratch. The conversations and dialogues have been happening. The awareness has been created. What we can expect from a three-session study is perhaps where we can focus more of our energies.

Tammy, you mentioned Bill C-81. We did a lot of work with that. I think that's a great starting point. Episodic disabilities are mentioned in there.

There are some questions that come up, though. We kept hearing earlier about the disability tax credit and that 90% of disabled people don't get it. It's one thing to say that we don't need to change our EI rates, but looking at the 90%, if you were to actually understand why, how and where, and that number were to change, you can see the magnitude of the impact that could have.

I'm curious to know your thoughts on that 90%. Where did that come from? Why is it 90% and not 85%? What are your thoughts on that?

[Tammy Yates]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to members of the committee. As the chair mentioned, my name is Tammy Yates, and I'm the Executive Director of Realize. I'm also originally from Trinidad and Tobago. If anyone knows Trinis, we talk very quickly. I'm going to do my best. I can't promise, but I'll do my best.

Realize currently holds the secretariat of the national Episodic Disabilities Forum, otherwise known as the EDF. On behalf of all of the members of the EDF—many of whom are actually here in the room, so it feels like a reunion—I would like to thank members of this committee for leading this important discussion, as well as for the private member's motion, M-192.

The term “episodic disabilities” was first coined about 15 years ago by former board members of our organization, namely Kelly O’Brien, Stephanie Nixon and the late Elisse Zack, who was the founding executive director of Realize, which was then known as the Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation, or CWGHR.

It makes me smile to be back on the Hill. About five years ago, Elisse Zack and I—prior to her transitioning into the next life—were presenting to this committee. It looked very different at that time. When we spoke about episodic disabilities, everyone in the room had a very strange, querying look on their face. It is amazing to be in this room here. We're all discussing episodic disabilities and we're all on the same page.

I also have a little information about the definition of “episodic disabilities”. The episodic disability framework was created to reflect the lives of people living with HIV at that time, based on the social model of disability, to describe the conditions that many of my colleagues mentioned. As Canadians are living longer, an increasing number of people are living with lifelong chronic illnesses that include episodes of disability. These illnesses include arthritis, Crohn's disease, MS, cancer and mental health conditions.

When we apply a life course approach to the topic, we are cognizant that many young people are also living with episodic disabilities. I'm sure that most, if not all, of you in the room know people living with episodic disabilities. You can therefore appreciate how these fluctuating episodes wreak havoc with someone's life in terms of social inclusion and participation.

Very early on in our advocacy and awareness-raising around episodic disabilities, we were joined by organizations like the DisAbled Women's Network Canada, the MS Society and the Arthritis Society. They were some of the earliest cross-disability organizations that collaborated with us. We all recognized that these groups of people living with these conditions were living with similar trajectories. However, the trajectories were different, so we developed three broader definitions, which I'll share with you now.

Episodic stable conditions are characterized by periods of relative wellness, interspersed with unpredictable and fluctuating periods, like severe migraines and HIV—now that HIV is a chronic condition.

Episodic degenerating conditions are similar to episodic stable conditions early on, but over time are progressive in their decline, such as Parkinson's or even, unfortunately, MS at times.

Episodic remissive conditions may start as episodic stable, but in some instances the person may have a full recovery or remission, as in some forms of cancer or mental health illnesses.

It would be remiss of me not to note at this juncture, however, the fact that Bill C-81, once it becomes an act, will be the first federal act to officially include episodic disability in its wording. Let me tell you something: In my office, when we read that, we were high-fiving each other. It took us 20 years, but we're here.

Over the past decade, an increasing amount of research on episodic disabilities has been done across diseases and conditions, as many of our academic partners and organizations that have been testifying this entire week have shared. We've developed at least 20 conditions that may be defined as episodic in nature. Ladies and gentlemen, that represents a significant percentage of our population in Canada.

We have a number of recommendations that we will be submitting. However, I would like to articulate three long-term recommendations and three short-term recommendations.

The first of the three long-term recommendations is that nationally, we establish a body, whether it's a commission or a federal committee, to oversee and report on the coordination between the interjurisdictional disability support programs and employment services areas to establish clear options for people with episodic disabilities within these disability programs.

The second recommendation is to make employment insurance sickness benefits more flexible.

The third recommendation is to negotiate, develop, pilot, and eventually implement, in tandem with jurisdictional-level government partners, an individualized funding model for income and social supports. There are examples of these individual portable models in jurisdictions at the moment.

For these three recommendations, I did not say a five- or a 10-year time frame. It may be another 20 years, but these recommendations are what it's going to take for people living with episodic disabilities to remain in the workforce and have full social participation.

Now, I have three short-term recommendations. When I say “short-term”, I mean these three things can be done within the next year.

First, when Bill C-81 becomes law as the Accessible Canada Act, the definition of disability that's now included in that bill should be harmonized across jurisdictions and across policies and programs to reflect that harmonized definition.

Second, we all mentioned community-based research and academic research that has been happening over the last 20 years in a very piecemeal and puzzle-like approach. Our recommendation is that a dedicated part of funding be provided for community and academic researchers, since it is imperative that we explore program and policy issues for women, for youth and for new immigrants living with episodic disabilities and for indigenous and other racialized groups who we know, from an intersectional perspective, will be affected differently and inequitably.

Finally, as the secretariat of the Episodic Disabilities Forum, Realize has been raising awareness about episodic disabilities for almost 20 years, as I shared. It's our 20th anniversary this year. We're the only national organization that has a dedicated staff member on episodic disabilities. However, we have been doing this without operational funding for episodic disabilities. Along with partners like CCRW, DAWN Canada, the MS Society, the Arthritis Society, and so on, who are current members of the EDF, we have achieved so much in this area, so that we're all here today, 20 years later. Therefore, the final recommendation is that...if we could do that without operational funding, can you imagine what we could do with operational funding?

Life is unpredictable, ladies and gentlemen. While you and I may not be living with an episodic disability today, it does not mean that tomorrow our life circumstances may not change, and we may then be diagnosed with an illness that is episodic in nature. To this extent, policies and programs, or revisions to policies and programs, that we have all suggested will not only work for people living with episodic disabilities currently, but they will work for everyone in Canada.

I use the term “everyone in Canada”, and not just “Canadians”. In three days, I will celebrate my one-year anniversary as a Canadian. Prior to that, I was a permanent resident of Canada. If I was living with an episodic disability and saw in a document that it's only Canadians who are eligible, it would have totally left me and my taxpaying dollars out of it.

Canada has always been a country of innovators and an example to other countries. We are the world leader on episodic disabilities. As such, the Government of Canada and all of you have the opportunity to maintain that leadership on episodic disabilities. We look forward to supporting the government and all of you on this.

Thank you.

[Dr. Emile Tompa, Senior Scientist, Institute for Work and Health]

Thank you.

In addition to being at the Institute for Work and Health, I'm a co-director at the Centre for Research on Work Disability Policy. I'm also an associate professor at the Department of Economics at McMaster University.

We've heard from the others here about the definition of episodic disability. There's no widely accepted definition that's easily operationalized. This is one of the things we found in our research: It can vary on a daily basis, on a weekly basis and over longer periods of time. Sometimes it really has a lot to do with the context. In this case, the context is the work environment and how accommodating it is. The key message we get from our stakeholders is that one size doesn't fit all. It's really important that the work environment be flexible and be tailored to meet the needs of different people with diverse types of episodic disabilities.

In my field research, one of the pieces we've been doing is a project for the Mental Health Commission of Canada on accommodation best practices for people from what they describe as “the aspiring workforce”, people with serious mental health conditions. What we found was that depending on the work culture and the quality of the work relationship, it may be very risky for workers from the aspiring workforce to disclose a need for workplace accommodations, particularly if the disability is stigmatized. In the case of mental health, it often is. They often rely on the supports available to all employees, such as flexible hours, the location of work and various kinds of leave. These are what we describe sometimes as universal supports that don't require disclosure of the individual to their supervisor or manager. Employers, including the public sector, can often provide universal supports as a way for people to self-accommodate.

Currently I'm developing, with the CSA Group, a Canadian standard for work disability management systems. What we find is that in general, employers lack the skills on how to accommodate workers with disabilities. They find it even more challenging to address invisible and episodic disabilities. There's really a need for skilling up employer abilities, and the standard is one way of doing that.

They often have fear, ignorance and an inability to see past irrelevant characteristics to focus on the talent and skills of the worker. We're building up disability confidence and creating a culture of inclusivity as a key aspect of the standard we're developing.

It's challenging for employers to deal with the multiplicity of programs as well. That's a really big problem with them. There are many programs that provide supports, but they're not very flexible and they're often not very conducive to supporting episodic disabilities.

I'm also undertaking a pan-Canadian partnership strategy on disability and work in Canada. Maureen is part of that. We recently had a two-day conference, yesterday and the day before, held here in Ottawa. Its launch pad is a UN convention and the federal legislation, Bill C-81.

We framed it around four pillars that we think are important for a pan-Canadian strategy.

The first of the four pillars is the strategy about disability confidence, much like our standard, which is focused on that as well.

The second of the four pillars is about comprehensive supports. One of the things that's really important is changes to existing income-support programs that might enable people with episodic disabilities to exit and re-enter the labour force as their work capacity fluctuates. It's really important to think about some of the definitions that restrict that ability to easily enter and exit, and to seek the supports when you need them.

Much of the policy arena on labour and disability supports, as you may know, is at the provincial level. That really limits the capacity at the federal level to make changes, but there are some efforts through the transfer payments from ESDC's opportunities fund. Possibly there's some way for those transfer funds to put more emphasis on employment supports for persons with disabilities.

Thank you.

[Deanna Groetzinger, Manager, Neurological Health Charities Canada]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of Neurological Health Charities Canada. NHCC is a coalition of organizations that represents millions of Canadians living with brain disease, disorders and injuries. I am sharing this time with Debbie Lovagi, who has an acquired brain injury.

I will make some overall comments and recommendations, and Debbie will speak about how a brain injury has affected her life and her ability to work.

Brain conditions are the largest cause of disability worldwide. One in three Canadians will be affected by a brain or nervous system illness, disorder or injury, including mental health conditions, within their lifetimes. Disabilities that develop as the result of a brain condition can occur at any point along the life course, and a number of them are episodic in nature. This means, as you've heard from all of the witnesses, that there are periods of worsening that can vary in severity and duration. Remissions can happen, but the periods of worsening and remission persist for the lifetime of the individual. Examples of brain conditions that are episodic are dystonia, epilepsy, migraine, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and conditions such as depression and other mental health disorders.

As you have heard from the other witnesses, current programs such as the Canada pension plan disability and the disability tax credit are not flexible enough to assist most individuals who have episodic conditions that worsen. In most cases, the language of “severe and prolonged” disqualifies those whose conditions may not be considered prolonged enough.

Some other jurisdictions have recognized that disability can be episodic. British Columbia’s disability eligibility definition states that “the person’s ability to perform daily living activities” can be restricted either continuously or “periodically for extended periods”. Ontario’s definition states that a disability is “a substantial mental or physical impairment that is continuous or recurrent, and is expected to last one year or more”. Sadly, Ontario appears to be moving away from this definition toward the more restrictive Government of Canada definition.

NHCC is encouraged that Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, recognizes that a limitation can be permanent, temporary or episodic in nature. We applaud this language and hope that this will help ensure equity in government policy and programs that support Canadians living with all types of disabilities. I hope the committee's study today can help push that along.

More immediately, NHCC urges the committee to consider the following recommendations, some of which you have heard from the other witnesses. First, modify the eligibility definition for the Canada pension plan disability benefit to include disabilities that are episodic or recurrent in nature; modify the eligibility definition for the disability tax credit to make it clear that persons living with episodic disabilities can be eligible for the credit; increase EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks, with expanded flexibility for partial work and partial benefits for individuals who can work episodically.

On a longer term, use the recommendations you heard from the witnesses so far—Michael Prince, John Stapleton and Lembi Buchanan—as well as an excellent report by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, “Leaving Some Behind: What Happens When Workers Get Sick”, to work with other governments, employers and insurance carriers to revisit definitions of eligibility and establish a comprehensive approach to address the needs of Canadians living with episodic disabilities.

I will now turn the remaining time over to Debbie.

[John Stapleton, Principal, Open Policy, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman, members, staff and fellow guests.

I'm going to talk about disability income programs this morning. I will look at 10 programs, or 10 systems. I'll say them slowly, in no particular order: one, the RDSP, with which you're all familiar; two, the Canada workers benefit; three, the disability tax credit; four, EI sickness; five, the Canada pension plan disability; six, social assistance in all the provinces, with special programs for people with disabilities; seven, workers' compensation; eight, veterans programs, for which there are large programs in place for veterans with disabilities; nine, workplace programs that are paid for by the private sector, so programs that are not government programs; and, finally, number 10, which is auto insurance.

If we look at the income security landscape from 10,000 feet, we see that there are 10 different systems. I wouldn't even call them programs. More and more—and I think we saw it just a couple of weeks ago—disability income programs have tended to reimburse or pay for a disability, as opposed to looking at the whole person and providing income support for people with disabilities.

It's a subtle distinction. We used to talk about “the disabled”. We no longer do that. We talk about “people with disabilities”. That's when we can start to think more comprehensively about the idea of episodic disabilities and how they fit. In other words, you may be asymptomatic one day, and you might be in a wheelchair and unable to walk the next day.

Disability income programs have had trouble with that over the years and over the decades. They want to see that permanent, significant disability that's in place for a prolonged period of time, for at least a period of several years. This means that a lot of people with episodic disabilities actually don't qualify for benefits, because they can't meet that standard.

That's particularly what I want to recommend today. We really need to look at it holistically. I wouldn't just restrict my comments to federal programs. Let's look at federal, provincial, and also at the private sector. Let's look at what they do. Rather than having 10 different complicated definitions of disability, let's look at trying to have some convergence so that we can bring coherence to these programs.

It's easily said, but not easily done. However, if we had the type of review of disability programs that I'm calling for, we would be able to look at those definitions that particularly leave out people with episodic disabilities.

There are three attractions for what we call a guaranteed annual income or a basic income for people with disabilities. The first is that programs would not be work-triggered. In other words, we would look at programs as a matter of right. Second, we would not place time limits on them. One of the attractions of a basic income is that it's not time-limited, regardless of how all these experiments have gone. Third, they would be adequate.

Right now, most disability income programs are not permanent. They have time limits, like employment insurance, as Michael just said. Workers' compensation generally restricts itself to two years. Veterans programs are not necessarily permanent, and certainly workplace programs that used to observe a much longer period of time generally restrict themselves to two years.

Disabilities are not on any schedule. They don't observe time limits, but our programs do, and that's where we need to be more flexible.

Most disability income programs are triggered by work. You have to get them based on work. That's EI, CPP, veterans, workplace programs and workers' compensation. They all get paid after you've worked. If you haven't worked, you don't get them.

Not everyone has worked, so they can't get these programs, and in many cases they must go on social assistance. Social assistance over the years and even now is becoming the largest single set of programs that people with disabilities have to rely on. In many cases, that's unfair. They have to deplete their asset; they have to deplete their incomes. You might hear a bit more of that this morning.

People who get work-triggered programs often get inadequate benefits, because if you're a person with a disability, you likely have not paid the maximum into that system over the years, so you're going to get much less money. That's why people are attracted to a basic income, as it's not work-triggered.

I know we've talked a lot about Bill C-81 for the last little while, but I am going to mention in closing Bill C-87, which has now received first reading, but I'm just going to mention it in closing. It targets 20% poverty reduction by 2020, and that's going to be done. I think the government will meet its targets by changes that have been put in place for seniors, with the guaranteed income supplement, and for children through the Canada child benefit.

Over the next 10 years, we have to reduce poverty by 50%. We use a swimming pool analogy. We talk about shallow poverty, and we talk about deep poverty. That's when we're going to have to get into the deep end. It seems to me that Bill C-87, as a poverty reduction act, is cause for a comprehensive review, which I would call for in terms of people with disabilities. We need to remove them from poverty by 2030 and be able to marshal the resources into all of the programs, all of those 10 systems, to bring about the sort of change that we could get. It would be inclusive of people with episodic disabilities. There's no way we're going to get to that 50% by 2030 without having that as a big part of the process.

Thanks very much.

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. This year's theme, “Empowering persons with disabilities and ensuring inclusiveness and equality”, is at the heart of the Government of Canada's commitment to build a Canada without barriers.

In June, our government introduced Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, which if passed will address barriers to accessibility in the federal jurisdiction.

Earlier today, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility announced that Canada has acceded to the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This means that Canadians will have additional recourse if they believe their rights under the convention have been violated.

These actions speak to our dedication to creating a truly inclusive and accessible Canada. Please join me in celebrating people with disabilities and the significant contributions they make to Canadian society.

Persons with Disabilities

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make accessibility a reality across federal jurisdictions, so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can fully participate and be included in society.

Bill C-81 will help us reach that goal. This legislation represents a significant, historic advancement in federal disability rights legislation. Our government will provide $290 million over six years to further the objectives of the new legislation once it is given royal assent.

I am proud that our government has delivered on this important mandate commitment.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is the point of rushing through accessibility legislation if the government is not going to put its money where its mouth is? The Liberals keep failing Canadians who live with disabilities. In the fall economic update, there is no mention of new obligations, let alone funding for the CRTC to maintain its existing responsibilities. This is unfair, and it is insulting to Canadians who are waiting for implementation of Bill C-81.

Why will the Liberals not take their responsibilities seriously and ensure that institutions like the CRTC are accessible to everyone?

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

Thank you, everybody, for being here today. It's interesting. From your opening remarks, it seems like we're already making some progress with some of the steps that we've implemented.

I'm a data guy. I'll be curious to see the data that comes out about episodic disabilities, which will be available in 2019.

This is the challenge. I'm an ops guy. When you want to fix something, you have to look at the whole program. You have to understand what the variables are and where you move from there. One of the big challenges, or dangers, is having knee-jerk reactions: Let's throw this in there and let's throw that in there.

Our world is changing. Episodic disabilities are becoming more the norm. The stigma is.... Because we're actually having these conversations now with Bill C-81—the accessibility legislation—that brings the norm there.

The question I have is on the current EI program. Canada pension disability is not a lot of money, so I don't know if that's a great answer to begin with. With all of these changes out there, can we work within the EI program or do you think it's time to do a major overhaul of the program?

[Krista Wilcox]

Thank you for the question.

Certainly, under Bill C-81, there will be federal leadership in terms of the federally regulated sector, but also, within the Government of Canada, there's a commitment to the hiring of 5,000 people with disabilities into the public service, for example. That will include people with episodic disabilities.

We will have a very inclusive definition of what “disability” means. The standards that will be set under the legislation will also provide really important protections for people with disabilities generally, and again, that includes people with episodic disabilities.

[Krista Wilcox, Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.

My name is Krista Wilcox. I am the director general of the Office for Disability Issues at the Department of Employment and Social Development.

Joining me are Andrew Brown, director general of Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment, Kris Johnson, director general of the Canada Pension Plan Disability Directorate, and Gertrude Zagler, acting director general of Federal Programs at the Labour Program.

Let me begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to address this very important issue. While all people with disabilities may face barriers to economic and social inclusion, people with episodic disabilities may experience specific challenges owing to the nature of their condition.

Episodic disabilities are characterized by periods of wellness and periods of illness or disability that vary in severity, length and predictability. According to the Episodic Disabilities Network, “Examples of conditions that are episodically disabling are mental illness, arthritis, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, crohns and colitis, and some forms of cancer and rare diseases”, amongst others.

While this is a useful starting point, what identifies an episodic disability is the intermittent variation in the ability to function, which can occur in individuals with a wide range of single or multiple conditions. Because episodic disabilities can be unpredictable, people with these types of conditions may face particular barriers to employment and be at risk of financial insecurity, as they may be excluded from the workforce altogether because of these barriers, even though they have skills and initiative.

The office for disability issues has worked with other levels of government and disability organizations over the past decade to further our understanding of episodic disabilities. This has been, to a considerable extent, pioneering work. There has been little by way of international resources to draw on in this area.

For example, through collaborative work under the federal, provincial and territorial social services forum, the disability advisory committee commissioned a study by the Social Research and Demonstration Corporation on the situation of people with episodic disabilities in Canada. The research included both a data analysis study, which was based primarily on the 2012 Canadian survey on disability, and a literature review.

Some key findings of the data analysis were as follows. About 4% of the working-aged population had episodic disabilities, compared with 10% with disabilities in general. About 40% of those with episodic disabilities had severe or very severe disabilities. Episodic does not mean that the disability is less significant. Having an episodic disability means having poorer employment outcomes and lower incomes.

As with disabilities generally, more women than men have episodic disabilities. The researchers found differences between women and men in a number of important respects. In particular, women with episodic disabilities were less likely to be working and more likely to have low incomes than were men with episodic disabilities. Among people with episodic disabilities who were employed, the percentages with part-time or temporary jobs were similar to those for the general population. The important difference is that fewer were employed at all.

To add to our current knowledge on the experience of people with episodic disabilities, the 2017 Canadian survey on disability is the first national survey to contain a specific module on episodic disabilities. Data around people with episodic disabilities will be available in 2019, following the release of initial results, which took place yesterday. The Government of Canada is committed to advancing the social and economic participation of Canadians with disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities.

I'll share with you information on the relevant support services and legislation provided through Employment and Social Development Canada. A cornerstone of the Government of Canada's accessibility agenda is Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act. The act would, if passed, introduce measures within federal jurisdiction to improve accessibility for all people in Canada, including those with episodic disabilities. Bill C-81 includes a specific reference to episodic disabilities in the definition of disability. It would require consideration of the particular accessibility needs of people with a variety of disabilities, including episodic disabilities, and the identification and removal of barriers and prevention of new barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction.

Bill C-81 is grounded in Canada's commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. People with disabilities, as recognized in the convention, strongly support the principle of “nothing about us, without us”.

Accordingly, the Government of Canada conducted an extensive and groundbreaking consultation across Canada, in which people with and without disabilities participated. Bill C-81 is based on what we learned during those consultations. People with episodic disabilities and the organizations that represent them, such as the MS Society, were active participants in this process.

To further implement the convention in Canada, the Government of Canada has been working with provinces and territories towards Canada's accession to the optional protocol to the convention. The optional protocol would enable people with disabilities to bring forward complaints to the United Nations if they believe their rights have been violated and if they have exhausted domestic remedies.

While income supports for people with disabilities fall primarily within the purview of the provinces and territories, the Government of Canada provides contributory income replacement programs for those who are unable to work as a result of a disability. The Canada pension plan disability provides partial earnings replacement to Canadians between the ages of 18 and 65 who have contributed to the CPP and can no longer work on a regular basis because of a severe and prolonged disability. A benefit is also available for eligible dependent children of CPPD beneficiaries.

To qualify for CPPD, applicants must meet both contributory and medical eligibility criteria. Contributory eligibility is met when an individual has made CPP contributions in four of the last six years, or in three of the last six years for long-term contributors with at least 25 years of contributions. Medical eligibility is met when an individual has a severe and prolonged disability as defined in the CPP legislation. “Severe” means that a person is incapable of regularly “pursuing any substantially gainful occupation”. “Prolonged” means “that the disability is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death”.

In 2016-17, CPPD paid $4.3 billion to 335,000 disabled beneficiaries and 83,000 of their children, representing approximately 10.2% of the $42.5 billion of total CPP expenditures.

The employment insurance sickness benefit is available to eligible claimants who are unable to work because of an illness or injury. The benefit provides up to 15 weeks of partial income replacement to allow workers time to restore their health so that they can return to work. The EI sickness benefit provided $1.6 billion in support to approximately 379,000 claimants in 2016-17.

EI sickness claimants have the flexibility to use the 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits over their 52-week benefit period. For example, a person may take three weeks of sickness benefits, and then return to work if he or she is feeling well enough, knowing that 12 additional weeks remain available during the benefit period.

Earlier this year, changes were made to provide new flexibility in response to recommendations from the MS Society and other health charities. Specifically, the EI working while on claim provisions were extended to sickness and maternity claimants, providing them with more flexibility to manage their return to work and keep more of their earnings.

To complement the EI benefits, under the Canada Labour Code, employees in the federally regulated private sector are entitled to job-protected sick leave for up to 17 weeks if they have worked for at least three consecutive months with the same employer. In addition, the code was amended, through Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, to provide employees with the right to request flexible work arrangements, which could benefit an employee with an episodic disability.

Further, Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, 2018, proposes additional amendments to the code that could be beneficial in the context of episodic disabilities. This includes eliminating the three-month wait period for sick leave, so that all federally regulated employees have access to this protection regardless of how long they have worked with their employer; allowing sick leave to be used for medical appointments; introducing a new five-day personal leave, of which three days would be paid; and allowing employers to request a medical certificate only when an employee is away for three or more consecutive days.

To strengthen and grow the middle class and help Canadians find good jobs, the Government of Canada now has new workforce development agreements with most provinces and territories, and will announce details soon. The new WDAs consolidate and replace the Canada job fund agreements, the labour market agreements for persons with disabilities and the targeted initiative for older workers.

These agreements enable provinces and territories to provide assistance and skills training with the flexibility to respond to the diverse needs of their respective clients. Under the WDAs, the Government of Canada provides provinces and territories with $722 million annually as well as an additional $900 million over six years, from 2017-18 to 2022-23. The WDAs will increase support for persons with disabilities beyond what was provided through the labour market agreements for persons with disabilities. From 2017-18 to 2022-23, approximately $2.7 billion will be invested by federal, provincial and territorial governments in targeted skills training and employment supports.

Provinces and territories can continue offering programs similar to those that were offered under the previous agreements but have the flexibility to adapt these models to create new interventions, including specific interventions to support people with episodic disabilities, to meet the needs of their local labour markets. Additionally, ESDC invests approximately $40 million a year in the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. This federal program is delivered through contribution agreements with service providers who offer a wide range of tools to help persons with disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities, to prepare for, obtain and maintain employment or self-employment.

The opportunities fund is unique, as it offers employment-focused interventions and assistance to improve employment situations for a specific component of the persons with disabilities population who have limited or no attachment to the labour market. Since 2018-19, additional funding of approximately $18 million over six years will be invested in the opportunities fund to help employers who have demonstrated commitment to hiring persons with disabilities but need support to find the right match and create workplaces that allow employees with disabilities to reach their full potential.

The Government of Canada also provides support to Canadians with disabilities to help improve their financial security through programs like the Canada disability savings program. Launched in 2008, the CDSP is a long-term savings program that helps Canadians with severe and prolonged disabilities and their families save for the future.

The Government of Canada provides grants and bonds matching investments by individuals. In recognition that disabilities may have intermittent but long-term effects, the Government of Canada introduced a new rule in 2012 extending the period that an RDSP may remain open for a beneficiary who ceases to qualify for the disability tax credit if a health professional attests that they are likely to become eligible again in the foreseeable future. This measure can assist people with episodic disabilities who may lose their DTC eligibility during periods of wellness.

ESDC also supports the disability community through funding under the social development partnerships program to help improve the social and economic inclusion of people with disabilities in our communities. SDPP is an $11-million grant and contribution program that makes investments in the not-for-profit disability organizations in Canada. The program provides operating and project funding to not-for-profit disability organizations to achieve this work.

In recent years, we have funded projects through this program. For example, the Mood Disorders Society of Canada, in partnership with the Arthritis Society, received a contribution of approximately half a million dollars for a project entitled “Work With Us” to address the complex issues that affect persons with chronic diseases, particularly depression, arthritis and chronic pain. This project uses an innovative cross-sector approach to develop and provide education and supports for persons living with depression, arthritis and chronic pain as well as for workplace colleagues, employers, unions, families and friends.

That concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Canadian Accessibility Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion lost.

Pursuant to order made on Friday, November 23, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-81.

The hon. Chief Government Whip.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made Friday, November 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte to the motion for third reading of Bill C-81.

The question is on the amendment.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Bill C-81—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours to the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Accessible Canada Act

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure that members of the House have a full appreciation for what is at stake and how much Canadians were counting on the Liberal government to get this accessibility bill right. It is long overdue. It is true that the Conservatives should have done it in the 10 years they were in power, but Bill C-81 is so far from what our constituents and fellow Canadians need.

Terry Wiens, a man in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, was a victim of polio. He wrote to me, saying, “Remember that Paul Martin Sr. made a promise to polio victims in 1955 that they would never have to pay for the cost of health care that resulted from the federal government's failure for two years to introduce the polio vaccine.” That was a solemn commitment. He says, “Now that polio has been so successfully eradicated, the federal government has forgotten that polio should be part of health care.” This man who has worked all of his life. Now he finds that from the effects of polio, he has increasing disabilities. He has not been able to get the support he needs to get a specialized mattress and wheelchair. He pulled $10,000 out of his RRIF, his registered retirement income fund, to pay for these things.

He further described the cascade of impacts that happened from that. He said, “I didn't realize the ripple effects of that decision. It raised my annual income enough to eliminate me from the guaranteed income security, all $18 a month worth. I have no doubt that next year I'll qualify again, but in the meantime, we are penalized for our independence. To add insult to injury, losing that GIS also cost me my premium medical services subsidy, another $420 a year cost. My opportunity for subsidized assisted living, the GIS qualification is required for the payment and on it goes.”

Therefore, what in this legislation will fix things for Terry and the many other Canadians who were counting on the government to take their advice and get this bill right?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-81.

Before I do so, I have to share with the House that my wife and I last Friday became grandparents for the third time since I was elected to the House of Commons. I know that my kids are working hard in Nova Scotia to populate the country. That is very important.

I want to thank my daughter, Janelle, and her husband, Trevor, for having their first baby girl, named Emma Ruth. It was a quick delivery, only two hours and 15 minutes, which is not necessarily normal for a first child but a great experience. I am proud to again be made a grandparent.

This bill is extremely important to Canadians, as an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. It is important to know that this is the first piece of legislation aimed at improving access for people with disabilities. When I hear the Conservatives speak about how it could have been better, I ask a simple question. Why did they not do anything about it during the 10 years they were in government? They had 10 years to do something. We are bringing something extremely important to support all Canadians and those, of course, with disabilities. Our government has their backs.

This is an inclusive bill that brings fairness, which is extremely important for all Canadians. All Canadians will be in a much better position to contribute and succeed as a result. That is what our job is as a government. Many Canadians, at times in their lives, will have disabilities. Even today if someone breaks a leg or arm it can be challenging. Sometimes one has to experience that to really understand.

In my speech today I will talk about some individuals and organizations in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook in a personal but concrete way.

People probably do not know this, but one in seven Canadians has some type of disability. That is almost 15% of Canadians. Thus, we are not talking about a few people; we are talking about many Canadians. We also have to recognize that in Canada, especially in Atlantic Canada with our demographic there, we have more seniors every day. I say that because by 2031, one-quarter of all Canadians will be over 65 years old. That is a large number. Of course, they will have challenges as well. We need to be there for them.

Individuals with disabilities have a lot to offer to all Canadians. They have a lot to offer to the economy. Only 50% of people with disabilities are working today and many of the rest would like to work. Indeed, the large majority of them would like to work, pay taxes, and contribute directly to our economy and our great country. That is extremely important. With some disabilities, such as with people on the autism spectrum, the margin is even worse, as 80% of those individuals are not working.

We need to do something and this legislation will help to ensure that more individuals will be able to contribute. The business community needs more people working in this country and we can tap into this market, which is extremely important.

I want to share a story about a friend of mine. He happens to be the Speaker of the Nova Scotia Legislature. His name, of course, is Kevin Murphy. He is in a wheelchair, because at a young age, in high school, he had a hockey accident. He is now in a wheelchair for life. When that happened, the school had to make some preparations. It was extremely difficult, as members can understand. This was about 30 years ago. There was no elevator, and that was problem. Everything had to be brought down to him because we could not get him upstairs. That is not having equal rights. Going to the washroom was very difficult, as well. Having a desk. Those were situations we were faced with.

We will need to make sure that the federal institutions have those in place. He was lucky that when he became Speaker of the Nova Scotia House, there had been a Speaker before him who had a wheelchair, so all the preparations had been made. He said to me that it was unbelievable. He thought he was going to have many challenges, but he was able to roll his wheelchair up.

Mr. Murphy is also a Canadian lead on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association that has a mandate to encourage people with disabilities to offer to become public servants or politicians. Of course, they also encourage people to be engaged in democracy. That is extremely important.

I also want to touch on the program set up by the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance and the Canadian Association for Community Living. They have a program, Ready, Willing and Able. They have been working with the private sector to look at ways they can hire and support more people with disabilities, ensuring that they get some skills programming. Since 2014, over 2,000 people with disabilities who were previously not working are now working, and about 265 of them are from Nova Scotia. That is about 12%. I want to thank them for their good work in their phase one project. I know they have applied for a phase two.

I want to talk about the Building Futures Employment Society, right in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. This organization is four social enterprises that work with people with cognitive challenges. I had an opportunity last month to visit them. Impressed is not the word; I was mesmerized by the work these individuals are doing and the support they have through this society.

There are four social enterprises. One, Assembly Plus, has been in place for over 30 years. It has been pretty impressive that for more than 30 years, these individuals have built and assembled equipment and materials for companies. They are contributing directly. They get all kinds of contracts and do excellent work.

There is also the Futures Copy Shop. They have been doing printing and copying for individuals and for companies for over 30 years. That is impressive, again.

The two other companies, one that was started in 2013, Future Birds, is where individuals with disabilities create custom artwork. These are being sold, and again that is contributing directly to society. The final, the Futures Cafe, has all kinds of different baking and cooked options, as well as coffee, tea and whatnot being served.

These four enterprises make major contributions to the Sackville region and to the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. Last week they had an auction. Over 200 people attended in support of these organizations. These are the types of organizations the bill would help in ensuring support for Canadians with disabilities and other challenges.

The bill was also structured to ensure that people with disabilities were involved. They were consulted and involved with it from day one. They will continue to contribute in various ways, for example, in the Canadian accessibility standards development organizations. This bill answers “Nothing About Us Without Us”, which is extremely important.

Our government is putting money forward, over $290 million over the next six years, to ensure we move forward with the plan in the bill, which is extremely important to all Canadians. Also, every five years there will be a review to ensure we can fine tune it and make the adjustments that are necessary and important. Also, to support the minister, an independent chief accessibility officer will be appointed who would help review and do the assessment.

The creation of a Canadian accessibility standards development organization is crucial. These individuals have the majority and will be ensuring these standards are set and that we continue to meet them, which is extremely important.

Also important are the duties of the bodies regulated under the act, the federal authorities. They would have the responsibility to create their own plans, which would ensure greater success. They would be engaged from day one in the consultations and in giving feedback, which is crucial. Also, they would be engaged in ensuring they share the successes, what is working, what is not working and how we can make it better.

I want to share a quote from Raymond Chang, the dean of the School of Continuing Education at Ryerson University. He said:

Without a doubt, I believe that the Accessible Canada Act presents excellent potential for economic growth. All Canadians will benefit when the accessibility legislation is properly implemented and enforced. Furthermore, it is a great opportunity for us to emphasize the best attributes of this great country.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary brings up a good point. On his direction, he is right. This could have been a great starting point. However, if it was a great starting point, why do we have letters from dozens of stakeholders who are upset with the bill and questioning why the Liberal government would not approve any of those amendments? If we had been able to add some of those amendments, I agree that this could have been an excellent starting point. However, to have a starting point we need a point to start at, and the problem with Bill C-81 is there are no benchmarks. There is nothing to measure any success or failure by. There are no standards, no timelines, no regulations. That is what our stakeholders were asking for.

Absolutely, Bill C-81 could have been a fantastic piece of legislation, but it falls short of what our stakeholders wanted. We could have done better, and I am disappointed that we were not able to achieve what our stakeholders were looking for.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to address that in my speech and I appreciate my hon. colleague's bringing that up.

One of the biggest frustrations with Bill C-81 is that we had representatives from first nations communities come to committee and it is almost like they did not want to provide feedback and input. Their comments were that they consulted with the government on the needs of first nations communities, especially when it came to people with disabilities. There is no question they have unique needs. Many of them are in remote areas of the country. It is very difficult to access the communities, let alone for some of their buildings to be accessible.

What was shocking to them when Bill C-81 was tabled was that the accessibility requirements for first nations were not mentioned in Bill C-81, even once. In fact, first nations were not mentioned in Bill C-81, even once. When we asked for amendments to include first nations and the special requirements to address first nations' accessibility needs, they were also voted down. It was very disappointing.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has always been very good to work with. I do agree that we work well on the committee. However, unfortunately, she does have to take some responsibility for what this bill is. To go back to what the Conservative government did in the past, the minister herself said that the disability tax credit that was brought forward by the previous Conservative government, as well as a disability savings plan, were game-changers. Those were the minister's words, exactly. She said they were game-changers.

Bill C-81 could have been that type of legislation that would have had an impact on Canadians' lives, but unfortunately it falls well short. That is not just coming from me. That is coming from dozens of letters I have had from stakeholders who are echoing that same sentiment.

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. member for his speech on this very important issue. I also want to thank him for chairing the last meeting of the committee on Bill C-81. It really showed that we were working together as a team. However, I disagree with him when he said that we have failed.

We have not failed. We have done exactly what we needed to do. I think it is rather unfortunate that when the former government was in place, for 10 years the Conservatives did nothing. Now we are finally doing something, and the people with disabilities can finally say that their government has their back.

I also want to mention something that Jane Arkell from the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance said. She said, “Canada is taking a bold step forward with this proposed legislation. We've waited for legislation like this for a very long time. Truthfully, this gives our community hope. We are finally able to say, my Canada includes me.”

Can the hon. member not agree that this is a move in the right direction?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-81. Those of us who are members of the HUMA committee worked extremely hard to come up with a bill that we thought would address the needs of disabled Canadians across the country.

As I said at the outset, I look at this bill as a missed opportunity. I think the minister had the best intentions. This is something she was passionate about and something she wanted to achieve. I assume that the minister is also extremely disappointed with what is missing from Bill C-81.

Earlier in the debate, she talked about all the consultations the government had with stakeholders over the last couple of years. What was the point of having consultations if the Liberals did not follow through on what the stakeholders were telling them? That is extremely clear from the amendments that were put forward by members of the committee. As has been said several times today, there were more than 250 amendments put forward, almost an equal number from every party, which I think highlights some of the glaring holes in this legislation. The government can do all the consultation in the world, but if it is not going to follow through in good faith with its stakeholders, then really, what is the point?

I have letters from dozens of stakeholders who participated at committee as witnesses or who provided submissions to the study. If the government is going to consult, why would it not accept a single one of the amendments that were so important to those stakeholders? When we have what is very rare, and my colleague joked about it, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Green Party all in agreement on where a piece of legislation should go, I think the government should embrace that moment. Absolutely, this piece of legislation is historic, because we had this entire side of the House all on the same page. However, where it is not historic is in what it would achieve, because it simply would not achieve anything. That is the frustrating part.

When we go back to our constituents and tell them that we appreciate the Liberal government bringing forward Bill C-81, they will ask what it will do for them as disabled Canadians. Unfortunately, my answer is going to be that it will get royal assent and the changes will be actually nothing. There is no accountability in this legislation whatsoever that would hold the government to do anything.

Today some of my Liberal colleagues, and the minister herself, said that all of the federally regulated businesses and federal departments would have to come up with one standard in the first two years. A building could put in an accessibility ramp, and it would have met its obligation under Bill C-81. As the minister said, one bank branch could put in a new ATM that was accessible for people with vision disabilities or hearing problems, and it would have done its part under Bill C-81. That is not what our stakeholders and disabled Canadians were expecting from this legislation. It falls well short of the promises that were made by the current government.

I want to talk about four or five glaring problems that came up with respect to Bill C-81 through our committee study. I am going to talk about the two-tiered system and the exemptions found throughout this legislation. We heard almost unanimously from our stakeholders that this is not something they want to see in this legislation.

What I mean by a two-tiered system is that government departments could apply for an exemption. Therefore, government departments would not be obliged to meet the standards in Bill C-81. Of course, there are none. There are no standards. There are no regulations. There are no benchmarks. Private sector businesses that are regulated by the federal government would have to abide by whatever standards were developed, whenever they were developed, but federal government departments could ask for an exemption. They would not have to meet those standards.

If we are supposed to have this historic legislation that would change the lives of disabled Canadians, then everyone should have to live by those standards. If anyone should, it should be the Government of Canada and the departments of the federal government. If anyone should not be given an exemption, it is the federal Government of Canada. If anything, this legislation goes in the wrong direction.

The second thing I am going to touch on today is standards, or the lack thereof. Again, it was unanimous from those who appeared at committee that the lack of any kind of standards in this legislation was disheartening. The minister said that they did not want to put standards in there because things change, and they wanted this to be fluid. Absolutely, technology changes. Accessibility innovations change, and that is outstanding. However, how are we supposed to measure the success of any legislation if we do not have a baseline, somewhere to start? If the starting point is to meet just one standard, any standard, a standard we make up ourselves in the first two years, how is that supposed to give any credibility to this legislation? Why did the stakeholders who came to Ottawa to appear at committee or who sent in their submissions bother? That is not what this is about.

Obviously, we are going to have different points of view and we are going to have disagreements, but coming up with standards that are going to improve the lives of disabled Canadians is something we all should be able to agree on. It was frustrating to see at committee, when our amendments were brought up one after another, the Liberal members vote against them each and every time. During several moments at the committee meetings, when they turned down or voted against amendments, I could not understand why. I did not see any political gain. I did not see any reason they would not want to include some of the amendments or even the vocabulary in the legislation.

Another issue that came up time and again was timelines to implement any standards or even any of the organizations that would be overseeing this legislation. The one thing the legislation would do is start four new levels of bureaucracy: CASDO, an officer of accountability, a commissioner and people in all these different levels of government who really would not have any jobs or anything they were supposed to do.

The bill would not even put in a timeline, which is another amendment we asked for, to at least ensure that the CASDO board was in place within six months of this legislation receiving royal assent. The Liberals could not even agree to that. They did not even want to have a timeline for when the organization that would be overseeing this legislation would be in place. I do not understand the lack of wanting to have some accountability as part of this legislation.

What concerns me is the coming into force clause in the bill. After 10 years, if nothing was done, the bill would become moot. We would announce that this legislation had royal assent. We would have an amazing photo op with Canadians with disabilities and members of the Liberal government, and then that would be the end of it. I truly hope that this will not be the case, that the Liberal members of the committee and the minister genuinely want to make change.

I want to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. She is someone I have a great deal of respect for, but I feel that, unfortunately, knowing the integrity and character she possesses, that her hands were severely tied when it came to implementing some of the thing she wanted from the bill. Unfortunately, she was unable to get them.

We have heard from Liberals that the bill would have teeth and that they listened to stakeholders. I want to take a few minutes to talk about some of the stakeholders we heard from at committee who communicated with us afterward. They talked about their concerns about the inability to pass any of the amendments to add structure or accountability to the bill. We heard from countless witnesses. Almost every single witness we heard from raised issues with the bill.

I have to admit I was actually quite surprised with the comments from some of the witnesses. They were not holding back. They were quite clear and quite aggressive in their criticism of Bill C-81. They put a lot of work into providing feedback to the Liberal government and to the minister on what they wanted to see and what would work for disabled Canadians, and to see very little, if anything, of their feedback in the bill obviously frustrated them as much as it did members of the committee.

For example, Patrick Falconer from Barrier Free Manitoba, who has done a lot of this work in Manitoba previously, commented:

While representing a commendable effort with honourable intentions, we are concerned the bill is deeply flawed. Based on our decade of experience and our careful review, BFM strongly supports the recommendations for significant amendments...[to this bill].

Mr. Falconer was talking about the fact the bill fails to outline any timelines for the implementation of new accessibility measures. There is use of permissive language, which does not require the government to actually act on any of the regulations put in place, and it does not hold the government to account to do anything that improves the lives of Canadians with disabilities. That is not right. It is not what this was intended to be, and it is certainly not the impression the Liberal government was giving to Canadians who participated in this process.

I would also like to speak about Professor Michael Prince, who is a professor of social policy in the Faculty of Human and Social Development at the University of Victoria, who said:

There are also areas of concern with this bill...these include the absence of [any] measurable targets with specific deadlines; the permissive language in the bill in many sections; the extent of exemptions; the lack of a disability lens; the absence of duties on the Government of Canada for promoting accessibility on the 600-plus first nation communities across the country; the status of ASL and LSQ and rights to communication; the complex model of federal bodies involved in enforcement and adjudication; and, the status of the proposed chief accessibility officer as a Governor in Council appointee rather than an officer of Parliament.

He goes on to say:

This bill, to me, with respect, reflects that it was written in the bubble of Ottawa. This is written from the point of view of traditional management focus, organizational focus. This is not people-centred. This is about departments making sure that in the negotiations and drafting of this bill, exemptions and deals were cut.

This is basically a machinery-of-government bill. There's not much social policy or public policy in this bill. This should be about people front and centre. I get that we have to have administrative enforcement and compliance, and on that note I'd like to see a lot more about incentives and education.

That is a very harsh assessment of Bill C-81, and it comes from a professor at the University of Victoria who is an expert on this issue and has participated in the stakeholder communications and alleged consultation that happened as part of developing Bill C-81.

Mr. Speaker, you may be wondering what some of these egregious amendments were that we asked for, that the Liberal Party rejected. I want to go through a couple, just to give Canadians who are listening today perspective. We were not asking for the moon, we were asking for very common-sense amendments brought forward specifically by our stakeholders.

One of those amendments was to ensure the head office of the new Canadian accessibility standards development organization, CASDO, was accessible and without barriers. That would make sense. If anywhere in Canada should be accessible and barrier free, it would be the head office of CASDO, the organization that would be overseeing this legislation, that would develop and enforce the standards of accessible buildings and offices of the federal government and private sector businesses regulated by the federal government. Shockingly, the Liberals voted against it, so we cannot even have standards on the office of CASDO.

We also tried to remove permissive language from the bill that would require the power granted to the government and other bodies to make and enforce accessible requirements to be used. The Liberals also voted against those amendments.

Jewelles Smith from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities commented that:

What we would like to see is that CASDO be responsible for developing the regulations and that the reporting of any complaints go through one organization.

Frank Folino and James Roots from the Canadian Association of the Deaf added that:

Bill C-81 is currently a bit confusing in terms of where these complaints go. Some complaints may go directly to CRTC, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, CTA or then, fourth, to the accessibility commissioner officer.

Nearly every witness echoed those comments.

We put forward amendments to try and fix this, because we heard from some of the bureaucrats that the complaint or concern may come to one of these various other departments. They said that it may come in this door or that door, but not to worry, they knew it was confusing, and would make sure that concern or complaint got to the right person. Problem solved.

However, to a person with disabilities, whatever that disability may be, we need to make that as easy as possible. I would argue that it should be as easy as possible for every single Canadian to access a federal government department but certainly one that is specifically developed for one's needs, but that was also voted against. When we are trying to make navigating the proposed accessibility act and Bill C-81 as easy as possible, the Liberal members on the committee could not even find their way to accept that.

We mentioned David Lepofsky today who is with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. I really want to put in his comment here today. He said:

The bill that is now before you is very strong on good intentions but very weak on implementation and enforcement...When you come to vote on amendments before this committee and when you go back to your caucuses to decide what position you're going to take, we urge you not simply to think of the immediate political expediency of today; we do urge you to think about the imminent election a year from now and the needs of the minority of everyone, for whom no party or politician can go soft.

Mr. Lepofsky was speaking for Canadians across the country asking us as parliamentarians to not get cold feet. This is an opportunity to make some substantial, historic change for Canadians with disabilities, and we failed.

I have to share a little of the frustration on this, as we will be voting in support of Bill C-81. For those organizations, those stakeholders listening today, the reason we are voting in support of Bill C-81 is certainly not because we agree with it. In fact, I have outlined today in my speech the many reasons why we are not. We heard from the stakeholders time and time again of their disappointment. but their comments were always that, although it fell well short of what they wanted, it was a start, and I will grant them that, it is a start.

I know they were expecting much more from the minister, the Liberal government and from us as members of that committee. Therefore, my promise to those Canadians in the disabilities community across the country is that when a Conservative government comes into power, we will do everything we can to address the shortcomings of Bill C-81. I know how much work they have put into this proposed legislation. I know how much time and effort they put in working with us on the committee. I know what their vision was for Bill C-81. Unfortunately, this falls short. We will not make that same mistake in 2019.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I worked very well and very hard together on this bill, and I share her frustration. As I said, I think the minister wanted to do the right thing with this bill, but for whatever reason, got cold feet in the end and was not able to follow through.

I have a list of dozens of stakeholders who have written me since the committee finished its work. They are extremely upset with the inability to pass any of the amendments. One really stuck out for me, and I would like the member's comments on it. It was from representatives of a first nation community. They said that over the last three years, the Liberal government had consulted them on Bill C-81 and talked to them about some of their needs and the issues they face with accessibility in first nations communities, but they were extremely shocked when Bill C-81 was tabled and first nations were not mentioned even once in the legislation, not once. It was a false hope for first nation communities that participated in good faith in the negotiations, but then the bill was tabled, and they were not mentioned once.

I would like the member's comments on the frustration she is hearing from her constituents in first nation communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise framing that question.

First of all, when is this organization going to be established? There is nothing in the legislation that says it has to happen. When this bill is passed, nothing has to happen. There is no timeline.

There is no legacy or resiliency language. Let us just say that the minister decided, of her own good will and gumption, that this would be established in 12 weeks. Where is the legacy that would guarantee that governments down the road have to achieve certain benchmarks? There is nothing. There is no language that requires anybody to do anything. As a matter of fact, organizations under federal jurisdiction must have an accessibility plan. It does not have to be a good plan, and it does not have to be implemented.

There we go. That is the language we are dealing with in Bill C-81. This is why people like me get worked up.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-81 as a missed opportunity. It was a chance for us to all work together at committee, which I think was what the minister wanted to see. She wanted to see good amendments brought forward by all parties.

I think it is no surprise that the bulk of the more than 200 amendments to Bill C-81 that were brought forward were almost word for word from the NDP, the Green Party, and the Conservative Party. That highlights some of the issues with this bill.

There is one area that I would like my colleague to talk about, and we heard this from a lot of stakeholders. It was really disappointing that she did not have a chance to talk about this in her presentation. Here I refer to the concerns we heard from stakeholders that Bill C-81 is a two-tiered system with the number of exemptions that are in it.

What it does is to ask federally regulated private sector businesses to adhere to the very minimal standards and accountability in Bill C-81, but every federal department can ask for an exemption. That means that some areas will have to abide by Bill C-81 and that the federal government will not have to.

Every stakeholder we heard from wanted consistency and wanted to eliminate those exemptions. I would like to hear the member's comments and thoughts on the exemptions included in Bill C-81.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of historic opportunities lost. An important component of our Canadian population is being sold short.

Canadians and other persons living with disabilities understandably were excited by the government's plan to bring forward Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. After years of neglect by previous governments, they were cautiously optimistic. Alas, once the media has moved on to other issues and Canadians begun to look at the fine print in the bill, they will unfortunately find a lot less to celebrate than the government would have them believe.

As I have stated before on Bill C-81, the bill requires substantial amendments. While we commend the government for tabling it, the bill will need to be altered dramatically in order to become good legislation. I committed to working with the government to provide good faith amendments so the bill could become a historic accessibility legislation that Canada's people living with disabilities deserved.

When the Minister of Accessibility was asked during committee if she would be open to amendment, this was her response:

I definitely want to see this law being the best it possibly can. I don't want to prejudge the outcomes or recommendations of the committee, but I am certainly open to hearing what you all have to say and what stakeholders have to say.

Over the course of eight meetings, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard from leading experts and civil society groups on the things that needed to be changed if Bill C-81 were to become good legislation.

In one presentation after another, the committee heard that the bill needed implementation timelines. One such expert was none other than the former Ontario Liberal government minister responsible for shepherding Ontario's Accessibility Act into law. We heard again and again that all of the exemptions for obligated organizations, and the bill was shot through with those, by the way, should be eliminated.

We heard repeatedly that enforcement should be solely in the hands of the accessibility commissioner and not splintered across various organizations, such as the CRTC and CTA, groups that, as was pointed out numerous times, had a storied record of implementing the few accessibility obligations they already had, never mind new ones. However, as the testimony concluded, it was as if no one had uttered a single world. Not one of these recommendations was taken up by the government.

Despite what the minister clearly said, the Liberals had already decided what they were going to do. Despite this, they nevertheless expended the treasury and witness efforts to bring experts to Ottawa to provide testimony that the government had already chosen to ignore. The Liberals ignored the excellent testimony from a former provincial Liberal minister, the highly respected Marie Bountrogianni, a person with actual experience implementing expansive accessibility legislation.

Let us hear some of this. Ms. Bountrogianni said:

During the consultation phase, we studied Great Britain's Disability Discrimination Act and were taught three critical lessons. We would need a clear deadline for an accessible Ontario. There would need to be regulations established through which to enforce the law, and public education would be key for creating awareness about the bill.

When I was studying them, it was from their challenges. I don't want to use the word “mistakes” because they were pioneers. They were Great Britain, Australia and the United States. They told me, “Have a timeline, definitely have timelines.”

How can this testimony be ignored? It is a shame. I get frustrated just thinking about it. All of the expertise and people so succinctly explaining to us what needed to be done to bolster the legislation was ignored.

I cannot stress enough that another critical issue is the way in which Bill C-81 splinters the power to enforce the legislation among four federal organizations: the accessibility commissioner, the Canadian Transportation Agency, also known as the CTA; the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission; and the tribunal that regulates federal employment. This snarl of enforcement in administration would result in very similar regulations being enacted by the different agencies involved, rather than by one single agency.

The duplication would not just risk inconsistencies, it would create them, causing even further delays. The predictable result is the real possibility that some sectors of the economy will have these regulations ready before other sectors. This bill should be looking to eliminate the interdepartmental patchwork system that is already in place, rather than making it more complex. After all, that is the purpose of national strategies, of national legislation, which this is supposed to be fulfilling.

Again, this splintered formula is a confusion. The government's response was to say this, and it boggles the mind. This is from the testimony of a government representative:

“We'll have a policy that there will be no wrong door. Whichever agency you go to, no matter how confusing it is to figure it out—and believe me, it is confusing—if you go in the wrong door, we'll send [the complaint] to the right door. Problem solved.”

Once again, there is not really a clear understanding by the government of the lived reality of people living with disabilities having to advocate for themselves and access these so-called doors. The purpose of the accessibility commissioner is laid out for us. This should be perfect synergy, and the government has chosen to ignore that, unfortunately.

The esteemed David Lepofsky, who has been mentioned in the chamber already by my hon. colleagues, is the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians Disabilities Act Alliance. He points out that the problem is not solved at all:

...because all that does is fix the problem of which door you go in. It does not solve the substantial problem that happens once you're inside that door. It means we have to lobby four agencies to get them up to the necessary level of expertise. It means we have to learn four different sets of procedures...It means we have to go to agencies that [have little to no] expertise in disability and accessibility.

This would be the expertise we would envision an accessibility commissioner would be fulfilling. This is what all of these organizations, advocacy groups and experts, with lived experience in the community as a person living with a different ability, understood. They understood that an accessibility commissioner would achieve this very basic sentiment they had, because they were worn out from having to advocate. It would have been the one-stop shop. It would have been cleaner.

From a bureaucratic perspective, it would have been a lot cleaner to give one concise responsibility to the new accessibility commissioner, but rather, we are going to hold them back and it is going to be approached in four different ways. For example, it will be said that this is not someone's territory, but someone else's. It is just going to invite more chaos. I want to go back to the fact that it would make far more sense to simply mandate the new accessibility commissioner with all of the accessibility enforcement under this act.

The design of this legislation, which splinters responsibility among agencies, only serve two interests: first, protecting bureaucratic turf; and second, easing back on the expectations on obligated organizations so that they can have weaker standards, slower implementation and flimsy enforcement. That is not consistent with the federal government's commendable motivations and intentions under this legislation. It does not make sense. It is not consistent.

Before I heard my hon. colleague across the way table his amendment, I anticipated tabling an amendment of my own at the end of my speech today. For the record, I will explain what it is in the time I have remaining, so that all Canadians who are listening and following this debate understand that a last ditch effort was made by both opposition parties to revisit Bill C-81 to give it some teeth.

Today, in a last ditch effort to try to help Bill C-81 become the kind of bill the government professes it to be, but which it clearly is not, I offered a good faith amendment about implementing timelines and having enforcement so that we could go back to committee and look at implementing those timelines. Eliminating exemptions would be another one that we would need to do. I expect the government to reject any such amendment, just as it rejected the nearly 120 other ones that were brought forward at committee in complete good faith by opposition parties. I want to take this last chance to do the right thing and be on the record as having done so.

The NDP has long been committed to the rights of persons with disabilities. It has been our long-standing position that all of government, every budget, every policy, every regulation and every grant should be viewed through a disability lens. Our ultimate goal has always been to help foster a society in which all of our citizens are able to participate fully and equally. This cannot even begin to happen until all of our institutions are open and completely accessible to everyone.

The NDP has supported the establishment of a Canadians with disabilities act for many years. The call for a CDA can be found in our 2015 platform. The language is important: it is the Canadians with disabilities act.

Any accessibility bill tabled by the government should essentially be enabling legislation for Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Canada ratified this convention in 2010 and a Canadians with disabilities act would include language consistent with implementing this convention.

Until now, Canada has done nothing to bring our laws into conformity with the convention. I tabled Motion No. 56 in this very chamber, calling on the government to implement these obligations.

The convention sets out the legal obligations on states to promote and protect the rights of people with disabilities. It does not create new rights. There are a number of principles and articles within the CRPD that are extremely important to people with disabilities. These principles address rights such as the ability to live independently, freedom from exploitation and violence, the right to an adequate standard of living, social protections and more.

Rather than considering disability an issue of medicine, charity or dependency, the convention challenges people worldwide to understand disability as a human rights issue. It establishes that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability is a violation of the rights, inherent dignity and worth of the human person.

The convention covers many areas where obstacles can arise, such as physical access to buildings, roads and transportation and access to information through written and electronic communications. The convention also aims to reduce stigma and discrimination, which are often why people with disabilities are excluded from education, employment and health and other services.

It is important here to note that the convention is our ideal. It is up to governments to bridge the distance between these ideals and the lived reality of people with disabilities. One such bridge is supposed to be Bill C-81. That is the bridge we are debating here today.

A major lapse on the part of the government is that it did not include language in Bill C-81 requiring all federal government laws, policies and programs to be studied through a disability lens. In other words, the language of the bill is not in keeping with our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, so we would still need more legislation to bridge that gap, which we anticipated we were closing. Now, we are taking a step that is basically a false gesture toward doing that.

One of the things I wanted to really get into is that this disability law lens is a strange omission. I say this because we find it is hard to create a lived reality on the ground if all of us who are developing policy and legislation are not using that disability lens.

One way the disability lens can be used is to analyze public policy. One way to make sure of that is to ask the following. Does the policy view disabled people as members of a minority group with special needs, or does it view disability as one of many variables in the population, and thus aim to structure society to ensure universal access and coverage? This is such a profound aspect of what our accessibility legislation needs to be able to do.

In seeing my time left, I am improvising a bit here. My understanding of our procedure is that once an amendment has been tabled, I cannot table another one. However, I would just like people to have a general idea of the text of what my amendment would have been if tabled, even though it is very similar to my hon. colleague's. This amendment is my last plea on behalf of people with disabilities and those of us who care about them, for us to go back and get Bill C-81 right.

I would have moved that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be not now read the third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the purpose of eliminating exemptions for obligated organizations and including implementation timelines.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to sit on the HUMA committee and listen to testimony for Bill C-81. It was very disappointing to see how the government was rushing through testimony of witnesses and clause by clause. We heard alarming things in testimony. For example, we heard that 40% of indigenous people have or will have a disability within their lifetime. Indigenous people are not mentioned whatsoever in the bill. Consultations were done for three years and they failed to recognize indigenous people and failed to recognize timelines. I do not think making departments have one standard within two years is an acceptable “teethy” timeline. There is failed accountability, exemptions and the list goes on.

On this side of the House, we had brought forward an amendment for the government to have a barrier-free Canada. I know my colleague had mentioned a little about this, but how is this going to be measured? How are we going to measure the progress or lack of progress, and how are we going to keep future governments accountable?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the comments from the Liberal parliamentary secretary suggesting my colleague and friend is misleading people. I spoke to my friend just yesterday about the conversation I had last week with David Lepofsky, probably the most prominent Canadian in terms of disability advocacy. He has the Order of Ontario and Order of Canada, as a constitutional lawyer and disability advocate.

What my friend is saying to the House today is exactly what is being said by people like David Lepofsky. One of the things I heard from him was the fact that there is no end date for accessibility within Bill C-81, no timeline. Ontario has set a 20-year goal of making sure accessibility is paramount. The other thing I heard from him was that there is no clear commitment in Bill C-81 to ensure no infrastructure dollars would go to new projects unless accessibility is at the centre of the project. There are no timelines and no teeth.

The Liberal member is suggesting that my friend is misleading Canadians. This is what disability advocates are asking for. Will my friend comment on the fact that we have an opportunity with Bill C-81 to get it right, if only the Liberals will listen?

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments on this very important bill. However, I have to take exception to what the hon. member was saying, because he is in fact misleading Canadians. He is saying that this bill has no teeth. It definitely has teeth. He is saying this bill has no timelines. It definitely has timelines. I think we need to underscore how important the amount of input from Canadians with disabilities has been, in order to get where we are today.

I want to say specifically that our government wants to hit the ground running when this bill passes. New regulations will be in place very quickly, within two years after the act comes into force. That means that we are going to start moving right away and that the regulations will be enacted. Once Bill C-81 receives royal assent, the Canadian accessibility standards organization would be up and running within one year.

Therefore, there are timelines and to say anything different is wrong. You cannot mislead Canadians to think that this does not have teeth. This is a step in the right direction. We know that people with disabilities are very happy with this bill, and we are very committed to making sure we follow through on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to continue talking about a bill that has a lot of hope in it from Canadians across the country who are living with disabilities. I started yesterday into my speech regarding Bill C-81, which is essentially an accessibility act for all Canadians.

The minister said we would be co-operating and working together, and that her department would provide us with the information that was needed in order to ensure the bill actually delivers for Canadians living with disabilities. Stakeholders from across the country, from all sides of this debate, whether they have hearing or sight disabilities or physical or cognitive disabilities, are all saying the same thing, that the bill is not actually doing anything.

There are no teeth in the bill, and there are no dates to deliver teeth or policies or regulations so that we know what is going to be done to actually help people living with disabilities.

One of the things I said at the first debate we had on this subject and repeated at committee was that my hope for the bill was that at the end of it I would be able to call my mother and tell her how her life is going to change after it is passed.

Unfortunately, all I can do today is call her and tell her that within two years a single regulation will be adopted. That single regulation will trigger a five-year time period, and within that five-year time period the government will then have to report back and essentially do an audit of the regulations it has in place. However, we are not going to see any tangible benefits out of this bill on day one.

We have asked why, and the Liberals have said regulations do not need to be in the bill. The staff in the department and the minister have said we need to consult more. That is not good enough. We have had three years of consultation on this subject. Surely at least one regulation could have come into effect with this accessibility legislation.

The minister said yesterday the good news is there are benchmarks. She said that Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia had put very forward-thinking legislation into place, and she commended their legislation. Their legislation had timelines.

She commends it, and she tells us there is a benchmark and we know what we need to do, but then does not include any of it in the bill, saying we might have one regulation within two years. It is just not good enough for Canadians living with disabilities. It is not good enough for Canadians who are living with either cognitive or physical disabilities.

It is incredible when we start thinking about all the things the most vulnerable in our society have to live and cope with. When we look at the issues of the day, such as Canada Post, we see another barrier put up. With Canada Post union employees going on strike, it creates a barrier for people living with disabilities, who perhaps cannot even get outside of their home to go and collect items they may need.

However, the minister does not put anything in place that will change things as of day one. It is not good enough, and stakeholders know it is not good enough.

Stakeholders were telling us they wanted change. That is why roughly 240 amendments were drafted and submitted. That is why so many amendments were adopted. Unfortunately, they were only from the Liberal side.

However, what the minister, the department and the Liberals on the committee could not understand is that stakeholders want to know when things are going to change. They want measurables in place.

Stakeholders do not just want to see a bunch of employees hired, a building gone, rented or bought, and perhaps a promise of “one day”. They are not looking for a promissory note. The stakeholders are looking for real defined benefits, defined regulations, defined policies that will help them in their day-to-day lives, and that is what the Conservative Party, the New Democrats and the Green Party all tried to do at committee to no avail, because, unfortunately, they were not part of the right party. It is disgusting when we think about the throne speech that we had in this House of Commons by the Prime Minister, which said that all members would be respected no matter where they are from, no matter what party they represent. Unfortunately, that is just not the case. The co-operation that the minister has consistently said would be in place was not.

The answers that the minister said she would be getting for members of the opposition never came. The costs related to these changes were never brought forward. However, if all of the benchmarks are in place in Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, surely we know what the costs are to make the changes necessary to make lives better for people in Canada who are living with disabilities.

We either have the information or we do not. Yesterday, we were told we had the information. A few weeks ago, we were told we did not. At committee, we were told that we did not. Even when the Liberals do have the information, they say that it is privileged between the cabinet minister and the staff. These are things as simple as whether any timelines were recommended. We could not even get that. The stakeholders are asking these questions one after another. They want to know and need to understand how and when these actions are going to be taken.

I brought something up at committee that the minister was not actually present for, which is normal, and I did not bring it up in a previous speech, but I would like to make sure that this is brought before the House. What happens if a different government is elected? What happens if there is no minister who is like-minded on this issue?

One of the things the Conservative Party was asking for was to put measurables in place to ensure that there would be follow-through from successive governments. The current government's mandate ends in less than one year. Unfortunately, by not putting measurables in place, by not having a time by which all of these things need to be completed, by not putting a target in place for a barrier-free Canada, we do not know when or how this proposed legislation could fall off the road. This means there is a lack of accountability contained within legislation, because the government wants to avoid being accountable for real results. However, it would not just affect the current government but all governments going forward. If there is not a like-minded government going forward, that means there is a potential for it to completely collapse, and we do not want this to collapse.

We like the fact that there is an accessibility act coming forward. We supported the fact that there was an accessibility act coming forward. We championed an accessibility act coming forward. We requested that it be brought forward as soon as possible when it became very clear that the six-month timeline that the government put in order to provide the legislation to the House for persons in Canada with disabilities was not coming forward. We asked where it was. Why was it not here yet? We knew the work had been done. The Liberals told us they had been consulting for over a year. They told us they were consulting for over two years, and yet still we did not have legislation in front of us.

What happens if it is not the mindset that is provided by the government today, the mindset that is provided in the Conservative benches opposite? There is a real possibility that the intent of this legislation would fall off the road just so the government could avoid the accountability of providing real results for real Canadians living with real disabilities. It is just shameful that a government would walk away from its responsibility to be accountable to Canadians who are taking care of the most vulnerable and accountable to the most vulnerable themselves. It is absolutely shameful.

Going forward, we know that there need to be changes. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the purpose of reconsidering:

a. clauses 5, 11, 18, 23, 111 and 148 with the view to include dates and timelines to ensure that the Bill will advance accessibility in Canada;

b. clauses 15, 75, 93 and 95 with the view to remove permissive language to ensure that accessibility requirements are made and enforced;

c. clauses 46, 55, 59, 64, and 68 with the view to not allow organizations to be exempted from complying with accessibility requirements; and

d. clause 207 with the view to require the government to act.

The House resumed from November 21, 2018 consideration of the motion that Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-81, the accessibility legislation.

Our intention for tomorrow is to call Bill C-75, justice modernization, at third reading. We sincerely hope that Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers reach an agreement. However, if they do not, we will call government Motion. No. 25, concerning the resumption of postal services, for debate tomorrow.

On Monday, we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2. This will also be the business for Tuesday and Wednesday.

Accessible Canada Act

[Carla Qualtrough]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and her passion on issues related to people with disabilities.

We built the system contained in Bill C-81 on the existing system. This system was not drawn up on a whiteboard. We have existing regulators. We are trying to be efficient. We have expertise within government organizations. We have complicated regulatory frameworks within the CRTC and the CTA. We have a Canadian Human Rights Commission that is very well respected and that does very good work. Building on those existing entities, we had to fill in the gaps. We knew that there were areas within federal jurisdiction that were not covered, so we would create the position of the accessibility commissioner.

We would enshrine in this law, and we would have agreements between these organizations, that there would be no wrong door. Wherever people went to state their concern or file a complaint, they would be pointed in the right direction. Canadians can be assured of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the minister describe her expectations for what is going to happen with Bill C-81, I have to say that it is very disconcerting to know that there is a misunderstanding about the lack of language in the bill that will actually ensure the things she has described. Canadians have waited long enough. There is no language of resilience or legacy within what we have now.

In one presentation after another, the committee heard that the bill needed implementation timelines. One such expert was none other than the Ontario minister who was responsible for shepherding in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We heard again and again that we needed implementation timelines. We heard again and again that all the exemptions for obligated organizations needed to be removed. We also heard again and again that we needed enforcement measures and to be looking through a disability lens in all our federal jurisdictions.

The lack of language within this legislation is more than just an oversight. I would like to hear the minister talk about some of the concrete steps that would be taken so that we can hear about some of the language that even today she aspires to have this legislation attain.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the minister questions about Bill C-81. First, I appreciate very much the minister bringing this legislation forward. I think it is a very important document and is something we worked very hard on at committee.

However, what I want to focus on is that almost every single stakeholder who came to committee said that Bill C-81 would do nothing. In fact, if the bill is given royal assent, the minister probably will not be able to point to a single thing that will change, because there are no timelines, no standards and no definitive regulations in it.

I would like to bring to the minister's attention one really quick quote from Professor Michael Prince, who said, “There are...areas of concern with this bill.... these include the absence of measurable targets with specific deadlines; the permissive language...; the extent of exemptions”.

I would like to ask the minister this: The day Bill C-81 is given royal assent, how will it change anything for Canadians with disabilities?

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Accessibility, Lib.]

moved that Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand in the House of Commons for the third reading debate of Bill C-81, the proposed accessible Canada act.

Bill C-81 is, without any doubt, a game-changing piece of legislation for Canada, especially for Canadians with disabilities. It sends a strong message that our government is taking action to advance accessibility and inclusion. We are leading the way to make Canada a barrier-free country for everyone.

I am very proud of all the work we have done getting Bill C-81 this far. We have seen from the debate at second reading that everyone is wholeheartedly invested in presenting the best piece of legislation on accessibility for Canadians. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and my distinguished colleagues for the work they have done to move this much-anticipated bill forward and for providing their valuable input to make it even better.

I am particularly thankful for the deliberate efforts of the committee to make their hearings accessible, both in person and through televised broadcasts. In addition to the standard captioning, sign language interpretation in ASL and Langue des signes du Québec were consistently available. This allowed more Canadians to have the opportunity to participate in hearings in real time and signalled Parliament's capacity to better incorporate accessibility moving forward.

Perhaps most importantly, I want to recognize the efforts of the disability community to make Bill C-81 happen. More than 55 witnesses testified and many more made written submissions. Groups like the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, which began in 2018 as a partnership of 56 organizations, have shown remarkable inclusive and intersectional leadership.

In particular, I refer to the valuable support and engagement of the alliance's leadership team, Spinal Cord Injury Canada, the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, Communications Disabilities Access Canada, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. These organizations have been with us every step of the way since the beginning of this process. Their continued dedication to help us bring this historic legislation to life knows no bounds. I hope they see themselves in this bill, because it is truly theirs.

From the very first day of consultations right up until our recent committee meetings, we have heard informed and moving testimonies about the struggles that Canadians with disabilities face on a regular basis. We have also consistently heard the same key themes of what our legislation should cover, though sometimes with differing opinions on the approach. These key messages are that this legislation should be ambitious, that it should lead to more consistent experiences of accessibility, that it should apply to all areas of federal jurisdiction, that it should be enforceable, including penalties for non-compliance, and that it should have a mechanism for complaints and oversight.

Each of these key messages serves as the backbone of the proposed act. Bill C-81 creates a framework for developing accessibility standards, establishing and enforcing accessibility requirements and monitoring implementation. This framework is an effort to address barriers to accessibility. The proposed act strikes a balance between bolstering compliance and enforcement measures of existing agencies, such as the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, and creating new roles such as the accessibility commissioner and the chief accessibility officer. This would ensure broader accountability through complaints mechanisms, compliance and systemic monitoring and oversight.

This bill is designed to strengthen the system, better regulate accessibility, and bolster each sector's enforcement capacity and ability to manage complaints. This will help develop a system in which the Government of Canada and the industry are required to anticipate barriers before they can limit access to persons with disabilities.

Our government's objective moving forward is to get Bill C-81 passed. We know that we need to make this bill a law as soon as possible so that we can all get to work on building a truly accessible future for all Canadians.

There are certain things we can all agree on, one being that the realization of a Canada without barriers is long overdue. We all agree that Canadians need this legislation.

The proposed accessible Canada act would enable the creation of three critical new roles that would drive the advancement of accessibility in Canada: the Canadian accessibility standards development organization, the accessibility commissioner as part of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the chief accessibility officer. I have been pleased to hear the overwhelming support for their creation, as these roles will allow for a Canada without barriers to be realized in an unprecedented way.

The new Canadian accessibility standards development organization, CASDO, would be a forum for technical experts, industry and Canadians with disabilities to come together to develop accessibility standards that would work for everyone. Once accessibility standards are developed, the Government of Canada would adopt them into regulations to make them law. Having regulations based on standards rather than enacting regulations directly in the proposed act would ensure that rules could be changed more fluidly over time to reflect new advances and best practices.

We want to make the Canadian accessibility standards development organization available to the provinces and territories, and even other countries, so that they can create and adopt standards in their respective jurisdictions. We want to show that Canada can be a world leader in accessibility and that we are prepared to work as a team to accomplish that goal.

The accessibility commissioner within the Canadian Human Rights Commission would be responsible for complaints, compliance and enforcement measures in areas other than those currently regulated. Finally, the chief accessibility officer would serve the important role of systemic monitoring and oversight. Responsible for producing a report each year, the chief accessibility officer would be able to identify trends and emerging issues across all agencies and areas of government.

We expect that CASDO, the accessibility commissioner, and the chief accessibility officer would be up and running within 12 months of the legislation's coming into force. We also plan that the first set of regulations under the legislation would come into force in 2020-21.

The significant and sustained culture change on accessibility that we need depends on getting everyone involved.

Here I would like to recognize the important testimony, debates and discussions that took place in committee. I am happy that the discussions initiated on the accessible Canada consultations continued throughout the parliamentary process.

Since the introduction of Bill C-81 in Parliament back in June, we have received over 120 proposals for amendments. Throughout this process, we have heard from dedicated community activists, experts and industry leaders. Each brought unique and thought-provoking perspectives about their concerns and wishes for Bill C-81.

Bill Adair of the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance spoke inspiring words about the disability community's perspectives during his committee testimony. Bill said:

We are counting on you to make changes that will have a significant impact on our lives. This is a huge responsibility. We've opened up, we've advised and we've taken a lot of time to present the right recommendations. Listen to us. This is your opportunity to be the change.

I am very eager to see Bill C-81 pass so that we can get to work on advancing the accessibility and inclusion of persons with disabilities in Canada. I am also aware that there is a clear and sincere desire to move this bill quickly, and we will need everyone in the House to collaborate to get this proposed legislation through. Accessibility clearly transcends partisanship and clearly transcends any one government.

The changes made to Bill C-81 in committee advanced the vision we had for the law. The suggestions of stakeholders were incorporated into the bill in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation, the same spirit that has guided the evolution of the bill to date.

The testimony from witnesses and written submissions informed the 74 amendments accepted at committee. I am supportive of the changes not only because they came from the community, but also because I believe they have made this good legislation into great legislation.

I would like to highlight four key changes that were made at committee to strengthen Bill C-81.

First, the current purpose clause was amended to add communication as a priority area. We heard compelling testimony in committee that spoke to the impact of barriers to communication, particularly for persons with communication and language disabilities. This amendment prioritizes the barriers experienced by people with communication and language disabilities that can be caused by conditions such as cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorder and learning disabilities.

By making communication a priority in and of itself, we can guarantee a consistent, harmonized approach to addressing the barriers to accessibility faced by people with communication disabilities in every federally regulated sector.

Second, while legislation applies to federally regulated entities, we know that achieving a barrier-free Canada means that accessibility needs to extend beyond federal jurisdiction. Accessibility is an area of shared federal, provincial and territorial responsibility, and realizing a truly accessible Canada would require working with our provincial and territorial partners. Stakeholders have echoed the sentiment, stressing the need for collaboration to harmonize accessibility practices across the country and the importance of making sure that the minister responsible for these are required to work with provinces and territories.

Third, the disability community has made it very clear that accessibility is everybody's responsibility. The community asked for increased accountability and transparency on exemptions. Like stakeholders, I agree that exemptions should never provide a loophole from accessibility. This would be counter to the spirit of Bill C-81. That is why I am pleased that Bill C-81 has now been changed in two key areas: first, by placing a three-year limit on all exemptions; and second, by requiring that the rationale for any exemptions be published. We must bolster transparency in the exemptions process, and in doing so we would ensure that the public and the disability community can hold authorities accountable on exemptions.

I believe that stricter provisions regarding accountability and transparency strengthen Bill C-81.

Finally, I want to make clear that our intent with this bill has always been to hit the ground running on day one. I am pleased to see that an amendment was made to reflect this intent in the bill. It requires all bodies with authority to make regulations under this act to make their first regulations within two years of the act's coming into force. The establishment of these regulations would also trigger the clock for the five-year review of the act by Parliament. This will ensure that the review would begin by 2025. In like manner, there is no end date for accessibility. Accessibility requires consistent, conscious and continual effort. The bill also provides mechanisms that require people with disabilities to be at the table to monitor implementation and support meaningful progress, independent of the government of the day.

We listened to people in the disability community who told us that accessibility in Canada has been long outdated, and I know that we need to take action right away. That is why I want to reiterate that we are strongly committed to ensuring that this bill translates into significant progress in terms of accessibility in a timely manner. We are determined to do what it takes to accomplish that.

These approaches will help to ensure that we are operational as soon as the bill is passed. Encouraging a spirit of collaboration between our government and all people with disabilities was fundamental to informing the development of this bill.

For too long, Canadians with disabilities have had to fight on their own when it came to advancing their rights. By bringing in new measures to improve accessibility, with a focus on accountability and transparency, we are moving toward a new culture of accessibility. The accessible Canada act would work to put an end to the practice of exclusion. With Bill C-81, we can have a system where our institutions, not individuals, are responsible for enabling change. We can move on from the principle of “nothing about us without us” to simply “nothing without us,” because everything is about us.

As Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, and as a person with a disability, I could not but I know that with this proposed legislation, our goal of building a Canada without barriers, where people with disabilities participate fully and equally in their communities, is within reach.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to thank all those associated with the bill. Many accommodations were made to bring the witnesses forward. We worked very well together with the vice-chair. I want to thank all the committee members. This is a good bill.

[Pierre Rodrigue]

I'm not an expert in technology, but I can say that's precisely why we prepared a Word version of Bill C-81. This makes it possible to make the font bigger.

I think we can do this with the tools currently available. It's not fully accessible, but we're improving and that's what we're moving towards.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Excellent.

Well done, everyone.

I appreciate everyone's support to get us through what I have to say is probably a pleasant surprise to all of us, to get this done as expediently as we did.

Certainly, my final comments would be that our thoughts are with Bryan May and his family. I know he was watching last night. Apparently, he is a glutton for punishment.

But, again, just on the number of amendments that were brought through on Bill C-81, I think all of us saw that there was work to do on this bill to ensure it met the goals that were brought forward by our stakeholders. I think as parliamentarians, and as this committee, it now behooves us to ensure that we hold this government, and whatever the next government is, accountable to ensure that they follow through with what we heard from our stakeholders and certainly from the discussions we had here among us as a committee.

Thank you very much for everyone's commitment to this.

Thank you very much to the staff, the clerk and our legislative clerks who guided me through this over the last two days.

I hope everybody has a great constituency week and spends some time with their family and friends.

The meeting is adjourned.

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

Chair, thank you for your leadership over the last two days. It's very much appreciated.

Certainly on behalf of my riding and on behalf of countless groups across New Brunswick, and in particular southern New Brunswick, we are absolutely thrilled to move forward with Bill C-81.

I'm proud to be part of a government that is moving forward with this legislation after what I would call the previous government's 10 years of non-action—no action. I'm very proud of Bill C-81 and the movements we are taking to move this forward.

Thank you.

[Philippe Dufresne]

All I can say is that, ultimately, I suppose it would be a decision for this committee in terms of a recommendation, and for the House, ultimately, as to the way to go. Certainly, in terms of complaints processes, as I've indicated before, those can be dealt with, addressed, and there's an outcome.

What I said at the outset is that this legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act and proposed Bill C-81, set out the principle that all Canadians should be able to fully participate in society, that things should be made accessible by design and that all efforts ought to be made to provide that full accessibility. That's the context in which we're giving—

[Philippe Dufresne]

In the context of a human rights complaint, the Canadian Human Rights Act provides the right to full participation in Canadian society. If there is a complaint filed, it is looked at, responded to, and we try to resolve it. If it's a complaint where we would clearly have not met the human rights obligations, this can lead to orders—financial orders, remedial orders. That's in the context of the Canadian Human Rights Act process.

In the context of proposed Bill C-81, which is not adopted, not in force, it contemplates a proactive model—inspections, recommendations, progress reports and so on. At the end of the day these also are outcomes where Parliament or the House would be found not to have complied with fundamental quasi-constitutional human rights legislation.

This is why we're being very cautious about this and taking this very seriously, given the importance of the rights at issue and the importance of this institution to Canadians, and to Canadians with disabilities.

[Michael Duffy]

Madam Chair, I wonder if we as a committee should invite people like the Council of Canadians with Disabilities who on October 30 wrote to Minister Qualtrough about Bill C-81, which is the disabilities act.

Should we invite them to come here to help us understand the need for this ability in our documentation? Maybe we could begin to forge a partnership there that we can get this thing moving. It's been years, as our colleagues have said. It seems to me to be, frankly, a bit strange that on something this important we haven't had some meetings with the disability community.

Could I make it a motion or an amendment?

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

We believe that clause 207 in Bill C-81 should be voted down. We have tried to improve it, through a few amendments here, and that didn't work so we weren't able to improve it. Again, the current coming into force provision does not require the government to act. Additionally, if the clause is left as is, according to the Statutes Repeal Act this act would be automatically repealed within 10 years of receiving royal assent.

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

It's that Bill C-81, in clause 207, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 301 with the following, “206, come into force on the 30th day after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”

Again, the current coming into force provision does not require the government to act. Additionally, if the clause is left as is, according to the Statutes Repeal Act, this act would be automatically repealed within 10 years of receiving royal assent.

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

It's that Bill C-81, in clause 207, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 301 with the following, “206, come into force on the 60th day after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”

[Pierre Rodrigue]

Just to follow up on what my colleague said, I would add that, as of a few months ago, the House Administration began paying a bit more attention to the issue. We had some presentations. We are trying to raise awareness around accessibility. The managers of the various services attended presentations. We examined the publication process, and we identified problems, so we are in the midst of working on a training program to build expertise within the House. In fact, we'll be making a presentation to the diversity council in a week or two. It's an issue we are really working on.

As soon as Bill C-81 was introduced, we created an accessible version in Word and we even made the bill available in braille. That was the first time we did that, so we are beginning to take the right steps.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Many stakeholder groups have reacted positively to the definition of “disability” in Bill C-81, and some have stated that the definition advances beyond the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by recognizing that certain impairments may cause the experience of barriers to be episodic. This amendment recognizes that.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 169 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 170)

[Philippe Dufresne]

It does happen. There are human rights complaints filed from time to time, and they are dealt with. They are responded to.

The human rights process works in such a way that, at the initial stages, there's an attempt to resolve the matter. Those steps are taken. We have not had a complaint that has gone on to decision, but the issues are there, and the human rights principles, both in the Canadian Human Rights Act and in proposed Bill C-81, really go to the efforts that are made at the front end and at the back end to ensure the full participation of persons with disabilities in society.

It's obviously something that is taken very seriously by the House of Commons, the House of Commons administration and the government as well.

It is an area where there is a need for collaboration between the two institutions to ensure that the best way is found to ensure accessibility.

[Philippe Dufresne, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons]

Thank you.

Madam Joint Chair, members of the joint committee, I am pleased to be here, not just as a law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons, but also as the inclusion and diversity champion at the House Administration. I look forward to answering your questions about the legal dimension of accessibility for persons with disabilities, a fundamental issue.

Indeed, accessibility for persons with disabilities with respect to documents and information is protected currently under the Canadian Human Rights Act and in proposed Bill C-81 on ensuring a barrier-free Canada, currently under study before the committee.

I will be happy to take any questions you may have on this important matter as it relates to the issues at hand.

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

We are suggesting with CPC-48:

That Bill C-81, in Clause 117, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 15 on page 61.

These should be omitted from the bill. This section permits the government to exempt certain organizations or undertakings from producing and publishing accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports.

This is just another opportunity for transparency and accountability.

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

Bill C-81 must include timelines for when the chief accessibility officer is to be appointed. The amendment proposes to add:

The Chief Accessibility Officer is to be appointed no later than six months after the day on which this subsection comes into force.

I think that by agreeing to this amendment, it's not only going to show our stakeholders that this is something the government cares about, but also that it's something the government will take action on immediately after it receives royal assent.

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

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal expressed concern that there might be insufficient detail set out in Bill C-81 in relation to appeals and that there was a risk there could be future legal challenges regarding what the tribunal can do and cannot do with an appeal.

It has also been raised by the Department of Justice that 30 days may not be a sufficient amount of time for persons with disabilities who are self-represented to file an appeal.

The effects of this motion would amend clause 104 to provide greater detail for the appeal power of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and provide the tribunal with the ability to extend an individual's time to make an appeal if the circumstances warrant it.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-81, in clause 94, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 51 to line 3 on page 52 with the following:

(2) For greater certainty, complaints in respect of a contravention of any provision of regulations made under subsection 117(1) may only be filed with the Accessibility Commissioner in accordance with subsection (1), and in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the Public Service Employment Act or any other Acts of Parliament, the provisions of this Act prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

This amendment is to designate the accessibility commissioner as the one body to handle compliance with accessibility standards and adjudication of complaints. This bill as it stands does not designate one central agency to oversee compliance with accessibility requirements and adjudicate accessibility complaints. Instead, if this amendment is not passed, enforcement will be done by multiple agencies. These would include the accessibility commissioner, CRTC, CTA and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

As we've heard from stakeholders, they requested that the process be simplified and that we have just one body to which complaints would be directed. Stakeholders testified that it would be easiest and more accessible for them if this was achieved through the accessibility commissioner.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm going to repeat myself, but that's okay; I'm on record.

We believe that clause 68 in Bill C-81 should be voted down. We just don't believe that exemptions should be granted. Again, there's no principled reason why some organizations should be exempted, especially if accessibility is the goal, and we're trying to shift the culture. I don't think that any federally regulated organization should be exempted.

Could we have a recorded vote, please.

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

Mr. Chair, we believe that clause 64 in Bill C-81 should be voted down. We have heard from our witnesses over and over in the briefings that we have received that this bill as is allows for regulated entities to be exempted from complying—exempted from complying—with accessibility requirements. There is no principled reason—no principled reason—why some organizations should be exempted at all. Again, we don't believe there should be any exemptions.

We would request a recorded vote, please.

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

Briefly again, Mr. Chair, we have to leverage our partnerships and the collective bargaining agent for many of the employees who are going to be affected by Bill C-81. A partner needs to be included.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 62 agreed to)

(On clause 63)

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

Mr. Chair, once again, I will just underscore the point that we are establishing with Bill C-81 an accessibility commissioner who needs to be given all of the strength and focus in order to be able to implement effectively. That's who should be notified when these organizations are going through the process to comply with Bill C-81. There's no other agency that should be in charge of that kind of compliance with Bill C-81.

As you'll see in further amendments, I keep underscoring this point of an accessibility commissioner. The importance of the accessibility commissioner needs to be bolstered. We have language here that does not substantiate the office and the mandate of the accessibility commissioner without these amendments.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for assuming what I was going to do.

We believe that clause 59 of Bill C-81 should be voted down. Again, this bill allows for regulated entities to be exempted from complying with accessibility requirements. There is no principled reason why some organizations should be exempted. Any exemptions will weaken the overall purpose of this act.

Again, we do not agree with exemptions. There shouldn't be any in this act.

I would also request a recorded vote, please.

(Clause 59 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)

(On clause 60)

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

We believe that clause 55 in Bill C-81 should be voted down. This bill allows entities to be exempted from complying with accessibility requirements, as Britain has regulated. There is no principled reason why some organizations should be exempted and not others. Any exemptions will weaken the overall purpose of the act, and we believe that there should be no exemptions in this bill.

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

Currently, there is no regulation-making authority set out in Bill C-81 regarding requirements for feedback processes. This amendment will ensure regulators are granted the authority to make regulations in relation to feedback processes.(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Mr. Chair, when we had witnesses before the committee, there was a concern expressed that regulated entities are not required to develop an effective accessibility plan. Even before regulations are in place, this amendment which I will read in a second will help ensure that accessibility plans developed under the act are effective and consistent with the principles that define our approach to accessibility.

I move that Bill C-81, in clause 42, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 17 the following:

(9) The regulated entity must take into account the principles set out in section 6 when it prepares an accessibility plan or an updated version of its accessibility plan.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 42 as amended agreed to)

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

Mr. Chair, once again, this amendment is just underscoring the need for the effectiveness of Bill C-81 moving forward, and the accessibility commissioner is the rightful office that should be notified, not the CRTC.

Basically the CRTC is enforcing and notifying itself where they need to be answerable to the accessibility commissioner.

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

We're asking that Bill C-81 be amended by adding before line 18 on page 12 the following new clause:

33.1(1) In carrying out its mandate, the Standards Organization must, on a continuing basis, (a) hold public consultations on the accessibility standard it should next develop and on any proposed accessibility standard; and (b) make available to the public progress reports respecting the development of accessibility standards. (2) The Standards Organization must make available to the public the minutes of meetings of the board of directors and of advisory or other committees. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the minutes of meetings must include the text of all proposed accessibility standards considered at the meeting.

This is basically adding a level of transparency and accountability to the CASDO board.

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

Mr. Chair, once again we see the importance of having timelines reflected and our expectations for the mandate of Bill C-81 being carried out in a reasonable fashion with this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 22 agreed to)

(On clause 23)

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

Mr. Chair, it's important for us to have as much independence as possible for the organizations that are going to be established under Bill C-81. Some independence from the minister is important, and that's reflected in both of these amendments.

I just want to say, in regard to PV-6, that I know Ms. May would be here to speak to these motions herself, but she did have to get home for the Kristallnacht commemorations that are taking place.

It does reflect how important it is to all of the members here that we have some independence in the agencies that are going to be established for the work that they're going to do.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)]

It's good to see everyone again. I missed all of you. It's been at least a minute since we saw each other.

Once again, I will go through the introductions for those who are new guests to our committee.

Today's meeting is on C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The objective of today's meeting is to resume the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

I would like to take a moment to remind those participating in the proceedings as well as those observing the proceedings in person or on video that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study. As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation and near real-time closed captioning in this room.

Please note that both American sign language and Quebec sign language are being offered to our audience. For those who would like to watch the American sign language interpretation, please sit on the benches to my left. For those who would like to watch the Quebec sign language interpretation, please sit on the benches to my right.

In addition, please note that the first two rows of benches have been reserved for those who wish to avail themselves of these interpretation services. Screens displaying a near real-time closed captioning have also been set up, with the English text to my left and the French text to my right. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being video recorded for the eventual broadcast of this meeting on ParlVu through the committee's website.

In light of these arrangements, the committee would like to ask, if you need to leave the room during the meeting, please do not walk in front of the sign language interpreters. Instead, please use the extremities of the room. In addition, we would ask that those in the room remain seated as much as possible during the meeting to ensure that everyone in the audience can clearly see the sign language interpretation. Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

Once again, I would like to welcome our officials from the Department of Employment and Social Development, James Van Raalte, director general, accessibility secretariat; Benoît Gendron, director, accessibility secretariat; and Erik Lapalme, senior policy analyst, accessibility secretariat.

We will now continue with the clause-by-clause consideration.

I want to let everyone on the committee know that we're going to try to get done by one or two o'clock, before question period. According to the clerk, our sign language interpreters will only be here until 6 p.m. today. That gives us a deadline there as well. I know we are going to try to finish earlier than that.

With that in mind, if you don't feel you have to read out some clauses in the amendments, if it's pretty straightforward, we'll try to move through those as quickly as possible.

We will now pick up where we left off.

(On clause 21)

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

It's a very minor grammar change. I'll read it out:

That Bill C-81, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 11 on page 7 with the following:

“barriers through, among other things,”

That is as opposed to “barriers by”. We want to change that to “through”.

[Kerry Diotte]

I would like to make that amendment so that Bill C-81 in clause 18 be amended by—

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

The amendment reads:

That Bill C-81, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 4 the following:

“(2) For greater certainty, in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the provisions of that Act prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.”

We believe that Bill C-81 must clarify that nothing in the act lessens the existing human rights obligations of federally regulated entities under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that where a conflict arises between the act and another law, the law that provides the greatest accessibility for persons with disabilities will apply.

As the bill is currently written, our fear is that the CTA and the CRTC—more so the CTA—would create standards that wouldn't live up to the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Even though the CTA could create standards that meet the low bar set by this legislation, it might not meet the high bar of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

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

I'll read it out.

I move that Bill C-81, in clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 20 on page 4 with the following: “desire, regardless of their abilities”—

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

It reads:

That Bill C-81, in Clause 6, be amended by

(a) replacing line 4 on page 4 with the following:

“of their disabilities;”

(b) replacing line 7 on page 4 with the following:

“wish to have regardless of their disabilities”

(c) replacing line 12 on page 4 with the following:

“disabilities;”

(d) replacing line 15 on page 4 with the following:

“desire, regardless of their disabilities; and”

(e) replacing line 17 on page 4 with the following:

“must take into account the disabilities of”

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)]

I call the meeting to order.

We have a long night ahead of us, so we're going to get started. We have a bit of an introduction before we get started on clause-by-clause study.

I also want to take a quick moment to say for all of us that our thoughts are with our chair Bryan and his family. To our Liberal colleagues, please pass that on to Bryan when you see him.

We've gone through this in previous meetings, and I understand that most of you know about it, but we will just go through the introduction to explain a bit about some of the infrastructure that's here in the committee room with us.

Welcome to today's meeting on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The objective of today's meeting is to begin the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

I would like to take a moment to remind those participating in the proceedings, as well as those observing the proceedings of the committee in person or on video, that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation on this study of all witnesses and members of the public.

As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation and near real-time closed captioning in the room.

Please note that both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language are being offered to those who are in our audience. For those who would like to watch the American Sign Language interpretation, please sit on the benches to my left, and for those who would like to watch Quebec Sign Language interpretation, please sit on the benches to my right.

In addition, please note that the first two rows of benches have been reserved for those who wish to avail themselves of these interpretation services. Screens displaying the near real-time closed captioning have also been set up, with the English text to my left and the French text to my right. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being videorecorded for the eventual broadcast of this meeting on ParlVU via the committee's website.

In light of these arrangements, the committee asks that if you need to leave the room during the meeting, please do not walk in front of the sign language interpreters. Instead, please use the extremities of the room. In addition, we would ask that those in the room remain seated as much as possible during the meeting. We want to ensure that everyone in the audience can clearly see the sign language interpretation.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or a committee clerk and we will try to address the issue.

In addition, for my colleagues, as you are well aware, please speak in a relatively slower tone so that our interpreters can keep pace with the discussion that's happening here this evening.

I'd like to take a moment to welcome the officials who are with us here this evening and are going to be helping us with any questions that we may have on some of the amendments in the clause-by-clause study. Also, we have some guests with us this evening. We'll get to that in a moment.

From the Department of Employment and Social Development Accessibility Secretariat, we have with us James Van Raalte, director general, accessibility secretariat. James, thanks very much for being with us again. We also have Benoît Gendron, director, and Erik Lapalme, senior policy analyst.

Also, we have with us Ms. Elizabeth May. Thank you very much for joining us this evening, Ms. May. You'll have some opportunity to put your amendments forward.

Pursuant to the order of reference for Wednesday, September 26, 2018, Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, is what we are discussing this evening.

We've introduced our witnesses from the department, and now we will begin our clause-by-clause discussion.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title and the preamble are postponed, and we will now begin with clause 2.

(On clause 2)

We have amendment CPC-1 on clause 2. Is there any discussion?

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and to have the opportunity to show my support for Motion M-192.

I join my hon. colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake in calling on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to provide the House with concrete policy recommendations to ensure that persons with episodic disabilities caused by, among other things, diseases such as multiple sclerosis are adequately protected to ensure equity in government policy to support Canadians across the country.

This topic is something that is quite close to my heart because of individuals within my own family who deal with episodic disabilities. I have watched the impact this has had day in and day out on their ability to function in daily life. There is certainly much more that could be done on their behalf.

Canadians living with a disability, whether mental or physical, have made a lot of progress with regard to fighting for equal access to all aspects of Canadian life. Under the late hon. Jim Flaherty, great progress was made with regard to equal benefits for those who live with a disability. That said, there are still gaps. The current government has promised to address those gaps. It has been slow in doing so. Nevertheless, I think that there is still an opportunity to move forward and to work collaboratively.

Canadians who do not live with a disability or regularly interact with those who do may not consider or appreciate the daily challenges faced by these individuals. There are numerous barriers in Canadian life that should be addressed.

Today our focus is on those who live with an episodic disability. I am talking about a long-term disorder that has periods of good health, and then that good health is disrupted by periods of poor health or disability. The period of time during which a person faces that ill health or that disability could range anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of months to a year or maybe more. Even with excellent medical management and care, people may face these tumultuous times of ill health in a way that is unexpected or that they are unable to predict.

Episodic disabilities impact thousands of Canadians. Multiple sclerosis is the most common, and it has been discussed here today. This disease impacts 77,000 Canadians. Our country has one of the highest prevalence rates in the entire world. As legislators, we certainly have the opportunity to address this, and I hope we do so.

It is important to note that these conditions have a negative impact on workforce participation and income security. These Canadians are struggling with a disease that affects their everyday lives and the ability to provide for themselves. With all the medical challenges these folks face, it is incumbent upon this place to try to alleviate any additional barriers they might face in daily life.

Canadians living with disabilities do not wish to be held back by their conditions. They want to participate in as much as possible. They want to live full and productive lives, like every other Canadian citizen, but oftentimes, they face roadblocks, and many of them come from the bureaucracy of government, such as roadblocks having to do with paperwork for improving different things with regard to their disability and their needs. I would think it would be our desire as a House to make sure that those processes are streamlined.

Motion M-192 was put forward by my colleague, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. The intent of the motion is to strengthen and inform Bill C-81, which is the accessible Canada act, put forward by the current government.

The information gathered from the committee study the motion calls for will be imperative in the application of the proposed government legislation. The two would go hand in hand.

With this motion, it will be the first time legislation and policy will be looked at through an episodic disabilities lens. This is really important. Motion M-192 will look at the challenges individuals with this type of disability face on a day-to-day basis, and it will put forward recommendations for policy change. I am talking about episodic disabilities such as MS, which I mentioned earlier, but I am also talking about things like HIV, cancer, epilepsy, Crohn's disease, diabetes, and arthritis. These are all diseases that should be considered when we think about episodic disabilities.

Some will say that the government's Bill C-81 would address these issues in time and that perhaps we should just wait. Time is critical. Canadians living with an episodic disability very much look forward to changes that will improve their quality of life. They want to see those changes come about as quickly as possible.

Bill C-81 will take some time to pass through this place, whereas right now we have the opportunity to send a motion to committee to begin a study, to call forward witnesses, to hear from experts across the country and to begin addressing this issue today.

As my colleagues in the House said before, it is up to the Canadian government to stand up for people who are fighting MS and other episodic conditions. We need to take action and it is incumbent upon us to make this a priority.

Because MS is the most prevalent, I would like to take a moment to address that condition specifically.

Typically, MS is diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 40. These are crucial years in the growth and advancement of a person's life. These are the years in which people go to school. These are the years where they get an education, they start a career, they raise a family. A teen student with MS may struggle with holding a pen. An individual who has MS and is a mechanic might have a hard time using tools effectively. An individual who is a researcher and needs to use different scientific material or a computer might find that difficult to do when he or she has an episodic condition.

These are real Canadians with daily struggles and it is sometimes difficult for the rest of us to understand what that might look like if we have never had that experience before.

Unfortunately, when it comes to providing financial support to those who live with a disability, bureaucrats often take a black and white approach. For people applying for a benefit, bureaucrats look at their applications and say “Either you can work or you cannot work”. However, there needs to be some middle ground where there is some flexibility. Many of these individuals wish to work. They want to contribute to society. They like what they do and they want to use their skills, their talents and abilities in an effective way. However, sometimes they are not able to do that for a week, a month or sometimes longer. Provisions need to be made for these individuals who find themselves in these unique situations.

Today we have the opportunity to support the motion brought forward by my colleague, calling for a study and to look at this closely to ensure these individuals, particularly those individuals who live with these conditions, are provided with helpful policies.

At this point, I would like to note the fact that this really does have an impact on how these individuals live their daily lives and the types of resources they have available to them. None of us wants to go without an income. None of us wants to live a life that is less than what we see others live. Unfortunately, many of these individuals who have an episodic disability find themselves in that place.

It is my request of the House to support this motion. I believe the members on this side are unified on this. I believe we have the government's support. I very much look forward to this going to committee and being looked at with the utmost integrity and then having us move forward toward change. We have the opportunity to stand and speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable.

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the second hour of debate on the motion introduced by my hon. colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. His personal story of his wife's battle with MS is truly gripping and we all take it very seriously.

This motion proposes that the House of Commons instruct the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA in short, to study the issue of episodic disabilities to ensure the people who live with these disabilities are adequately protected and that there is equity in government policy.

First, it is important to understand that a person can simultaneously live with both permanent and episodic disabilities. Every disability is different. What sets an episodic disability apart is that, unlike disabilities that may have more consistent and predictable impacts on daily living, an episodic disability is marked by fluctuating periods and degrees of illness and wellness. Episodic disabilities are often life-long and chronic conditions. It is difficult to predict when episodes of disability will occur, how severe they will be and how long they will last.

Because episodic disabilities can be unpredictable, people with these types of conditions may face particular barriers to their social and economic participation. For example, they face barriers to employment and they are often ineligible for benefits and services, including those provided by the Government of Canada. As a result, people with episodic disabilities may be vulnerable to experiencing income insecurity. Our government recognizes that current programs and policies for people with disabilities are generally based on an understanding of disability as a continuous state, rather than one that fluctuates over time. We also recognize that programs and policies do not always meet the specific needs of people with episodic disabilities, so we need to obtain a better understanding of the socio-demographic, economic and disability-related characteristics of Canadians who experience episodic disabilities in order to better meet their needs and eliminate the barriers they face to full participation.

Advancing the economic and social inclusion of people with episodic disabilities aligns with our government's commitment to ensuring a more accessible and inclusive Canada. On June 20, we tabled in Parliament Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act. This proposed legislation would proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility in areas under federal jurisdiction. New requirements in priority areas such as employment, developed in co-operation with partners and Canadians with disabilities, would help to ensure that all Canadians can fully participate in their communities and workplaces.

As I said during the first hour of debate, Bill C-81 is inclusive of episodic disabilities. In defining a disability, Bill C-81 specifically recognizes impairments or functional limitations that are episodic in nature. With Bill C-81, we would transform how we think about accessibility and ensure that in working toward the realization of a barrier-free Canada, we are inclusive of all people with disabilities, including people with episodic disabilities. We know there is more we can do to advance the inclusion of Canadians with episodic disabilities, particularly with regard to improving their financial security.

Let us not forget that many supports and services for people with episodic disabilities fall primarily within the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments. Employers also play a key role in advancing the financial well-being of people with episodic disabilities, through the provision of flexible work arrangements as well as other accommodations and supports. We need to work together, then, to support and advance the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities.

The findings of a HUMA study could assist in identifying realistic solutions. They could also shed light on emerging ideas and best practices in advancing the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities.

Therefore, we support the motion of the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to give instruction to the HUMA committee to study the needs of persons with episodic disabilities. We support it because it works toward our government's aim to create a truly accessible Canada where all Canadians have an equal opportunity to succeed, have the same rights and obligations, and are equal participants in society.

Let me remind the House that our government has taken significant action to enhance federal programs in place to support people with disabilities. For example, the Canada Labour Code was amended to provide employees with the right to request flexible work arrangements, such as flexible start and finish times, and the ability to work from home. This could be beneficial to an employee with an episodic disability.

The Government of Canada is also committed to filling knowledge gaps around the experiences of people with episodic disabilities. The Statistics Canada 2017 Canadian survey on disability is the first national survey to contain questions aimed at identifying people with episodic disabilities. It will provide valuable information to be used by governments, disability organizations and other stakeholders. Results are expected to be released in the near future.

Our government also supports people with disabilities, including episodic disabilities, through initiatives such as the labour market development agreements and the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. Moreover, we have been working with the provinces and territories toward Canada's accession to the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

These measures, in addition to Bill C-81, will help our government lead the way to real improvements to inclusion and accessibility in Canada.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that our government supports the motion before us today. Given HUMA's busy agenda over the coming months, we propose that an amendment be made to the motion to allow more time for the completion of a comprehensive study. Instead of February 2019, we suggest that the committee be required to report its findings to the House of Commons by May 16, 2019.

This is an important topic, and we should give the HUMA committee the time it needs to get this right. Our government remains committed to upholding and safeguarding the rights of all people with disabilities, including episodic disabilities, to enable them to reach their full potential.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to my hon. colleague's motion this afternoon. It is a private members' motion, Motion No. 192, put forward by my friend and colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Simply put, private members' Motion No. 192 would work to advance government policy to ensure that persons living with episodic diseases like MS are given the supports they need and deserve. Who does not deserve to be treated equally? I am very glad to be wearing my MS band, which I got at a fundraiser a couple of weeks ago in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil.

Before I continue, I would like to thank the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for his passion and hard work on this very important initiative, and for sharing his story and how much this means to his family. I would also like to thank the MS Society, which has partnered with my colleague to help construct this private member's motion. Every day, the MS Society works tirelessly to find a cure and advocate for the 77,000 Canadians affected by this terrible disease.

Private members' Motion No. 192 has the potential to make a positive impact on not only the lives of people living with episodic diseases, but their families as well. This motion would also bring about much needed awareness about episodic diseases. As I have learned after listening to my colleague, MS is not the only disease classified as episodic. The list includes diabetes, epilepsy and cancer. Awareness is an important step in finding a cure.

In June of this year, the government tabled Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Although it offers some help to strengthen support for Canadians with disabilities, it will take time to pass, and time is critical to people living with these terrible diseases. We are waiting for what amendments would be added moving forward, but welcome amendments that would address the needs of those affected by episodic diseases.

Private members' Motion No. 192 will offer parliamentarians a perspective on how people with episodic disabilities live their lives, and how their families are affected by these diseases. MS alone affects 77,000 Canadians, which is one in 385 Canadians. Every 77 seconds, someone is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in Canada. It is surprising to know Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world. It is often referred to as “Canada's Disease”. Sixty per cent of adults diagnosed are between the ages of 20 and 49, and women are three times more likely to be diagnosed than men and MS, along with all other episodic diseases, has a lasting impact on the lives of so many.

In my riding of Barrie—lnnisfil, my constituents have taken leadership in the fight against MS. The Mandarin MS Walk is one of the largest walks in the country, bringing together hundreds of participants and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. This year alone, it raised $200,000. I am very pleased to have attended this year's event, as I do every year with my colleague from Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte

This past weekend, I was at a fundraiser and bought this band at the Two of a Kind Craft Market put on by the Simcoe Muskoka chapter of the MS Society of Canada. It is simply amazing to see what the constituents in my riding are doing, and their leadership should not go unnoticed. It is why I have taken the time to mention them today. The time spent and money raised by these initiatives are proof that Canadians are taking action, and so should their parliamentarians.

Now, besides recognizing that episodic diseases take a toll on a person's body, we must remember that these diseases also take a toll on the lives of family members and their way of life. Many of those living with these diseases and their families are treated differently. Finding work is hard due to the unpredictability of the disease. Access to resources such as student assistance and apprenticeship programs is hampered, and supports for families are minimal at this time.

Private member's Motion No. 192 is an opportunity to right these wrongs and fix these deficiencies. As the official opposition, we want to see, and will support, a realistic strategy to break down the barriers facing people with disabilities.

I, as well as my other hon. colleagues, believe that everyone, whether disabled or not, deserves to participate fully in all aspects of life, but we must keep in mind that different diseases affect people differently. We have to be mindful that legislation like Bill C-81 must not be a one-size-fits-all solution and that episodic diseases are, in fact, diseases.

The objectives of private member's Motion No. 192 are simple, as my hon. colleague mentioned when he introduced it. It would create better employment supports for people living with episodic disabilities. It would work to improve economic conditions for those living with episodic diseases. It would allow for better treatment, improve and raise the standard of care they receive, improve housing and ensure the government is investing in ways to find a cure for these diseases.

As I said earlier, and I echo my hon. colleagues, we must act now to get this passed. People affected by MS and diseases like it sometimes wait weeks, months or even years to get the treatment or care they need. I have received several letters and emails on this issue and a common denominator is time, and some people just do not have it.

Let us take action today to ensure the playing ground is even for all Canadians. Everyone deserves the chance to contribute to their community and their country and I hope that everyone in the chamber will stand together, along with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, in voting in favour of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm afraid we don't have any time left for you, Gordie. I'm sorry.

I want to thank everybody both here and coming to us via video conference today, for contributing to this study. It's hard for us on this side to hear some of these stories, so I can only imagine the challenges you are facing telling these stories. Thank you very much.

I would like to remind my colleagues that on November 6 we have committee business. Committee business will be in room 228, Valour, on November 6.

On November 7, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., we're going to start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-81. That's going to be in room 415, Wellington Building.

On November 8, at our normal time, 8:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., we'll go again to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-81. We could potentially have an afternoon meeting at 3:30 p.m. on November 8, if necessary, to finish the clause-by-clause considerations. Hopefully, we don't need to use that, but that is an option if needed.

Thank you very much, everybody.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much. I do have to step in. We are out of time, but I want to thank all of you for being here by video conference and, of course, here in Ottawa.

For my colleagues, there are just a few things for future business that I need to address before everybody packs up.

On November 1, we are once again going to be talking about Motion No. 110, meeting with witnesses. That one is not going to be in here. It's going to be in room 268 of Valour.

On November 6, next Tuesday, we're going to have a committee business day, also in 268 Valour.

We're going to be starting clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-81 next week. We really have only one day for this in the schedule, so I'm recommending that we add, as we did last week, a clause-by-clause study from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in this space, room 415. That would be on November 7, the Wednesday of next week. That will give us two solid days to do the clause-by-clause study. I think it's necessary given the number of amendments we expect to come to us with regard to C-81. If anybody has issue with that, we can talk offline.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

Petitions

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention the fact that one year and five days ago, I rose in this House on the same issue on which I rise today, which is fair and reasonable access for all Canadians to participate fully in the democratic processes of this great institution. I am referring, as you pointed out, to the public paper petitions that we, as MPs, receive from Canadians right across this country on a variety of topics.

As Speaker Gaspard Fauteux said, in 1947:

All authorities agree that the right of petitioning parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure.

This was later echoed by the Hon. James McGrath in his third report to the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. He stated:

Public petitions addressed to the House of Commons constitute one of the most direct means of communication between the people and Parliament. It is by this means that people can voice their concerns to the House on matters of public interest.

As you will recall, I received a petition from constituents that was printed on paper that was 11 inches by 17 inches, or ledger size, and it was rejected by the clerk of petitions for not being on paper of the “usual size”, even though it had only been enlarged so that the constituents and petitioners could actually see what they were signing.

What exactly does “usual size” mean? Some people would interpret that as legal or letter size paper, which is exactly what was decided by the clerk's office. However, “usual size” does not mean the same thing to all Canadians. As a matter of fact, this House has a history of accepting petitions printed on varying sizes of paper and getting those certified.

On December 10, 1974, Mr. John Roberts, the member of Parliament for St. Paul's, successfully tabled a petition in the House of Commons that was on a single piece of paper that was over 370 feet long, longer than a Canadian football field. Then on April 6, 1982, Mr. Bill Domm, the MP for Peterborough, tabled a petition that was on paper 36 inches wide and three and a half miles long and weighed 247 pounds. In fact, it took all the pages and four MPs to carry it in. It included 135,327 signatures, making it the largest petition the Commons has ever received.

A few years later, the House underwent major reforms to the Standing Orders, and one section addressed was petitions. Prior to these reforms, petitions were first presented in the House, and it was up to the MPs to make sure that they were in order. After tabling, the clerk would examine them to make sure that they complied and would report back, and that would be it.

After the reforms, petitions were required to have a minimum of 25 valid signatures and to be examined before tabling, and the government had to respond within 45 days. However, notably, there were no changes to the size requirements.

Mr. Speaker, my last point of order on this matter is your own ruling, in which you stated:

The...House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 1166, states that only petitions printed on 21.5 centimetres by 28 centimetres, better known as 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches, or 21.5 centimetres by 35.5 centimetres, or 8 1/2 inches by 14 inches, sheets can be certified.

Having said this, I can understand the member's frustration. Thus, I suggest she could raise the matter with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which could, if it sees fit, consider changing the requirements for petitions.

I dug a bit deeper, and with the Library's assistance, I learned that at no time has this House of Commons ever defined the term “usual size”. It would appear that this is only an interpretation of a specific size requirement, and it comes from officials and not from the members of this House.

As for the standing committee, Mr. Speaker, I did take your advice, yet here we are, over one year later, and nothing has changed. The Liberals could have agreed to change the Standing Order after I rose on my last point of order, but they did not. The Liberals could have addressed this issue at PROC, but they did not. The Liberals again could have addressed this issue after I raised it once more in my speech on Bill C-81, but they did not. For a government that says it wants to make life easier for people living with disabilities, we are not seeing much action.

Take, for example, Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, in its current version. There are no timelines and there is not even a coming-into-force date. This would allow the government to pass the bill and actually never do anything with it.

We need to act now to make Canadians' lives better because, as the Minister of Accessibility said in her speech to this House on Bill C-81:

We have to wait until individuals are denied a service, a job, a program, and then the system kicks in to determine if that denial was discriminatory. We literally have to wait until people are discriminated against before we can help them. These laws place the burden of advancing human rights on individuals.

Today, I am proud to rise on behalf of those individuals with a petition that was rejected by the clerk of petitions because it was on ledger-size paper.

There are two special features to today's petition. First, each signatory has some degree of visual impairment, which is why it is on ledger-size paper. It asks that the government amend Standing Order 36(1.1)(c). The second interesting feature is that it was signed by almost 200 parliamentarians, from all caucuses but one, in both Houses. I did invite members of the government side to join us in signing it, and I was very disappointed when they all refused.

I do hope that this new research I am providing will help fix this unacceptable state of affairs. I know that no member of this House wants to make the lives of those living with disabilities any more burdensome, nor do they want to infringe on any Canadian's fundamental and constitutional rights.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for me to table this petition calling on the government to amend Standing Order 36(1.1)(c).

Elections Modernization Act

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House once again to speak to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. Throughout my speech, I will share how this bill will affect many citizens in my riding.

As members know, the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is a half circle of the city of Halifax and Dartmouth. The riding has seen the largest increase in the number of seniors in Nova Scotia in the last five years. We also have the largest number of military members and veterans, who make up 23% of the communities within our riding. We have a lot of youth and young families and many seniors. Therefore, my speech today will touch on how this bill will help these individuals.

There is no doubt that this new law will make the system much more transparent for voters. What is more, it will make voting more accessible for those who have difficulty getting out to their polling stations. It will also make the system much more secure.

When we talk about democracy, we should start at the base to see how this bill was prepared and presented here today. I want to thank the minister for her excellent work and leadership on this bill. However, let us look at how this bill came about, because that is true democracy.

The Chief Electoral Officer made 130 recommendations to improve our electoral system. Those were of course reflected on, researched and consulted on before he came forward with them. Out of those 130 recommendations, about 87% of were included in this bill. Therefore, this was not one party deciding the full framework of this bill, because a major part of it came from recommendations that were made.

Also, we should mention the committee's work. There was a lot of debate and many witnesses came forward to speak about how we could improve the system. There were many amendments that came forward. I want to make sure that the people in Canada are aware that 70 amendments that came forward were accepted. That is not one party controlling, but rather all parties coming together. We had 16 amendments from the Conservative side that were approved. We had two amendments from the New Democratic Party that were approved. Therefore, 70 amendments were approved altogether, which is a large number. We also had some feedback and information that came about through discussion and debate at the Senate level.

I want to touch on some of the key ones, such as accessibility. One of my former students is the Speaker in the House today in the Nova Scotia Legislature. Mr. Murphy, a former student, had an accident playing hockey when he was very young and is in a wheelchair. Of course he has to have accessibility not only to federal institutions but to voting as well. Therefore, we want to make sure that we are answering his needs, and the needs of other Canadians who may have other challenges or disabilities, which is extremely important. People are now able to vote at home or in residences where seniors may not be able to make their way to voting stations. We even have some reimbursements in the bill for physical changes that need to be made with respect to accessibility to accommodate others.

The second one I want to speak about is our Canadian Armed Forces. If we look back, the Chief Electoral Officer said that we had to improve and give much more flexibility to the Canadian Armed Forces in voting. That was a key recommendation. We would be moving forward on that, which is extremely important. Canadian Armed Forces voters could now choose the method they would like best to vote so that they could have access to that important democratic right. To guarantee the integrity of the vote, we would also increase the information exchange between Elections Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Those are very important changes to respond to, as I said earlier, a big part of my riding, where 23% of constituents are in the military or are veterans.

We would be encouraging more voters to vote. There are certain things that would be reinstated in this bill that were not there before under the so-called unfair elections act the former Conservative government had. I say so-called, because looking closely, there were a lot of issues with that bill.

We would also reinstate the voter's information card as a piece of ID and reintroduce vouching, which was removed in the Conservative's bill. This is another key measure to ensure that all eligible electors are able to cast a vote. This legislation, as introduced by the minister, contains limits on how vouching could be used to ensure that it could not be used in a way that threatened its integrity. For example, an elector could only vouch for one person in the same polling station. An elector could not vouch for more than one person. Finally, a person who was vouched for could not vouch for someone else. That would put some limitations on vouching, but it would be reinstated so that we could ensure that more Canadians were able to vote. Through this bill, over a million Canadians would have access to voting who did not have it under the Conservatives' bill, the so-called Fair Elections Act.

There were also important changes to this bill. I think it must be noted that it would ban the use of foreign money, which would be severely limited through this bill. Again, many of these changes came through the committee's work and from recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and others.

Social networks would have to create a registry of all digital advertising published. We would be able to better track who spent what doing what and then follow up on that. We would also put in place some protections in the new registries for the future electorate, young Canadians aged 14 to 17.

I want to finish by saying that this bill would continue the transparency our government has brought forward since 2015 through Bill C-50, which was the political financing bill, the modernization of the access to information act, and the accessible Canada act, Bill C-81, which is currently being debated.

I want to thank committee members, the Chief Electoral Officer and Canadians for their input. I know that this is a big improvement for Canadians. We are looking forward to making sure that Canadians have better access to voting for parties or individuals, whomever they desire.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to spend a moment reinforcing what my colleague is talking about, the great work of the committee and of the government on Bill C-76 as it pertains to making sure Canadian elections are inclusive and barrier-free. If we take a look at our government approach as a whole when it pertains to persons with disabilities, we are trying to make the federal workplace barrier-free through Bill C-81 and are trying to make sure our elections process is inclusive and fair. This is a process that should be inclusive to all Canadians and should prevent foreign interference in our Canadian elections system, and that is exactly what Bill C-76 would do.

[James Roots]

[Interpretation] Bill C-81 is currently a bit confusing in terms of where these complaints go. Some complaints may go directly to CRTC, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, CTA or then, fourth, to the accessibility commissioner officer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that they make a distinction between an accessibility complaint and a discriminative complaint. How is the accessibility complaint not discriminative? I don't understand that at all.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to our witnesses.

The testimony continues to be very, very informative.

Mr. Roots and Mr. Folino, I'm so sorry for the challenges you faced this week on the voting. That's not acceptable, and our hope is that Bill C-81 will go a long way to removing and tearing down those barriers and opening up your worlds.

Mr. Arnot, thanks for your testimony. My first question is to you.

The underlying theme, from the comments we have heard about timelines and reporting in the study thus far, seems to be one of concern regarding insufficient accountability mechanisms.

Contrary to an assertion made during the previous session, the accessibility commissioner would be required to report to Parliament by submitting an annual report to the minister, who is then required to table that report in Parliament.

In addition, clauses 131 and 132 also require independent reviews of this legislation: after the first five years under clause 131, and every 10 years thereafter under clause 132.

Mr. Arnot, based on your experience in Saskatchewan, are these accountability mechanisms adequate? Can you also suggest ways that they could be improved? Thank you.

[James Roots]

[Interpretation] If you give public funds to CBC, for example, it means that CBC needs to comply and needs to be accessible. As they are an employer, any content that they provide has to be accessible. With broadcasters on TV as well, it needs to be accessible. It could mean that there's captioning and I have access, but then on the website, cbc.ca, the same programming doesn't have captioning, so there's a barrier there. It's the same program.

There's a loophole. We would like to see Bill C-81 resolve those loopholes, close those gaps and remove the barriers.

[David Arnot]

It's my sincere honour and pleasure to appear before this esteemed committee this morning.

Thank you, Chair, Mr. May, for giving me the opportunity to make this presentation.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates that by 2036 one in five Canadians will have a disability. This is not surprising, considering our demographics are changing. We're all getting older. The boomers cohort, of which I am a member, is getting older; they have expectations, they have wealth, they are vocal, and they need and expect accessibility.

Human rights commissions are at the front lines of dealing with the business, social and individual impact of not accommodating people with disabilities. Last year more than 57% of the complaints that came to the human rights commission in Saskatchewan were disability-related, and fully one-third of those complaints were disability in the area of employment.

In 2015, a study conducted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in collaboration with the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies, CASHRA, representing all the human rights commissions in Canada, found remarkable consistency with this negative statistic. Almost half of all human rights complaints in Canada in these jurisdictions between the years 2009 and 2013 were disability-related.

Canadians with disabilities experience systemic discrimination and inconsistency in the built environment, employment and access to services within and across all jurisdictions. Canadians with disabilities deserve a systemic response to systemic discrimination. That response must be common, consistent and continuous. In my view, it must use restorative justice principles to create a restored relationship in a positive way.

If I draw a criticism of Bill C-81—and it is really a reminder more than it is a criticism—it is that we must remind ourselves of the intersectionality facing individuals with disabilities. Particularly, number one, women with disabilities, children with disabilities and indigenous people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted. I am mindful that governments are working to support these groups I've just identified, but I think leadership is required, and existing good governance through legislation enables the federal government to take up that leadership role. It's very necessary in this country. The government, the minister and this legislation have the capacity, in my opinion, to leverage change through strategic use of grants and with the sharing of best practices through, for instance, a federal-provincial-territorial table in the future.

In the present, Bill C-81 is significant because, first, it is a first strong effort to provide consistency to the rubric of accessibility in our country and because there is a strong business case for greater accessibility. There is a moral as well as a demographic urgency for doing so, because people with disabilities are the largest minority group in Canada that anyone can join. They deserve consideration.

Let me take you through these points.

First, let us consider the need for a consistent rubric for accessibility. Our country has a national building code and CSA standards that set out minimum standards for accessibility, and some provinces and many municipalities have moved well beyond those standards. All provinces have human rights codes or acts, and they are considered quasi-constitutional, meaning there is a paramountcy to that legislation. That legislation in each province and territory trumps or is paramount over any other legislation, meaning that all acts must comply with the human rights code.

The courts have stated that building codes and human rights codes are, in many cases, complementary. They work together to provide accessibility. Because their quasi-constitutionality is very important, human rights codes trump building codes. Putting people first before systems, as human rights codes do, makes very good sense.

I say this to emphasize that connecting the proposed legislation, Bill C-81, to the Canadian Human Rights Act makes sense at this point. First, it puts people first, before some significant, complex and powerful systems. Second, the bill represents a significant step in our country's evolution concerning disability rights. I use the word “evolution” on purpose, because positive change comes in increments, and I believe we can learn in Canada from the American experience in this regard.

Chai Feldblum, one of the architects of the Americans with Disabilities Act, told me that she and others faced push-back and uncertainty at the time that legislation came into force in the United States. What we can learn from that is, first, there is likely to be some controversy with this introduction, and second, there's likely to be litigation, but frankly, that is to be embraced.

Up front, Bill C-81 contemplates the need to resolve competing interests in a considerate way. Human rights commissions in Canada deal with balancing those interests on a daily basis. It's nothing to fear. It's part of our business, and I think it's done very well.

When I was given the opportunity to comment on the path forward during the consultation process, I suggested that the accessibility commissioner should have a statutory right to intervene in matters that involve accessibility issues that are not before the accessibility commissioner or the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal—in other words, issues that are before other administrative tribunals that have jurisdiction on accessibility issues. By “intervention” I mean that the accessibility commissioner should have the right to bring evidence and to bring legal argument at those other places, those other administrative tribunals.

I also suggested that the accessibility commissioner should have a statutory right to launch a systemic complaint in matters that involve accessibility issues. That is an efficient way to resolve disability issues, in my opinion, because it provides resolution for a large cohort of individuals, as opposed to a one-off situation. It provides an opportunity, for example, to deal with issues for all Canadians who are blind or partially sighted or all Canadians who are deaf or hard of hearing. What it would bring is a certainty, a consistency and a uniformity to all rulings with respect to accessibility that come from administrative tribunals in the federal context.

I reflect for a moment on the consultation process that was used to inform Bill C-81. I think it's worth remembering that the process excited the imaginations of people with disabilities in this country. It raised expectations. It dealt with a sea of frustration and emotions and the marginalization that people with disabilities have had in this country for 50 years or longer. It also excited the imaginations of those who advocate on behalf of people with disabilities. There was a sense that things could change, that things would change. This represented an incredible opportunity to make long-needed change and to have much-needed recognition.

In recognizing that Bill C-81 has fundamental application to significant areas of life for people with disabilities—I'm thinking about the federal jurisdiction in transportation, communications and banking—we must also recognize that there is a strong business case for accessibility. The Conference Board of Canada suggests that getting accessibility correct in the workplace could have a positive $16.8-billion impact on the Canadian economy. In 2013, the panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disability reported that despite an aging population and a looming skills shortage, this significant talent pool of persons with disability is being overlooked.

Now let's look at the intersection of the business case and the moral imperative.

Bill C-81 is proposing a framework from which to discuss disability and accessibility. It recognizes the need to create and apply standards to deal with a social reality. At the same time, it implies a business cost—buildings, spaces and services require resources—yet it also implies that the needs of an often unconsidered yet growing cohort need to be given top priority.

The creation of best practice standards will inform the practices in all jurisdictions.

In my experience in accommodating disability, I have found that human rights commissions and the courts aim to resolve inaccessibility based on what is reasonable and the best practice. Fundamentally, I am saying it will be difficult to ignore the existence of well-reasoned research and well-reasoned arguments on accessibility standards, particularly when those standards have application throughout Canada.

I believe that human rights commissions, labour standards, and health and safety organizations will regard Bill C-81, the work of the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization and the work of the accessibility commissioner as giving significant guidance to the work those agencies are currently doing on the ground, on the front line, in provinces and territories. There's a significant political and economic influence, then, that will be available through the wise actions of the incumbent accessibility commissioner.

It has been said that disability is “the last bastion of prejudice”. Bill C-81 offers a substantial support against that notion. It affirms and supplies teeth to the notion that people with disabilities deserve equal moral consideration.

Bill C-81 in part legislates the equal moral consideration contemplated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Article 9 of the CRPD requires Canada to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers for persons with disability. Bill C-81 partially meets the obligation of these commitments, and it amplifies the need for equality, fairness, equity and the respect for human dignity that exists in all human rights acts and codes in this country.

Fundamentally, accessibility is crucial to the inclusion of citizens with disabilities in the social, cultural and economic life of our country. Increasing accessibility in buildings, businesses, and the public and community spaces we all use makes good sense from a business perspective. It is also a best practice for inclusion of people with disabilities, so that all people in Canada are able to participate to the fullest extent in the life of Canada.

We need a barrier-free Canada. We need legislation to ensure a barrier-free Canada and to eliminate these barriers faced by people with disabilities currently. I believe the legislation is a significant and bold step for a better future for Canadians with disabilities.

Thank you for allowing me to make this presentation to you this morning, and for your time.

[Frank Folino, President, Canadian Association of the Deaf]

[Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to appear before this committee to study Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act.

My name is Frank Folino, and I am the president of the Canadian Association of the Deaf.

This is my colleague, James Roots, executive director of the Canadian Association of the Deaf.

The CAD-ASC is a national non-profit organization that promotes accessibility for deaf people who use American Sign Language, ASL, and

Quebec sign language.

CAD-ASC works with the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, FALA, to advise and improve Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act. Bill C-81 is very important for persons with disabilities and deaf persons, as it would lead to an improvement in their quality of life. The Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, has stated that 5,000 new jobs will be created for people with disabilities and for deaf, blind and hard-of-hearing persons in Canada.

We commend the Government of Canada for introducing Bill C-81, which is the right step towards becoming an accessible Canada. CAD-ASC and the deaf community want Bill C-81 to be improved and to become law.

We would like to recommend the recognition of ASL and LSQ as official languages of deaf people in Canada because they do actually provide full accessibility to information, communication and services. It will make a huge difference for deaf Canadians, and you will be in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, that Canada ratified in March 2010, which has five different articles that mention the specific rights of sign languages.

Currently, there are 45 countries whose governments have recognized their national sign languages, including Ireland, Greece, Scotland, Italy, Mexico and New Zealand. Canada is not on this list. Such recognition in Canada would ensure the removal of barriers and ensure equal access, which is an important step towards becoming an inclusive, accessible Canada.

As we integrate both English and French societies, this means that deaf people in Canada would finally have equal access to federal government services. Examples would be production of accessible videos on federal government websites, provision of ASL and LSQ video interpreting at federal government services—Service Canada would be one example—provision of picture-in-picture ASL and LSQ interpretation services for broadcast television and digital communications such as federal leadership debates or emergency alert announcements, and any other kind of accessibility services.

Let's imagine for a moment how Bill C-81 will improve the lives of deaf people in Canada. Let's say that a deaf person is at the Ottawa International Airport and his or her seat needs to be reassigned due to an overbooking by the airline. The deaf person approaches the airline customer service representative at the gate, and they connect by video interpreting services. Immediately, they are able to communicate in ASL or LSQ through a video interpreter to resolve the overbooking issue and to reduce stress and confusion.

A second example would be a deaf person who is watching a federal political leaders' debate with sign language interpretation. For English, the debate has ASL interpreters, and for French, it has LSQ interpreters, picture-in-picture on screen, with closed-captioning in English and in French so that we as deaf people can participate and be privy to what is happening during the debate in order to have a good understanding of the different platforms that the candidates have.

Therefore, we believe amendments are needed for Bill C-81 to achieve its stated purpose. Today we highlight several recommendations.

One, we recommend that Bill C-81 include an amendment that will recognize ASL and LSQ as official languages of deaf people in Canada. This will allow Canada to join other countries that have already included in their national accessibility legislation recognition of their national sign languages, following the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Second, timelines are essential for ensuring that Bill C-81 will advance accessibility. We recommend dates and timelines of up to five years for development and implementation of accessibility standards and regulations for each targeted area.

Third, CAD-ASC agrees with the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, or FALA, recommendation that the six targeted barrier areas must be expanded to include communication. This change will bring focus to barriers, accommodations and supports for people with communication disabilities, as well as for people who are deaf.

Fourth, Bill C-81 does not designate a single point of access to oversee the complaints process. We recommend standardization of process for timely resolution of complaints, and a single point of access that supports deaf people and people with disabilities who present complaints, which will avoid unnecessary barriers, delays, and inefficiencies to the process. To avoid these problems, the accessibility commissioner should receive all complaints about violations of accessibility standards.

Fifth, financial support must be available to assist with legal fees for individual complaints.

Sixth, we recommend that the proposed Canadian accessibility standards development organization, CASDO, include a minimum of two-thirds of deaf people and people with disabilities on its board, staff, executives and committees.

Seventh, we recommend that any entity that receives funding from the federal Government of Canada comply with federal accessibility standards and regulations.

Eighth, Bill C-81 must be provided with sufficient and permanent funding to enable people with disabilities and organizations of people with disabilities, including deaf people, to achieve significant advances in accessibility and inclusion in all federal jurisdictions.

Ninth, we recommend that the legislation must mandate the use of comprehensive annual performance reports conducted by the chief accessibility officer based on outcomes achieved.

Finally, we recommend that legislation create, develop and support programs that improve the employment and prospects of people with disabilities and deaf people in Canada.

Our materials include several more recommendations to address other important accessibility issues, for an inclusive, accessible Canada that includes 3.5 million deaf, blind and hard-of-hearing Canadians, to ensure that they have equal rights to participate in Canadian society. It will allow Canada to better meet its human rights obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

We would be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you very much.

[Angela Bonfanti]

As part of this consultative process since 2016, whether it be through government consultation, public town halls, thematic round tables, the Prime Minister's youth forum, or an online survey, we at CNIB applaud the federal government for this legislation. CNIB was also part of two disability consultative groups funded by the federal government to consult with Canadians with disabilities from coast to coast to coast.

After Bill C-81 was tabled this June, CNIB analyzed the legislation, and we conducted our own nationwide survey on the legislation with people who have sight loss and with sight-loss advocates. Our recommendations and testimony today are based on what we heard over the past three years and are also based on our experience over the last 100 years.

As my colleague Robbi started to indicate, CNIB believes that substantial amendments are needed to strengthen Bill C-81. We agree with many of the recommendations that other disability organizations have brought forward. We would like to highlight a few recommendations we believe are key to a truly barrier-free Canada.

We agree with the need to create a new accessibility commissioner and a chief accessibility officer. As David Lepofsky has mentioned, there is a fear among Canadians with sight loss that a splintering effect will make enforcement and compliance with this legislation, future regulations and standards more onerous for Canadians with disabilities. We advise against further creation of bureaucratic processes in fear that a bottleneck, as it has in the past, may occur when the office of the chief accessibility officer is up and running. We have many years of experience advising and making structures more accessible and straightforward. We urge the government to consult with us when these new offices are being set up.

We believe that to create a society free of barriers, products and goods that are accessed by taxpaying Canadians should be accessible to all. That is why CNIB urges the scope of Bill C-81 to be broadened to require the federal government to procure materials, technologies and services. This will also help to facilitate a shift in the private sector, which will want to do business with the federal government and hopefully by extension do better business themselves.

Frankly, many procured materials are inaccessible. If the government creates a procurement strategy with accessibility in mind, everyone will benefit.

As Minister Qualtrough currently has ministerial oversight regarding this legislation and Canada's procurement strategy, she is in a prime position to ensure barriers are removed.

For example, point-of-sale terminals are often inaccessible for persons with sight loss and other disabilities. They have to ask a stranger to indicate whether they've put in the right PIN. They have to give a stranger their personal financial information to ensure that their groceries are bought and paid for. If the government procured a point-of-sale terminal that was accessible and mandated that all point-of-sale terminals used by the federal government, such as those used at Canada Post, were accessible, this could greatly shift the use of point-of-sale terminals that non-federally regulated entities utilize.

The world is changing quickly. New technologies are being created daily, and old practices are being modernized. Organizations and companies are changing the way business is done. People can print wirelessly. Documents are now saved on the cloud instead of on wired networks and in filing cabinets.

I hold in my hand a smart phone, something many federal organizations already provide for their staff. Robbi and I have used the same piece of technology to help us get our jobs done. This is through the use of artificial intelligence and other applications that are built into this device. It's not the only solution, but it is an economical solution, and frankly, it is already being done.

Finally, if the federal government wants a society without barriers, then all future legislation, policy, regulations and funding should be reviewed through a disability lens: “nothing for us without us”. This is consistent with the federal government's gender-based analysis plus that was done in the past few budgets. As Canadians get older and live older, they are more likely to develop a disability. The government's policies, legislation and regulations should not perpetuate further barriers.

The sight-loss population unemployment rate is three times the size of the national average. We believe this could be key to helping us to finally close that gap in employment.

With the amendments stated today, as well as others you have heard from the disability community, Bill C-81 can be a strong piece of legislation and ultimately create an accessible Canada.

We thank the committee for inviting CNIB to appear before you, and we look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

[Christopher Sutton, National Executive Director, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association]

Good morning, and thank you for the honour of inviting the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association here today as you learn more about Bill C-81.

The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association was established in 1982 and is the leading consumer advocacy organization representing the needs of nearly four million Canadians with hearing loss. With a network from coast to coast to coast, we work co-operatively with professionals, service providers, government and others to provide life-enhancing information, support and advocacy to ensure that people with hearing loss can overcome barriers in all aspects of their lives.

My name is Christopher Sutton. I'm the national executive director of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association. Like most of my colleagues here before you today, I've had the privilege to work on behalf of people with disabilities and have worked in corporate, not-for-profit and government sectors. Even with my advanced level of education and professional success, as a person who lives with an invisible disability, I live with barriers on a daily basis.

The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association supports Bill C-81. While we acknowledge that laws and standards are only one part of breaking down barriers, we see this as a positive step towards ensuring that everyone can live in a barrier-free society. As an individual who has lived in the United States, where they have the Americans with Disabilities Act, I am hopeful about what this legislation will accomplish.

The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association congratulates the Government of Canada for its work on developing this legislation and the process they undertook to consult with people with disabilities to ensure that this legislation meets our needs. Our organization was a partner in this consultation process and continues our work through our engagement with the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance. We are pleased to see that so many of the recommendations we provided are included in this critical legislation.

We see some areas in which there could be improvements to ensure that this legislation is the best possible and allows Canada to lead globally in making sure we live in a barrier-free society. As one of the partner organizations working with the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, we support the recommendations that were provided to this committee and would like to stress the following recommendations.

First, regarding timelines for achieving a barrier-free Canada, our recommendations are similar to those used in Ontario with the AODA. With the goal of having a barrier-free Ontario by 2025, we recommend that specific timelines and deadlines be built into the legislation so that people have a vision and a goal to work towards. We know a barrier-free society will not happen overnight, but we have a vision and a commitment that's critical. We believe that specific timelines and deadlines must be created for establishing the infrastructure to implement the act. This also needs to be done for the Accessibility Standards Development Organization, for standards and regulation committees, for the chief accessibility officer and office, and for the accessibility commissioner and office. We also need to make sure that we set timelines and deadlines for studying and implementing these standards and regulations and for making progress reports.

Second, we recommend that disabled people have access to communication accommodations and supports. While most people think of accommodations and supports as access to a building with a ramp and so forth, it's really much more than that, and understanding a fully accessibility-built environment is very important. We strongly encourage the use and adoption of innovative solutions that provide access to communication accommodations and support. These communication accommodations include things such as CART captioning, ensuring that service counters, conference rooms and other facilities are looped for those with hearing assistive devices, text communications, sign language, and other forms of communication supports. Communication and supports must be made mandatory through standards and regulations.

Third, we recommend that funding be made available so that people with disabilities and the organizations that work to represent them are properly compensated for their contributions to the design and implementation of this legislation. Too often, people with disabilities are asked for their expertise and lived experience and are given no financial compensation for their contributions. Funding is also needed to develop tool kits, guidelines, training and education programs, and other things to ensure a successful implementation of this legislation.

Also, additional funds need to be provided to organizations like mine that work on behalf of people with disabilities, so that we can continue to provide resources to these individuals so that they can learn more about their disabilities and how to live barrier-free lives.

Probably one of the most important things is to create a culture of inclusion and equity. All people employed by the federal public sector, including staff, must engage in intensive education programs to ensure that they understand and demonstrate inclusive attitudes. It's important that we show at all levels that accessibility is critical. All employees should be examples and role models for creating a culture of inclusion and equity. We must develop policies and practices that must be set and followed and that change attitudes. We also need to have people with disabilities at all aspects and levels of employment. People with disabilities need to be present, and they need to be seen so that we're part of this change.

While I am here to address disability issues as a whole, and not specifically hearing loss, I do want to bring your attention to the rising number of people with hearing loss and the associated economic burden, which causes a problem in Canada and globally. Hearing loss has rarely been an issue that captures public support, and while some strategies for hearing health care have been implemented in some provinces, awareness and resource allocations for hearing heath care remain scarce. This is of concern. Unaddressed hearing loss puts affected Canadians at significant risk for unemployment and for developing other serious conditions, such as depression and anxiety, at further cost to our health care system.

You may be already aware. Last week I provided you and your office with an invitation to have an opportunity to address these issues in a separate conversation, and I look forward to receiving your response.

The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association is committed to continuing its work with this committee and the government as they develop this legislation to ensure that it meets the needs of all people with disabilities.

I thank you again, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[David Lepofsky, Chair, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance]

Good morning.

Our society has for too many years—indeed, decades—been designed on the ridiculous assumption that for the most part it's there for people without disabilities. It's not that people wanted us excluded, but we have just never been part of the thinking, much of the time, when our buildings are built, our public transit is created, our workplaces are designed, and the goods and services we use are designed and sold.

It's a ridiculous idea, because more than five million of us now have a disability—but even that number underestimates us, because, you see, every one of us in this room, and every voter who voted for you or against you, either has a disability now or is bound to get one later in their life. We are the minority of everyone, and no politician or political party can go soft on the minority of everyone.

We commend the federal government for committing to bring forward Bill C-81, and for undertaking a good public consultation on it. However, the bill that is now before you is very strong on good intentions but very weak on implementation and enforcement. The groups that have come before you have provided a road map of how to fix it, and that can be done. When you come to vote on amendments before this committee and when you go back to your caucuses to decide what position you're going to take, we urge you not simply to think of the immediate political expediency of today; we do urge you to think about the imminent election a year from now and the needs of the minority of everyone, for whom no party or politician can go soft.

We urge you to think about what you would say to you, 20 years from now. If you don't already have a disability now but you get one later, what would you come back in time and say about your reluctance to support strong amendments? We urge you to come together and unanimously support strong amendments.

You've heard many groups focusing on very common themes. Our top priorities are in a brief that is being circulated to you in Braille and in a brief that spells much more out in detail. Let me use my time to focus on two, which other groups have supported, but they have not been discussed as much at this committee.

First, Bill C-81 wrongly splinters the creation of accessibility standards and their enforcement among multiple federal agencies. This is a formula for a weak bill. Please unsplinter it. This bill provides that accessibility standards can be enacted—and that's good—but it divides the power to make them among the federal cabinet, which should have all that power; the Canadian Transportation Agency for transportation providers; and the CRTC for broadcasters and telecom companies.

That is a formula for confusion, contradiction, delay and weak standards. All standards should be made by one body alone, and that is the politically accountable federal cabinet. Giving the power over public transit to the Canadian Transportation Agency will have the effect of weakening the measures you take on transportation. That agency, like the CRTC, has no demonstrated expertise on accessibility for people with disabilities. Moreover, both the CTA and the CRTC have substantially inadequate track records in the use of the power on accessibility that they've had for years.

If you go to folks who have a bad track record, you have a predictable future of more bad track records. Let me give you one example that says it all.

The Canadian Transportation Agency has had the power to make accessibility standards for people with disabilities in federally regulated transportation providers for over three decades. They're so excited and so eager to use that power that they've made absolutely none. Giving them that power now can give us no enthusiasm that they'll be any more willing to use it and to use it well in the future.

You might think I'd be upset that they haven't used it, but in fact I'm happy they haven't used it, because the legislation now—and as this bill is written, the legislation in the future—would provide that if they make a federal accessibility standard, it can actually cut back on the rights that the legislation now provides, because once a regulation is made, it is fully dispositive of the right to accommodation under the transportation legislation. That is really bad.

We need you to first remove that feature in the Transportation Act so that a standard, if enacted, can only extend our rights and never cut them back. Second, we need you to concentrate all power to make accessibility standards in the federal cabinet.

As well, this bill splinters the power to enforce this legislation among four federal organizations: the accessibility commissioner, the CTA, the CRTC and the tribunal that regulates federal employment. Again, this is a formula for confusion.

The federal government response to date has been inadequate. It simply said, “We'll have a policy that there will be no wrong door. Whichever agency you go to, no matter how confusing it is to figure it out—and believe me, it is confusing—if you go in the wrong door, we'll send you to the right door. Problem solved.” No, it isn't, because all that does is fix the problem of which door you go in. It does not solve the substantial problem that happens once you're inside that door. It means we have to lobby four agencies to get them up to the necessary level of expertise. It means we have to learn four different sets of procedures, because they may all use different procedures once you get inside the door. It means we have to go to agencies that may not have any expertise in disability and accessibility.

It makes far more sense to simply mandate the new accessibility commissioner with all accessibility enforcement under this act. The fact is simply that the design of this bill, splintering among these agencies, serves only two interests: the bureaucracies that want to preserve their turf and those obligated organizations that would rather this law have weaker standards, slower implementation and weaker enforcement. That is not consistent with the federal government's commendable motivations and intentions under this legislation.

Let me conclude by turning to one other point we'd like to emphasize. Members of this committee have asked what could be done to ensure that on day one, this law will make a real difference. Here's the answer, and it's not now in this bill.

This bill should be amended in accordance with the proposals in our brief to ensure that whenever federal money is spent, it can never be used to create a new barrier or perpetuate an old barrier against people with disabilities. It's commendable that the bill allows the making of access standards for federal procurement of goods and services, but that's not the only way the federal government spends money. The federal government right now spends a lot of money on infrastructure, and not only federal infrastructure, but money is transferred to communities or provinces for local projects such as public transit, hospitals and so on. We urge that any federal spending on procurement, infrastructure, loans or grants to business or otherwise have strong accessibility strings attached, monitored and enforced, so that federal money is never used to make things worse for us.

On day one, that could start making a difference.

In conclusion, I have a really strong sense of personal history today, because 38 years ago, when the Charter of Rights was only a proposal, it did not include equality for people with disabilities. I had the privilege of being one of the many people who came here to argue that the charter be amended to include equality for people with disabilities.

Working together, we succeeded then. Working together now, we can succeed with this bill, which is strong on intention but weak on enforcement and implementation. We now have the opportunity to work together with you again to create a strong law that will make the victory of 38 years ago—equality for people with disabilities—not only a legal guarantee, but a reality in the lives of all of us.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's meeting on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

The objective of today's meeting is to continue the committee's thorough review of this bill. I'd like to take a moment to remind both those participating in the proceedings, as well as those observing the proceedings of the committee in person and on video that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study.

As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation and near real-time closed captioning in the room.

Please note that both American sign language and Quebec sign language are being offered to those in our audience. Screens displaying the near real-time closed captioning have also been set up. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being videorecorded for the eventual broadcast of the meeting on ParlVU via the committee's website. We would ask that those in the room remain seated as much as possible during the meeting so that everyone in the audience can clearly see the sign language interpretation. If a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

I would just like to add that we have found throughout these meetings that at times witnesses and committee members alike will often speak at a pace that is a little too fast. I will be interrupting if the interpreters give me either a thumbs up or a thumbs down if we are going a bit fast, so I apologize in advance. Please take your time with your opening remarks and in the questions and answers.

I'd like to welcome this panel here today. First of all, from Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, we are pleased to have Mr. David Lepofsky, chair. He is joined by Faith Cameletti, a student from Osgoode Hall Law School, and Connor Campbell, also a student from Osgoode Hall Law School. Welcome to all three of you.

From the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, we have Mr. Christopher Sutton, national executive director. Welcome, sir.

From the CNIB Foundation, we have Angela Bonfanti, vice-president, Ontario and Quebec, and Robbi Weldon, program lead, peer support and leisure. Thank you as well for being here today.

We're going to get started this morning with Mr. Lepofsky. Go ahead, sir.

[Bill Adair]

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.

[John Barlow]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to everybody for hanging in.

Mr. Belanger, this is not a question that I was planning on asking, but it came up from your testimony.

You were consulted for two years on this bill. You've addressed that there are significant issues that will impact first nations, in perhaps millions of dollars, yet those issues are not even mentioned anywhere in this bill. What are your thoughts on the consultation with first nations and how it's included in Bill C-81?

[Kerry Diotte, Edmonton Griesbach, CPC]

This is to Mr. Belanger. You said that Bill C-81 will impact first nations substantially, so substantial resources must be allotted to the first nations. Can you give me any idea of what that looks like? Do you have a dollar figure?

[Bill Adair]

Just to add to that, the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance created two sets of recommendations, one for Bill C-81 and one for the implementation of the act once it becomes law.

One of our recommendations deals with this very issue around digital and website access. There is, cited in that European Union standard around website design, something to look at. Our thinking is that there are standards that can be looked at even before CASDO is created, and if the standards are deemed to be acceptable, let's start implementing them right away. We don't necessarily need to wait. We definitely want to move on setting up a system that will monitor and manage everything, but if there are some easy and quick wins that we could undertake right away, wouldn't that be delightful?

One of our partners from Barrier-Free Canada, from the national level of that organization, works with the CRA and provided very clear recommendations on access to websites, information technology and so on.

[Bill Adair, Executive Director, Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance]

Thank you, Jane.

Thank you for your attention, committee members, especially at this late hour.

I want to be clear that my comments are only highlights of the 12 detailed recommendations that can be found in the packages that have been distributed. I will walk through each of the 12 recommendations to provide a highlight of each one.

Number one, creating a culture of inclusion and equity is key to the success of the legislation. We recommend that all people employed by the federal public sector, including parliamentarians and their staff, must engage in an intensive awareness and education program. Why? This will ensure everyone understands and is able to demonstrate inclusive attitudes and equitable practices that promote access and inclusion.

Number two, change the terminology “Canadians with disabilities” to read “people in Canada with disabilities”. Why? The legislation should include landed immigrants and others who do not hold Canadian citizenship.

Number three, funding will make or break this legislation, so make it available. People with disabilities and their organizations should be properly compensated. Why? Too often, people with disabilities and organizations are asked to contribute disability expertise with no financial compensation. No other experts are asked to work for free.

Number four, an effective complaints management system must be in place to respond to and resolve complaints. Why? The system must support complainants, prevent compliance disputes between regulated agencies and departments, and ensure that complaints are resolved quickly.

Number five, indigenous peoples are not explicitly in or out of Bill C-81. Give clarity regarding first nations communities and their requirement for compliance with the accessible Canada act or under first nations-specific accessibility legislation, as requested by the Assembly of First Nations. Why? Indigenous peoples with disabilities need to know if this legislation will promote access and inclusion for them.

Number six, expand compliance with standards and regulations beyond the federal jurisdiction. The Government of Canada must promote compliance and, in some situations, require compliance from funding recipients. Why? It's a natural extension to expect entities that receive funding from the Government of Canada to comply with the accessible Canada act.

Number seven, support people with disabilities who experience multiple barriers and intersecting forms of discrimination and marginalization. Why? Access and inclusion requires reaching the most marginalized people in our communities and workplaces. If we don't reach the people who need this legislation the most, then we have failed.

Number eight, put people with disabilities in the fabric of the act. Ensure that the CASDO staff, board and committees include a minimum of two-thirds of people with disabilities. Why? People with disabilities need to be represented in all aspects of the legislation. This honours the principle “nothing about us without us” and provides employment opportunities.

Number nine, access to communication accommodations and supports is a cornerstone of inclusion, and it must be mandatory. Why? This change will enable people with communication disabilities and people who are deaf to fully participate in ways others take for granted.

Number 10, don't delay. All standards and regulations should be implemented within five years. Why? Setting target dates for performance will increase tangible changes in a shorter period of time.

Number 11, the six targeted barrier areas should be changed to seven. Add communication, as it is a significant barrier for many people across a broad range of disabilities. Why? This change will bring focus to barriers, accommodations and supports for people with communication disabilities and for people who are deaf, thereby opening doors to participation.

Number 12, ASL and LSQ are the official languages of the deaf community, so recognize this fact in the accessible Canada act. This recognition is of cultural significance to the deaf community, and it will increase full participation by people who are deaf.

In closing, our community is paying attention like we have never done so before. We are counting on you to make changes that will have a significant impact on our lives. This is a huge responsibility. We've opened up, we've advised and we've taken a lot of time to present the right recommendations. Listen to us. This is your opportunity to be the change.

Thank you.

[Jane Arkell, Project Director, Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance]

Great. Thank you very much.

First, I, too, would like to recognize that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin.

My name is Jane Arkell. In addition to being project director of the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, I'm also executive director of the Active Living Alliance for Canadians with a Disability. The alliance is a member organization of FALA.

I'm here with my colleague today, Bill Adair, who is executive director of Spinal Cord Injury Canada.

SCI Canada leads the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance. We are a partnership of 56 organizations that include not only disability-related organizations but other partners that represent people with disabilities in sectors such as the far north, first nations, research, employment, older adults, education, policy and youth.

We have joined together to help develop a strong and effective accessible Canada act. We have also been collaborating with other organizations doing similar work like my friend Neil, and recognize that there's a high degree of agreement on areas of improving Bill C-81.

Thank you so much for inviting us to share the recommendations that we have.

Canada is taking a bold step forward with this proposed legislation. We've waited for legislation like this for a very long time. Truthfully, this gives our community hope. We are finally able to say, my Canada includes me. FALA's position is clear. We want Bill C-81 to be strengthened by incorporating the recommendations we are providing. We want the proposed accessible Canada act to receive royal assent in this current Parliament no later than spring 2019.

I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Bill, who will go through highlights of our recommendations.

[Monique Beaudoin, Administrator, Board of Directors, Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec]

Good evening. The presentation will be in French.

First, I want to thank the committee for inviting the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, or the COPHAN, to give a presentation on Bill C-81.

To bring you up to speed, I'll provide an explanation of the COPHAN. The COPHAN is a provincial organization that consists of about 50 members who have various types of disabilities, such as visual, auditory or motor disabilities, or who have autism or mental health issues or any other disabilities.

We have regional groups, and our members also include provincial associations and a few local organizations. The COPHAN is working on various matters related to the inclusion of individuals and their loved ones, with their families, to ensure social participation in Quebec. We're also working with the federal government on various matters. We're members of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, or the CCD.

I'll let my colleague, Ms. Desforges, talk about Bill C-81, which we worked on together as a group.

[Neil Belanger, Executive Director, British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society]

Thank you. Good evening.

Before I begin I'd like to acknowledge and thank the Algonquin people, on whose territories we are meeting today. I would also like to thank the committee for this invitation and opportunity to speak to Bill C-81.

My name is Neil Belanger and I am the executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, an indigenous organization providing disability-related services to indigenous individuals and families residing in both first nation and non-first nation communities.

Our organization is very pleased that the government has introduced Bill C-81 to ensure a barrier-free Canada. It has the great potential to make positive change in many lives. Over the past two years we have had the opportunity to engage first nation communities across Canada in relation to the accessibility legislation as well as to work with our partners at the Assembly of First Nations, the national Native Women's Association and the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance in relation to the bill and next steps.

From our work with our partners a number of recommendations have been developed, many of which have already been presented to the committee. I would like to reiterate a few of these priorities from our organization's perspective. Number one is recognition of ASL, LSQ and indigenous sign language as the official language of the deaf. We believe this is not only an important cultural recognition but also serves as a mechanism to promote accessibility across the nation.

Number two is to ensure that the CASDO board and all subsequent committees be composed at a minimum of at least two-thirds representation of persons living with a disability, including indigenous peoples living with disabilities. This is necessary to ensure a broad level of insight and expertise is brought to the board and committees. I would refer to the example of the FALA working group, which is here today, which brought together a diverse range of individuals and groups within the disability sector and through our work together, not only have we collaboratively made recommendations in relation to Bill C-81, but it has provided us an opportunity to learn about each other and the barriers and priorities each of our groups deals with on a daily basis. This has strengthened us as a sector, and would do the same for the CASDO board and subsequent committees.

Number three is that timelines must be established. As with our partners, we are recommending a five-year timeline to implementation.

Finally, our last point is the absence of any reference under the legislation to Canada's 634 first nation communities. From previous testimony to the committee a lack of clarity has been noted as to how Bill C-81 will impact Canada's first nation communities. Indigenous peoples of Canada experience a rate of disability approximately twice that of the non-indigenous population. As well, persons living in poverty are more likely to become disabled than those who do not. Many first nations in Canada have a median income below the poverty line. Understanding this, as an organization we assume that a priority, if not the priority, under the new federal accessibility legislation will be addressing the barriers within Canada's first nation communities where people live, go to school, work, get married, have families and grow old, many of whom live with disabilities.

In December 2017 the Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution requesting the government to support the creation of a distinct first nations accessibility legislation. Since the passing of the AFN resolution, the government has stated its commitment to engaging in a nation-to-nation dialogue to determine how Bill C-81 will be applicable to Canada's first nation communities in its entirety, portions thereof, or not at all. It is our understanding that this nation-to-nation process has not yet commenced.

The position of our organization is clear: regardless of a distinct first nations legislation or the legislation as currently proposed under Bill C-81, the Government of Canada must ensure that substantial and adequate resources are committed and ongoing to ensure that all Canada's first nation communities have the resources necessary to address barriers facing their members living with a disability, as outlined in the principles of Bill C-81. Without this provision, a barrier-free Canada will never be achieved.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[Patrick Falconer, Consultant, Steering Committee, Barrier-Free Manitoba]

Good evening and thank you, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members, for the invitation to present.

My name is Patrick Falconer. I am here to speak on behalf of Barrier-Free Manitoba and to express our strong support for the calls for significant amendments to Bill C-81 as outlined in briefs by the AODA Alliance, dated September 27, 2018, and by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, dated October 1, 2018.

As a matter of introduction, Barrier-Free Manitoba is the cross-disability, non-partisan community initiative that has worked over the last decade on provincial accessibility rights legislation in Manitoba. Our support for both the AODA Alliance's and the ARCH's briefs is firmly rooted in the experience we have gained through those 10 years.

Our story is one of both hope and disappointment: hope in the Accessibility for Manitobans Act, or what's called “the AMA”, our provincial legislation that promised major progress would be made toward achieving full accessibility by 2023, which enacted and proclaimed in 2013, had set the stage for a decade of sure and steady progress; hope in that the AMA included language, deliverables and accountability measures that created clear obligations for government; hope in that the AMA was passed by a unanimous, all-party, all-member vote of our legislative assembly; and finally, hope in that each major political party recommitted themselves to the full and timely implementation of the AMA in the 2016 general provincial election.

However, that's pretty much where the hope ends and the disappointment begins.

We're now halfway through the promised decade of progress. Only one of five promised accessibility standards has been developed. There is still no compliance framework established. Government has only rarely met its own timelines for obligations under the act. As well, implementation efforts continue to be substantially under-resourced and way behind any reasonable schedule. Getting even this far has taken incredible efforts on the part of our diverse and under-resourced disability communities.

We are gravely concerned that Bill C-81 not only replicates the AMA's weaknesses, but actually compounds them. The bill does not include a clear goal of a barrier-free Canada or a date by which to achieve this. The bill uses permissive language rather than prescriptive language. It enables; it does not require. The bill creates a likelihood of multiple accessibility requirements covering similar types of barriers. It also establishes a diffused and fragmented approach to standards development, compliance and adjudication. The bill lodges responsibility for real progress with the government of the day, not Parliament.

Finally, the bill is extremely convoluted. We believe Bill C-81 as it stands will create confusion for the public, obligated organizations, and Canadians with disabilities alike. It will result in more chasing of tails than forward progress.

While representing a commendable effort with honourable intentions, we are concerned the bill is deeply flawed. Based on our decade of experience and our careful review, BFM strongly supports the recommendations for significant amendments in the two briefs I mentioned by the AODA Alliance and the ARCH Disability Law Centre.

We would respectfully add a word of caution. You might be thinking political parties at the federal level are different from those at the provincial level, or that your party is a different one. Perhaps you're thinking the federal government is a different and more responsible order of government than our provinces. You might be thinking the types of amendments called for by the Alliance and ARCH are excessive. Our hard-won experience over the last decade suggests otherwise.

Bill C-81 presents a historic and long overdue opportunity, the opportunity of a generation. We beseech you not to squander it.

In the brief time I have remaining, I'll highlight two additional areas of concern.

First, it is shocking to us that Bill C-81 does not incorporate any special measures to act on the federal government's constitutional, fiduciary or special responsibilities in relation to indigenous people with disabilities. Disability rates among indigenous people are roughly two to three times higher than for the general population. Indigenous people are also among the Canadians who face the most severe barriers to accessibility. Both the higher rates and the severity of the barriers faced by indigenous people are the direct result of government policies that reflect a shameful past and that continue into the present.

Second, we are concerned that there is no clear reference to the national building code of Canada in Bill C-81. The national building code is not only applicable in areas of federal jurisdiction. It also plays a profound role in shaping the building codes that are developed and adopted by each Canadian province. At both the federal and provincial levels, the building codes and the current limited levels of accessibility that are provided for result in costly and preventable barriers being perpetuated and newly created, every day, in built environments across Canada.

It seems likely that the responsibility for developing strong and effective accessibility standards related to the building code is meant to fall under the purview of the proposed Canadian accessibility standards development organization, CASDO. However, this remains unclear and we believe that explicit reference needs to be added to Bill C-81 or to be clarified as part of the committee's review of this bill.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to our further discussion this evening.

[Marie Bountrogianni, Dean, Chang School, Ryerson University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Marie Bountrogianni, and I'm dean of the G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education at Ryerson University. I would like to thank the standing committee for inviting me here to comment on Bill C-81.

I would also like to congratulate Minister Qualtrough and the standing committee on the excellent progress made to date on the bill. I believe that most Canadians would agree that national accessibility legislation is a matter of equality and human rights.

It was my distinct pleasure to serve as cabinet minister in the legislature of Ontario from 2003 to 2007. The highlight of my tenure as minister came in June 2005, when the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, or AODA, received royal assent and came into force. The bill was voted in unanimously in the Ontario legislature. That doesn't happen very often.

I have since had the opportunity to share my experiences developing the legislation and advising representatives from public and private organizations in Japan, Ukraine and New Zealand.

My team and I learned some very important lessons while we were writing the AODA. I'm pleased to share some of these lessons with the committee this evening in the hope that they may help inform Bill C-81.

When I first began university at the University of Waterloo in 1975, co-op placements at that university were limited for women because some of the engineering firms did not have female washrooms. When they were asked why, the answer was that it wasn't worth the expense. Can you imagine, now, our daughters being told anything like that?

This memory of a less equitable time helped inform our mantra towards an accessible Ontario. I thought to myself, “Imagine 30 years from now when people will say there was a time in Ontario only 30 years ago when people complained about the price of a ramp for wheelchairs, the cost of making a washroom accessible or having to hire people with disabilities”.

Following meetings with disability community members and representatives from businesses, we found that they agreed that Ontario's businesses should be accessible; however, business owners were unaware of what a difference a few accommodations could have on their bottom line. During one of these meetings, one of the representatives from business said, “Minister, as a businessman, you are scaring me, but as a father of a daughter with a disability, you are not moving fast enough.” This father's heartfelt sentiment helped inspire my determination to push forward. It also captured the challenge.

During the consultation phase, we studied Great Britain's Disability Discrimination Act and were taught three critical lessons. We would need a clear deadline for an accessible Ontario. There would need to be regulations established through which to enforce the law, and public education would be key for creating awareness about the bill. When we set the 2025 deadline for an accessible Ontario, many criticized that timeline was too long; however, it gave us time to ensure that we were getting it right.

The government is meant to set a positive example for its constituents. I, therefore. support the fact that Bill C-81 is focused on enforcing accessibility in areas that the federal government can regulate. I am hopeful that other Canadian businesses will follow suit. However, I would like to urge the government and the committee to consider setting a firm deadline for a barrier-free Canada.

It has been over 13 years since the AODA came into law, and Ontario still has a lot of work to do to reach its goal of becoming a fully accessible province. Just last week, the Ontario government partially lifted the freeze they imposed in June on the AODA standards development committees. The employment standards development committee can now resume its work recommending revisions to the AODA's employment accessibility standard. Premier Doug Ford also appointed a minister for seniors and accessibility, which I think is a promising step towards promoting compliance with the legislation. I will be meeting with that minister soon.

As identified in Bill C-81, I believe that appointing an accessibility commissioner, a Canadian accessibility standards development organization, and a chief accessibility officer would be heading in an excellent direction for enforcing compliance.

I was recently honoured, as I have been twice before, to participate in the third review of the AODA. This year’s review was led by the Honourable David C. Onley. Some of my feedback could be helpful here.

One of my most pressing recommendations for the AODA is for greater emphasis on web accessibility. At the Chang school, we believe that unlocking accessibility in online environments is an important step towards facilitating equal access and opportunities for people with disabilities. Through collaboration with the Government of Ontario’s enabling change program, the Chang school is currently developing five accessibility courses to help professionals in Ontario—and anywhere, quite frankly—learn how to develop and design accessible websites and web content. These are MOOCs. In other words, they're free for anyone who wishes to take them. They have been very successful. Most free courses have a huge dropout rate. This one doesn't. These modules are very successful.

We're looking to unveil a new website next year, which will be fully accessible.

Our research also identifies a province-wide gap related to accessibility in the post-secondary education market. In order to reduce the 16% unemployment rate among Ontarians with disabilities, we believe that revisions to the AODA need to champion accessible technological innovation and advancement, as well as post-secondary educational offerings that promote accessible and inclusive environments. I believe this can be generalized across the country.

Last year, the Chang school partnered with Ryerson’s digital media zone to launch the accessibility project. This project awarded up to $25,000 and funded 17 projects for students to develop apps and other technological processes, like wearable technologies, to remove barriers faced by people with disabilities and aging populations. I'm proud to say that many of those who were awarded these grants had disabilities themselves. They are developing incredible products.

We were also recently pleased to collaborate with the CNIB to offer two courses in our certificate in entrepreneurship and small business to people living with visual impairment. We're still learning. Even though our courses are accessible, enrolment wasn't and neither were the books, so we had to scramble. Even though we thought we were the experts of the school, we still have a lot to learn. We similarly introduced a new leadership in accessibility and inclusion program this past September.

I believe that these examples help clearly demonstrate that partnership and collaboration are critical for realizing a barrier-free Canada. In technology in particular, we can close the unemployment gap between people with disabilities and people without. We can't really be employed without knowing technology today. It is a major barrier for many.

In closing, I would like to encourage the standing committee to advocate for an appropriate budget for public education on Bill C-81. I believe that awareness is crucial for ensuring compliance with the legislation. I still have people asking me, “What is the AODA?” There will most certainly be push-back, but I urge you to push forward.

Again, I thank the standing committee for having invited me here. It is an honour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Welcome everybody. We're going to get started.

I want to thank everybody for coming back to committee at this late hour this evening. We'll try to get things moving. I have a a bit of a preamble, so you'll have to bear with me.

Welcome to today's meeting on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

The objective of today's meeting is to continue the committee's thorough review of the bill. I would like to take a moment to remind both those participating in the proceedings, as well as those observing the proceedings in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study.

As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible, in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation and near real-time closed captioning in the room. Please note that both American sign language and Quebec sign language are being offered to our audience.

For those who would like to watch the American sign language interpretation, please sit in the benches to my left. For those who would like to watch the Quebec sign language interpretations, please sit in the benches to my right. In addition, please note that the first two rows of benches have been reserved for those who wish to avail themselves of these interpretation services.

Screens displaying the near real-time closed captioning have also been set up, with the English text to my left and the French text to my right. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being video recorded for the eventual broadcast of the meeting on ParlVu via the committee's website.

In light of these arrangements, the committee would ask that if you need to leave the room during the meeting, please do not walk in front of the sign language interpreters. Instead, please use the extremities of the room. In addition, we would ask that those in the room to remain seated as much as possible during the meeting, so that everyone in the audience can clearly see the sign language interpretation.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

I will also ask not just the witnesses who will be presenting today but also remind my colleagues, as a result of the interpretation and the unique translation with sign language, to keep our questions and answers at a pace that is not too fast. If I feel that you are going too fast, or if the folks wave to say that you're going too fast, I may interrupt you, so I apologize in advance. We want to make sure that everybody's messages, questions and answers today are being heard in their entirety.

That's the end of my preamble.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses here this evening.

Appearing as an individual, we have Marie Bountrogianni, who is dean of the Chang school at Ryerson University. From Barrier-Free Manitoba, we have Patrick Falconer, consultant to the steering committee. From the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, we have Neil Belanger, executive director. From La Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, we have Monique Beaudoin, administrator, board of directors; and Camille Desforges, records manager. From the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, we have Bill Adair, executive director; and Jane Arkell, project director.

Welcome to everyone. This is a big panel, so we're going to get started right away.

We're going to start with Marie.

The next seven minutes are all yours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the warm welcome. We are friends, but I do need to put on the record that I'm only here because the committee has made the process more difficult by adopting a motion that I'm sure you were asked to adopt by someone in some central authority of the Liberal Party. Every committee passed the identically worded motion, so it puts a bit of a test to the fiction that the committee really does control its own process.

Because of the motion you passed, my rights are infringed. I no longer have the right to present these amendments at report stage because I have been invited here. It's a very large increase to my workload and it happens at every committee. I am here for clause-by-clause, and I know you have a long process. I just want to remind you of why I'm here.

I'll be as brief as I can. This first amendment is to create a definition for the term “vulnerable population”, which is used in the legislation. You heard from a couple of witnesses, one of whom was the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who suggested that there be a definition of “vulnerable population”. They set out some factors, such as a person's ethnicity, economic status, drug dependency, age, mental disability and overall health. Those are from the brief of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Also, Dr. Marie-Eve Sylvestre, of the University of Ottawa law school, suggested some other aspects of defining “vulnerable population”.

That's why we've crafted this definition, which includes, in more appropriate legislative statutory language, the essence of what was being recommended by witnesses who you've heard already. I won't read it to you, but it also draws on some of the language from Bill C-81 in terms of people with disability and will be a guidance to a police officer for an operational capacity, as suggested by the chiefs of police.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last word.

Not only are we coming up to our time but we can see that the bells are ringing for votes.

I want to remind committee members that some unique times are associated with the next few meetings.

We are going to be meeting tomorrow evening, October 24, from 6:45 to 8:45. Then on the 25th we will be here very early, at 8 a.m., so it will be a late night and an early morning.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today to contribute to our study on Bill C-81.

As well, thank you to my colleagues and all the people who made today possible.

The meeting is adjourned.

[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?

[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]

We did. During the consultation process, we made comments and provided information around trying to think about this legislation as not only focused on accessibility but really focused on rights for persons with disabilities, in terms of thinking about persons with disabilities as rights holders and about the CRPD implementation kind of legislation.

We wrote a couple of papers in the pre-bill consultation period that tried to think about and put forth some recommendations around how this legislation could implement a number of rights that are in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and implement those much more fully into Canadian domestic law. We can provide those to you if that would be of interest after today.

Yes, when Bill C-81 was getting going, I think we definitely were thinking of this legislation much more as rights-conferring legislation, rather than focusing only on accessibility.

[Scott Shortliffe, Chief Consumer Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to participate in the committee’s review of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

I’d like to begin today by saying two things. First, I'd like to acknowledge that we meet today on traditional Algonquin territory. Second, if you'll permit me:

[Witness speaks in sign language]

The CRTC's approach to accessibility is based upon the fundamental belief that a person's ability to access broadcast and telecommunications services dictates their ability to participate meaningfully in society. Our accessibility policy is grounded in the principle that equality is a core Canadian value and is central to public interest.

During the last three decades, the CRTC has adopted a series of regulatory policies to enhance the ability of Canadians with disabilities to access communications networks. We have updated these policies as new technologies and resources have become available.

The CRTC has continually championed accessibility and has required service providers to deploy appropriate technologies to improve access for all Canadians, regardless of their level of ability.

In the mid-1980s, for example, the CRTC began to mandate teletypewriter, or TTY, relay services for Canadians who have a hearing or speech disability. In 2009, the requirement was expanded to include the provision of IP relay services, and, five years later, the provision of video relay service.

Accessibility requirements for broadcasters have followed a similar evolution. Initially, broadcasters were required to closed-caption only a percentage of programming. Today, all pre-recorded English and French programming must be closed-captioned.

In 2009, the CRTC began to require that broadcasters provide described video services four hours per week. Beginning next year, all large integrated broadcasters must provide the services throughout prime time.

The CRTC's work in the domain of accessibility also includes regulatory measures designed to facilitate access to the devices Canadians use to access communications services, whether it is accessible set-top boxes, remote controls or wireless mobile handsets.

The CRTC also recognizes the importance of facilitating interactions with service providers. This is why we established mandatory industry codes of conduct: the Wireless Code and the Television Service Provider Code. These codes ensure that persons with disabilities can receive contracts and bills in accessible formats, and can access extended trial periods to ensure that equipment and services will meet their individual needs.

To develop regulatory policies, the CRTC consults with Canadians—including those with disabilities—along with service providers and other stakeholders by holding open, public proceedings. The input of Canadians with disabilities is crucial to developing effective and impactful accessibility policies. It's also why the CRTC website presents key content, such as a guide to our Rules of Procedure, in ASL—American Sign Language—and LSQ—Quebec's Langue des signes québécoises.

To achieve the larger goal of barrier-free access, the CRTC recognizes that it must engage with other administrative tribunals. To this end, the CRTC participates in working groups alongside the Canadian Human Rights Commission and other administrative tribunals in order to leverage accessibility expertise and increase efficiency.

As a federal regulatory tribunal, the CRTC must pursue the policy goals set by the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act and also act fairly, abiding by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This requires the CRTC to balance competing objectives in rendering decisions that ultimately serve the public interest.

As communications technologies evolve, Canada's regulatory framework must be flexible and rigorous enough to make the most of new opportunities and to eliminate and prevent systemic barriers related to accessibility. Advances in communications technologies have opened the door to an unprecedented wealth of content and interactivity. The CRTC's position is that it is the right of all Canadians to be able to access this wealth regardless of their ability, and it is committed to working to ensure that all Canadians can benefit from it.

As I mentioned, the CRTC's approach is informed by Canadian human rights principles, and these principles will continue to guide our regulatory work.

I'd like to remind this committee that the CRTC is an independent regulator. I note that this panel includes a party regulated by the CRTC. As such, and to preserve the commission's independence as a regulator, I may be unable to comment on certain issues raised or to fully answer certain questions. That said, I will do my best to answer any questions this committee may have.

Thank you very much.

[Robert Lattanzio, Executive Director, ARCH Disability Law Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to this committee for this opportunity to speak with you this morning.

ARCH Disability Law Centre is a specialty legal clinic focused solely on disability rights. We work on the ground with communities of persons with disabilities, with disability organizations, and within all levels of courts and tribunals in test case litigation. We commend the government and the minister for introducing Bill C-81, an important and positive step towards advancing full inclusion for persons with disabilities. We believe that amendments are needed for this bill to achieve its stated purpose.

Today we highlight four recommendations.

First, we would like to address exemptions. This committee has heard from government that exemptions are needed to ensure innovation and flexibility for small organizations and those who exceed accessibility standards. We do not agree that the broad exemption powers currently in the bill are necessary to achieve these policy objectives. The bill must send a strong message that accessibility is everyone's responsibility. Therefore, as a general matter, regulated entities must not be exempt from complying with accessibility requirements. If exemption provisions do remain in the bill, we recommend safeguards, including these next three: one, exemptions should be granted only in the narrowest of circumstances; two, reasons for the exemption should be made public and the public should be afforded opportunities to provide feedback; three, any exemptions should be subject to periodic review and should be removed if and when they are no longer necessary.

The second recommendation today, as the committee is aware, relates to the fact that the bill lacks timelines. ARCH shares the concerns of disability communities. Timelines are essential for ensuring that the bill will advance accessibility in Canada and for measuring progress towards this goal. We support recommendations that clause 5 include a timeline for achieving a Canada without barriers. We support recommendations that the bill include timelines by which accessibility standards are developed and enacted into law.

With regard to timelines, progressive realization is an important international law concept that can provide a framework for ongoing implementation and monitoring of accessibility requirements. ARCH recommends that the minister and regulated entities establish benchmarks for progressively realizing a Canada without barriers in all the designated areas, establish specific and progressive timelines for meeting these benchmarks, and monitor progress towards meeting these benchmarks.

We also recommend that independent reviews of the act be held to coincide with Canada's reporting obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We recommend that the first independent review of the act be held in 2025, to coincide with Canada's third report to the UN CRPD committee, and every four years thereafter.

Third, we need amendments to ensure that accessibility requirements do not diminish existing legal rights of persons with disabilities. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the charter provide vitally important protections from discrimination for people with disabilities. Disability communities fought hard for these protections. We are concerned that regulated entities may believe that compliance with accessibility requirements is the same as fulfilling their obligation to accommodate and not discriminate. This would be a troubling, unintended consequence of Bill C-81. The bill must work together with the Canadian Human Rights Act and the charter. Therefore, we recommend that the preamble and the purpose clause of Bill C-81 clarify that nothing in the act lessens existing human rights obligations of federally regulated entities under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that where a conflict arises between the proposed accessible Canada act and another law, the law that provides the greatest accessibility for persons with disabilities will apply.

Fourth, Bill C-81 does not designate one central agency to oversee compliance of accessibility requirements and to adjudicate complaints. Rather, it creates an overly complex system of multiple agencies. This will create confusion and additional unnecessary barriers to access to justice for persons with disabilities. We heard this concern consistently throughout the consultations that we conducted. Multiple bodies adjudicating accessibility complaints will likely result in uneven or unfair enforcement, delay and inefficiency.

Following a legal analysis of CTA decisions, and from our experience, we are concerned that the CTA may be more likely to treat human rights and accessibility as secondary to technical concerns, resulting in weak enforcement of accessibility requirements in transportation. We heard similar concerns from the community about the CRTC.

To avoid these problems, the accessibility commissioner should receive all complaints about violations of accessibility standards. The no-wrong-door policy is inadequate to address our concerns.

Our materials include recommendations in relation to the rights of indigenous persons with disabilities, intersectionality and recognition of sign languages, among other important issues.

Thank you. We would be happy to take any questions.

[David Errington]

Sure. No problem. I'll just do the final part.

We are pleased that the CRTC has prioritized certain of these accessibility measures in their recent policy decisions. The CRTC has implemented a tiered approach to ramp up the amount of DV programming being provided by television broadcasters based on the size and resources of broadcasters. The CRTC has required certain television distributors to include in their annual returns certain information relating to the availability of set-top boxes, the penetration of set-top boxes, and the number of accessibility-related queries they receive. These measures are consistent with and perhaps even overlap some of the reporting requirements contained in Bill C-81.

Given the limited financial means of many blind and partially sighted individuals and the lifeline that television and media provide to these individuals, we believe the Government of Canada should ensure that accessible set-top boxes and remote controls are available for free or at a substantially discounted rate to blind and partially sighted individuals. Until accessible set-top boxes and remote controls become ubiquitous, there will continue to be a barrier to television programs for blind and partially sighted Canadians.

I appreciate the opportunity to present AMI's views on this important matter, and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Sorry for being long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

That takes us to the end of this panel.

I want to thank all of you for joining us and contributing to our study on Bill C-81.

We're now going to suspend very briefly to bring in the next panel.

[Marina Mandal]

We don't have amendments in mind for Bill C-81. Some of the considerations that we put forward to the government as we engaged over the last two years actually would end up relating more, I think, to the standards, whether it's a balance between a principles-based approach and a prescriptive approach, or harmonization with the provincial jurisdictions that have accessibility legislation. Our concerns or considerations have been more in that direction, but not with regard to the text of the bill itself.

[Marina Mandal]

Ms. Waley and I are not all that familiar with experiences outside of Canada, although I take the point that Ms. McColl has just made. I would say that in Ontario, one of the things that has been great and has been translated into the Bill C-81 context is that notion of framework legislation with standards to follow, with separate consultations on each standard. I think Ontario is a good role model to look at.

[Marina Mandal]

I would add that for the accessibility plans, the feedback and the progress report, as you know, Bill C-81 sets out the duty to consult with persons with disabilities. I think it's another safeguard that ensures the people most impacted by the legislation stay involved on an ongoing basis as it's implemented by the private sector.

[Marina Mandal]

I'm happy to start.

There is obviously a certain element of duplication there on the employment front. From a first principles perspective, the accessibility Bill C-81 is much more foundational legislation that covers a lot more. The Employment Equity Act, as you know, focuses just on the employment side.

That said, I think a lot of what has been done by federal employers under the EEA can be leveraged—and I'll look to Ms. Monti to expand on that—to meet some of the requirements that we will see in the employment standards under Bill C-81.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. I'm hoping that we can get some more feedback from you with regard to how we can make Bill C-81 effective in using that disability lens. Other jurisdictions, other countries, have done this. This bill should be our first attempt at complying with the UN convention.

There are a lot of definitions out there. There are best practices being used, and it is evolving all the time.

A lot of the work that has been done focuses on seeing disability as one of the variables of the population, so that this act is ensuring more coverage, more access. We're just broadening that cookie cutter, if you will, in saying that this is a part of the population who we have to start fitting in.

One of my colleagues mentioned in his question a fact that was provided to us about the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They've done a lot of groundwork because of the Employment Equity Act. I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with that in your roles right now, having to roll out the Employment Equity Act, but there's a lot of synergy. There is a lot of opportunity here for us to leverage that. I would like to hear you expand on that if you could.

My time is brief. With that preamble, I'll let you share your thoughts on how we can be leveraging existing legislation such as the Employment Equity Act.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning. I continue to get an education every time somebody presents.

A lady in a wheelchair a couple of weeks ago said to me, “You're opening up my world with Bill C-81.” I stopped, and we had a great conversation. I walked away from that, and she's right. Bill C-81 is opening up the world for people with disabilities.

It hits home for me. In my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, Key Industries is an organization that deals with a lot of people with disabilities. We recently announced some funding there, EAF funding, so that they could have more accessible washrooms—just small, simple things like that.

Whether it's getting on a plane in Saint John, catching a train, or mailing something, there are absolutely challenges and barriers for people with disabilities. I view transforming our businesses as an investment, not a cost. Sometimes I worry. Not only my Conservative colleagues but also other businesses I talk to say, “I would do that, but there's such a cost.” I look at it more as an investment.

I'll start with you, Professor McColl. Can you speak to that? In your opinion, is taking action to invest in enhancing accessibility more of an investment than a non-recoupable cost? Can you talk to that?

[Marina Mandal]

As I think you've alluded to—and I hope the remarks that Ms. Monti and I made illustrate it—banks have been doing a lot of this already in the absence of legislation with the introduction of the AODA in Ontario and with Manitoba and Nova Scotia having their own legislation. That has spurred more activity. We're ready to act quickly. From our perspective, this is something that the banking industry was doing prior to Bill C-81, and it will continue to evolve and progress.

Concerns have been expressed about timelines. We're not opposed to timelines, but we recognize that the minister went through a very robust consultation involving so many stakeholders, which we were actively involved in, and we support the notion of a framework legislation that allows standards to evolve over time as best practices evolve and technology evolves.

The other aspect of that, of course, is that CASDO will have persons with disabilities on its board who can inform the process, and a lot of stakeholders have now been engaged in the process who can communicate their lived experience in a way that informs the standards. We support the framework legislation. We look forward to consulting with the government on standards. We really do think that the end product will be much closer to achieving the intended outcomes of the legislation.

[Professor Mary Ann McColl, Professor, Queen's University, Canadian Disability Policy Alliance]

Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to appear before this esteemed committee and to share part of the research of the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance that I hope may be of use to you in your deliberations towards the passage of Bill C-81.

I will begin by commending the government on fulfilling its promise to Canadians with disabilities on the timely pursuit of this legislation and on the broad consultation undertaken.

My name is Mary Ann McColl. I'm a professor in the school of rehabilitation science and associate director of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at Queen's University.

However, I'm here today in my role as the academic lead of the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance. The alliance is a national collaboration of disability scholars, advocates and policy-makers who are committed to understanding and enhancing disability policy in Canada. The CDPA is also a member of the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, led by Spinal Cord Injury Canada from whom I believe you're hearing tomorrow.

I understand that one of the objectives associated with the passage of Bill C-81 is the adoption of a disability lens, or a process that is reasonable, effective and efficient, for use by everyone in the public service to ensure that all government activities, including legislation, regulation, programs and reports, are considered in light of their implications for people with disabilities.

Such a lens would need to meet a number of criteria. It would need to be easily understood and presume no prior knowledge of disability. It would need to be written in plain language, be brief and efficient to use, comprehensive in terms of all types of disability and all types of policy, compatible with contemporary views and scholarship on disability, and evidence-based. I hope I'm not missing anything in those criteria. It sounds like a tall order, but I'm here today to represent a tool that was developed with exactly those criteria in mind: the CDPA's disability policy lens.

The lens was first developed in 2006, based on an exhaustive review of the literature on disability policy analysis in preparation for a book, Disability and Social Policy in Canada, by myself and Lyn Jongbloed. Since 2006, it has been used by many disability scholars and graduate students in Canada and internationally, and has been cited in numerous publications. In 2017, it was refined and pilot-tested in collaboration with staff from the Office For Disability Issues and the minister's office.

I believe you have the lens in front of you.

The lens takes the reader through a series of seven questions that go to the heart of contemporary disability policy analysis. However, it does not favour any particular ideology or stance. It merely asks the user to be explicit, to state their assumptions and to examine them.

Let's take a closer look at the questions.

The first question asks whether the situation of people with disabilities is explicitly mentioned in the policy. Have their interests and implications been overtly considered, or is it assumed that the implications for people with disabilities are the same as for anyone else, and is that a legitimate assumption?

Second, if disability is mentioned explicitly, how is it defined? Currently, a number of definitions are in force in the federal policy infrastructure—for example, definitions associated with the Canada pension plan, the Canada student loan program, and the disability tax credit. Does the current definition conform with any of those, and does the policy focus on the right group of people? Who was left out, and who determines who is eligible to be considered?

The third question asks what the policy tries to do for people with disability. According to Bickenbach, there are typically three aims of disability policy: access—ensuring the ability to participate; support—providing the necessary goods and services; and equity—ensuring freedom from discrimination. Although admittedly interrelated, there's usually a dominant goal that the policy addresses. If it's equity, what kind of equity is sought: horizontal, vertical or outcome equity?

The fourth question of the disability policy lens looks at the contemporary view of disability.

We no longer look at disability as something that is wrong with a person. That would have been the biomedical definition. Instead, we consider someone with a disability as someone who is prevented from having the life that they seek because of barriers encountered in a society not designed with them in mind.

Question 4 addresses the view of disability espoused by a policy. Are people with disabilities considered a minority group, with special interests or special needs, or are they simply considered citizens entitled to the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as other citizens?

Although it may sound like the answer should always be the latter, in many situations disabled people need to be singled out for special consideration, accommodations, benefits or programs.

The fifth question asks how this policy relates to other policies, first within this jurisdiction and then in other jurisdictions. Is something being given with one hand and taken away with the other? Is the policy objective either duplicated or undermined by policy elsewhere?

Sixth, who are the other stakeholders whose interests need to be considered alongside those of people with disabilities? I don't need to tell you about this. Balancing the competing needs and desires of multiple stakeholders is what you do every day, but I have listed a few examples of other groups whose needs need to be considered, such as other minority groups or businesses in the private sector.

Finally, who are the advocates or proponents of the policy and who are its detractors or opponents? Where might we expect to encounter support or opposition? What might be the fallout of that opposition and how can it be countered?

I hope you will agree that these seven questions that make up the CDPA's disability policy lens represent a process that meets the criteria set out at the outset: brief, evidence-based, versatile, easy to understand and administer, and compatible with contemporary disability studies.

Thank you for your attention and interest in our work. I'll be happy to take questions.

[Marina Mandal, Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association]

Good morning, and thank you to the committee for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to provide our comments on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks, and their 280,000 employees, that help drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity.

Canada's banking industry is pleased to support Bill C-81. The CBA was actively involved in the consultation process that led to this legislation, and we look forward to continuing to work with the government on the development of the regulations that will set the standards for accessibility in Canada.

During debate in the House of Commons, Minister Qualtrough stated that this legislation “is good for business and business knows that this is good for business.” We agree. Canada's banks are leaders in providing accessible environments for their employees and customers. Banks are committed to treating all people in a way that allows them to maintain their dignity and independence. Banks believe in providing equitable opportunities through diverse and inclusive environments and are committed to meeting the needs of people with disabilities by preventing and removing barriers to accessibility.

Banks have considerable experience with accessibility as it pertains to the workplace and employees. They offer individual solutions to employees with accommodation needs and have specialized departments to ensure that they continue to foster an accessible work environment. Banks have moved accessibility mandates forward through various approaches, including accessibility committees, policies and strategies, all with a goal to work continuously towards amplifying the voice of employees with disabilities.

Banks are also committed to ensuring accessible customer service. Most banks have groups with a dedicated accessibility mandate within their human resources and IT functions. Putting the needs of their clients first, banks continue to make enhancements so they can offer barrier-free facilities and services in their branches, offices, and bank machines, as well as online and through mobile channels.

Some examples of accessibility options provided by banks include teletype technology for telephone banking; video relay service; sign language interpreters upon request; Braille, large print and audio for various customer materials; enhancements at branches, such as door operators, ramps and washroom upgrades; and accessibility features on computers and mobile devices, such as colour contrast and the ability to increase text size.

We believe any federal accessibility framework should strike the right balance between being principles-based and prescriptive. The framework should also recognize that accessibility and accommodation are often person-specific. In areas where there's frequent technological evolution, such as information technology, overly prescriptive standards could be problematic. In general, we support widely accepted standards that provide flexibility to institutions, customers and employees in order to achieve the intended outcomes, and that provide adequate certainty as to what constitutes compliance. Further, because standards may change frequently, particularly as technology evolves, the framework should provide organizations with the option to comply with the standard mandated in the legislation or an equivalent or higher standard.

Banks recognize that although significant progress has been made in making Canada more inclusive, people with disabilities still encounter barriers. The banks view accessibility as a journey and continually work to improve the inclusive design of their products and services.

We're happy to answer and questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's meeting on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The objective of today's meeting is to continue the committee's thorough review of the bill.

Bear with me. I have a bit of a preamble here. I'm sure my colleagues are getting used to this.

I will take a moment to remind those participating in the proceedings, as well as those observing the proceedings of the committee in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study.

As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation and near-real-time closed-captioning in the room. Please note that both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language are being offered to those in our audience. The first two rows of benches have been reserved for those who wish to avail themselves of these interpretation services. Screens displaying the near-real-time closed captioning have also been set up. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being videorecorded for the eventual broadcast of the meeting on ParlVu via the committee's website.

If a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

So that you can keep your comments at a steady pace for the interpreters, I will not be very heavy-handed with the stopwatch. If you go over a little, it's not the end of the world.

On our first panel this morning, from the Canadian Bankers Association, we have Marina Mandal, assistant general counsel, and Tasmin Waley, senior legal counsel; from the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance, Mary Ann McColl, a professor at Queen's University; and from the Royal Bank of Canada, Teri Monti, vice-president of employee relations. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being with us this morning.

We're going to get started with opening remarks from the Canadian Bankers Association. Marina Mandal and Tasmin Waley, the next five minutes are all yours.

[Steven Estey]

Sure. I'll give it a shot.

I come from Nova Scotia, and we've just gone through the process of developing accessibility legislation in our province. When the first reading happened in Nova Scotia, there were no timelines in the legislation at all, so the disability community got up in arms about that and were concerned about the lack of any kind of timeline. The concern was that if you don't have a wall against which to backstop things, then how do you measure your progress and how do you compel people to do something without a fixed date?

We were able to get the Government of Nova Scotia to put a fixed date in the legislation. We've had some discussion about that experience federally since June 21, when the legislation was tabled without a fixed date.

What I have heard, as I think Jewelles mentioned, is the idea of not having one particular date globally, but to look at it in segments of different areas or different pieces of the legislation. It's a very complicated thing, Bill C-81, and to say that one date fits all is going to create difficulties, I think.

However, at the same time, without some kind of a firm wall-like backstop against which to measure, as a disability community, we have a concern that it's never going to come—don't worry about tomorrow because tomorrow never comes.

[Jewelles Smith]

We would very much like to see that.

We feel, to some extent, that the way Bill C-81 is currently set up, with a number of fractured reporting systems, might be problematic. We've dealt with a couple of those organizations as the disability community, and we've had multiple barriers. It's important to have that arm's-length reporting in order to address some of those barriers and challenges, and also to set up a fresh mechanism that wouldn't necessarily operate under the mandate of the current government, but rather under the mandate of the disability community.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses this evening. I really appreciate your testimony. It's very enlightening.

I certainly know this: At the last meeting I talked about where I live in Saint John—Rothesay and coming upon a lady in a wheelchair who literally was waiting to get from the car park into the mall. My question was, “Why are you waiting here?” There was no way for her to get in unless somebody opened that door and let her in. This is a public spot in my city, so.... Bill C-81 is going to break down barriers. It's going to open up the world for people with disabilities.

This is for Ms. Smith and Mr. Estey. I want to thank you, Ms. Smith, for taking the time to come to my office. We met here I think a couple of weeks ago. I really appreciated the conversation. I want to follow up on something we talked about: the composition of the CASDO board.

I know that we talked about it in the office in terms of 50% plus one, and I know you don't think that's good enough. I certainly respect that. I know that you want to see 70%.

From my past experience as a businessperson involved in different boards, I'll say that the composition of boards is critical, whether it's a bank, a hockey team, CASDO or what have you. We continue to hear from Ms. Smith in particular and from other witnesses, too, about their concern about the composition of the board.

Do you want to elaborate on that? You talked about how you would like to see 70%. There are those who suggest that the language in subclause 23(2) be amended to ensure that members of the CASDO board with lived experience with disabilities represent, as much as is practically possible, the diversity of disability communities in Canada. Can the language of subclause 23(2) be amended? Can you share with us again the importance of the composition of the CASDO board?

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Even in our last meeting we talked about plain language. Ms. Collier, I'm wondering if you could touch on this for me. How are stakeholders or the disability community looking to have that implemented into Bill C-81? I understand what plain language means, but how would that be put into legislation?

[Barbara Collier, Executive Director, Communication Disabilities Access Canada]

Good evening, committee members. I'm delighted to be here this evening and honoured to represent Communication Disabilities Access Canada. This is a national non-profit organization that promotes accessibility for people who have speech and language disabilities that are not caused by hearing loss.

I need to take a minute to tell you a bit about who we're talking about, and then to tell you a bit about what access means for them. I'm going to focus on the needs of half a million Canadians who have a wide range of disabilities that affect how they communicate. We're talking about people who have cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, learning disability, ALS, traumatic brain injury, aphasia after a stroke, Parkinson's.... I could go on to list about 60 disabilities that affect how people communicate with you in their speech or understand what you're saying to them.

This is not a small, marginalized population; this is a huge population. It's a population that has received very little attention. They are off the radar when it comes to looking at accessibility needs of this group. I'm going to tell you how we think Bill C-81 can be strengthened to include the needs of people with speech and language disabilities.

At this time, the bill talks about priority areas. I think there are five or six of them. I'm going to have to reference them—employment, built environment, procurement of goods and services, program and service delivery, transportation, and information and communication technologies.

We propose that communication should be addressed in a much broader context than information and communication technologies. We have analyzed accessibility guidelines standards all across the country, and I can tell you that usually it's about respect and attitudes, it's about plain language, it's about accessible websites, and it's about alternate formats and sign language. These are incredibly important, but they are not addressing the needs of people who have speech and language disabilities.

I want to say that people who have speech and language disabilities may have difficulty. They may have little or no speech. They may use pictures, letter boards, or speech-generating devices to communicate, or they may have difficulty comprehending what you're saying.

Communication traditionally is looked at as giving information, getting information into people's heads. We're saying it's about being two-way. It's about expression and about comprehension, and it occurs in all jurisdictions that interact with the public—in face-to-face interactions, telephone and telecommunications, reading and writing, public forums, and meetings like this. These are the contexts that are important and that people need access to. If we look just at information and communication, we're going to miss it. We are absolutely going to miss it.

We're asking the government to amend the bill to include communication as a generic building block that needs to be in place for all jurisdictions—and I'll explain what I mean by that—but we're also asking that there's another building block we need to put in place, and that building block should have everything to do with discrimination, attitudes, accessibility rights, diversity and equity. That's one building block.

The other block is communication. What we want is that all jurisdictions have training in how to interact with people whose speech may be unclear; who use a communication device; or who have, or need to have, a communication assistant. That's the sort of thing that will make meaningful changes.

We are then asking that once you have the two domains, the building blocks, in place across the board, you adapt them.

Let's have our federal courts take the general communication training and then look at their own context. We want communication intermediaries to be available to victims, witnesses and accused who need to communicate in that context.

We need Service Canada to be able to communicate with people on the telephone or offer the appropriate text-based communication alternatives.

We need Elections Canada to offer online voting so that people can use their own assistive devices and not suddenly have to learn how to use a sip-and-puff switch or a scanner that they've never seen before when they go in to vote.

We have the solutions. The solutions are there. We just need to put them in place, and they are all very achievable.

I'll say one more thing. I can see you smiling at me, Mr. Chairman, but I don't get a chance to speak very often.

Most of the barriers and the frustrations for people with speech and language disabilities are there because they have no access to communication devices and the supports they need to access the services. They would like the federal government to expand its role, not just to negotiate accessibility standards across the country but to work together with us to ensure that people have what they need to communicate with their services.

Are the lights dimming at this point? I think they are. The music is coming on.

[Robert Ghiz, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association]

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here this evening representing the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, which I'll refer to as the CWTA.

I'm joined this evening by Ursula Grom Grant, our Senior Director of Industry Affairs, who is our lead on accessibility and will most likely be taking the majority of your questions.

CWTA is the authority on wireless issues, developments and trends in Canada. We represent service providers as well as companies that develop products and services for the wireless industry. We are pleased to be here today to share the views of our members regarding Bill C-81.

I would like to begin by confirming that our members strongly support the intent behind this legislation. An accessible Canada is a vision we all support.

Equality, inclusion, full participation—these are the goals of the members of the CWTA that we're fully behind. If Bill C-81 can bring Canada closer to these goals, then we want to be part of that.

We commend the government for working towards these goals. Indeed, for years, members of the CWTA have been working in concert to ensure the services we provide are accessible to all Canadians. Today our wireless networks offer fast and reliable mobile connectivity with the current generation of wireless technology known as LTE or 4G being available to approximately 98.5% of all Canadians and offering the fastest average download speeds in the G7, twice as fast as the United States.

To make sure as many Canadians as possible can access the benefits of these networks, our members have worked hard in recent years to improve accessibility in relation to telecommunication services. Examples relevant to wireless telecommunications in particular include accessible websites and online content, wireless rate plans to accommodate unique needs, wireless devices that offer accessibility features and functionalities, services like text with 911 and IP relay, special web pages with information on accessible products and services, and accessible formats for bills and other documents and information.

Our members will continue to work hard to address accessibility issues and work collaboratively with stakeholders across Canada to keep improving in this area. In this spirit, we very much welcome the broad thrust of Bill C-81. In particular, the current draft of the legislation addresses several key concerns we shared through the consultation process that preceded the development of the bill.

We are pleased to see the CRTC will continue in its current role with regard to regulation of accessibility. This provides continuity, understanding and clarity to our members. It also ensures Canadians will continue to benefit from public processes that are accessible to Canadians, with binding determinations all stakeholders can understand and follow.

Even as we are pleased to see the CRTC's continued role, we do have some concerns regarding the details and clarity around next steps. Much of the bill remains aspirational. While the goals are ones we all share and should work toward, it has been difficult to provide feedback without a better and more detailed sense of the regulations that will follow in its wake.

To give one example, while the CRTC will retain jurisdiction over the telecom products and service aspects of a Canadian carrier, another new regulatory body will provide oversight on other parts of the business. In addition, some provincial jurisdictions also have accessibility legislation, and we will need to understand where that fits in. This could work well or it could create unnecessary overlap, duplication and uncertainty, ultimately harming the interests of the very Canadians the legislation is seeking to assist.

The details matter, and the regulations that will be created further to this legislation could have a significant impact, and a potentially negative one, as well. A number of jurisdictions in Canada have similar legislation in place, with applicable standards and goals similar to those in this bill. If we don't work closely together, competing and possibly contradictory standards could arise, harming the efforts of all concerned.

Therefore, we urge this committee to recognize the importance of continued consultation once Bill C-81 is passed and proclaimed. Moving forward will be an education process for everyone, and our members want to see this happen in the most efficient and effective way possible.

The next steps will be a learning opportunity for all the parties involved, and our members hope that it all unfolds smoothly and effectively.

Thank you for the opportunity, and we will look forward to your questions.

[Scott Streiner]

A number of things will change under Bill C-81. As I already mentioned, our compliance officers will have more authority. Regarding administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, the maximum AMP they can impose will go from $25,000 to $250,000. Of course, they're not going to jump to that AMP in the first instance of non-compliance, but the option is there to go to a much more significant administrative monetary penalty.

The bill would see us administering a participant funding program, which is a way of allowing persons with disabilities to access funding so that they can pursue applications before the CTA that might otherwise be too expensive for them.

Finally, the bill will allow the CTA to undertake inquiries at its own initiative, with the agreement of the Minister of Transport, into systemic accessibility issues. Currently we don't have that power. We can undertake inquiries if we receive a complaint, but we can't undertake inquiries on our own initiative that are systemic in nature. If the bill is passed in its current form, we'll have that authority.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You didn't get to the part about what will change under Bill C-81.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay.

Could you tell us how the CTA currently handles accessibility-related complaints, and how this will change under Bill C-81?

[Scott Streiner]

Certainly the additional tools that Bill C-81 will give us to advance the mandate will be helpful.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Given that environment and your mandate, will it be easier to achieve that with Bill C-81?

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

Gentlemen, does anybody else want to talk about enforcement or binding regulation? How should we be proceeding with that under Bill C-81?

Mr. Richmond, you were concerned about how heavy-handed Bill C-81 is right now. Maybe you can elaborate on areas you think we need to look at in order to proceed successfully.

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

—without giving a reason, without giving a rationale. If there is a civil activist, if there is someone in the disability community who wants to understand your decision—if any civil society member wants to understand the decision—you don't have to give that rationalization. Do you believe that any aspect of that should change before Bill C-81 is actually brought to fruition as our first national accessibility act?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right now, gentlemen, as I'm sure you're aware if you've read Bill C-81, there are no requirements, there are no timelines. Your jurisdiction in particular, in transportation, is exempt. You do not have to offer a rationalization for a decision. There's no appeal process for a person in the disability community. Do you think that needs to change before we actually pass Bill C-81?

[Scott Streiner]

In respect to transportation, we have a number of areas in Canada where we are clearly ahead of the curve. For example, we were one of the first countries to implement mandatory training requirements in the personnel training regulations that we currently have at the Canadian Transportation Agency. While those regulations aren't perfect, they drew the attention of service providers to the need to ensure not only that the built environment is accessible and not only that there's the right equipment, but that personnel are trained in order to interact appropriately with and provide services to people with disabilities.

In other areas we face some significant challenges. What I would say is that there are a few ingredients, I think, to advancing this agenda. One of them is to have a set of modern regulations that draw upon Canada's experience over the last 25 years since the CTA first got its accessibility mandate and, as I said in response to the member's question, on best practices in other countries. Our work on those regulations is well advanced.

Bill C-81 will reinforce our regulation-making power, but we already have that power, and it's pursuant to the current power that we've been working on these regulations.

Regulations by themselves are a start, but they're not enough. There are other ingredients required. We need a strong, proactive compliance assurance program. At the CTA, we've been working on creating a program that is risk-based so that we will target our efforts in those areas where the risk of non-compliance or the impact of non-compliance is highest. Bill C-81 adds to the CTA's compliance tool kit. It gives our compliance enforcement officers additional tools to get out there and to ensure that people are complying.

I think that the third leg, very briefly, is information. It's making sure that both persons with disabilities and service providers know what their rights and responsibilities are. In addition to a compliance program, the CTA is planning to undertake, should the bill be passed, a very proactive information program for those communities.

[Diane Finley]

It's totally inconsistent right now. You just never know what to expect.

Mr. Richmond, I don't know if you have any comments on that; I know that you've worked in many different airports around the world. If so, I welcome them.

Also, I'm wondering, because you did refer to smaller airports, what you anticipate would be the impact on these airports of the unfunded mandate that would be inherent in the passage of Bill C-81.

[Scott Streiner, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee for inviting me here today.

It's a pleasure to be here today to provide an overview of the Canadian Transportation Agency's (CTA) accessibility-related responsibilities and activities as part of the committee's hearings into Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act.

The Canadian Transportation Agency, CTA, has been around since 1904. We are Canada's longest-standing independent expert tribunal and regulator. In 1988 our enabling legislation was amended to add accessible transportation as one of our core mandates. As the Supreme Court of Canada said in a 2007 ruling upholding one of our decisions, “Parliament charged the Agency with the public responsibility for assessing barriers [because the] Agency uniquely has the specialized expertise to balance the requirements of those with disabilities with the practical realities…of a federal transportation system.”

Ensuring that Canadians with disabilities are able to travel independently and with dignity is in the CTA's DNA. We all know that transportation services are integral to modern life whether we're going to visit family, see new places or conduct business. As the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states, transportation services to which persons with disabilities have equal access “enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life”.

The CTA's vision is to make Canada's national transportation system the most accessible in the world. We know that this is an ambitious vision, but we believe that in a country whose fundamental values include equality and inclusion we should aspire to nothing less.

We're taking major steps to translate that vision into reality. Let me briefly highlight four examples.

First, in 2016, we established the CTA's centre of expertise for accessible transportation, which serves as the hub of activity within and beyond the CTA for all matters related to the removal of barriers to persons with disabilities in the national transportation system.

Our second action relates to regulation.

Following two years of intensive consultations with disability rights organizations and industry, we're drafting new accessible transportation regulations that will integrate two existing regulations and six voluntary codes into a single robust, binding and enforceable instrument. The consultative process included multiple discussions with our accessibility advisory committee, which brings together 19 disability rights groups plus representatives from the air, passenger rail, and interprovincial bus and ferry sectors. We hope to have the new accessible transportation regulations ready for publication in the Canada Gazette in early 2019.

Third, we've organized multi-stakeholder discussions, including a working group focused on the significant and growing challenges associated with the transportation and storage of wheelchairs and other mobility aids on aircraft. That working group's recommendations are expected to be ready by the spring.

Finally, together with our partners in Global Affairs Canada and Transport Canada, we're spearheading efforts to give accessible air travel more profile within the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. One of our goals is make sure that accessible air travel figures prominently on ICAO's agenda during its triennial general conference next September in Montreal.

We're also getting ready to implement Bill C-81, should it be passed.

We're putting the pieces in place for the launch of a proactive education and compliance monitoring and enforcement program within 60 days of royal assent.

We're revising the standard wording that we apply to accessibility adjudications to reflect the language of Bill C-81 and we've held discussions with the other implementation bodies named in the bill to begin working toward coherent, well-aligned approaches to the delivery of our respective accessibility mandates.

Accessible transportation is a fundamental human right. The CTA is committed to ensuring that this right be realized in practice through clarity of purpose and concrete action.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering your questions.

[Craig Richmond]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak today.

I'm very grateful to have this opportunity to talk about accessibility. I'd like to provide you with a broad perspective on behalf of the airport community, because it's an important topic that will impact us all.

First I'd like to quickly give some context. As you may know, most Canadian airports are managed by local, not-for-profit organizations. Under this unique model, we do not receive any money from the government. Instead, we operate as private companies, having to compete and innovate to stay ahead of the competition. However, we are not beholden to shareholders. We reinvest all profits back into our airports, which allows for constant improvements. Underpinning this is a commitment to provide an exceptional experience for everyone.

YVR has become a model of accessibility and inclusion because we believe that everyone who wants to fly should be able to fly, and everyone who wants to work at the airport should have that opportunity. We have spent the last 25 years making our airport barrier-free.

For instance, we have universal food and service counters that welcome people using wheeled mobility devices. We use low-resistance carpeting on our floors for easier movement and greater stability. We work with a range of partners to ensure that YVR meets high standards through terminal audits. We host experiential tours to test our facilities. This includes a tour for families living with autism and a tour for those living with spinal cord injuries.

We also address non-visible disabilities. For instance, we just introduced our Fly Calm initiative with the Canadian Mental Health Association. This program helps travellers de-stress prior to air travel.

In addition to making our airport barrier-free, we also strive for employment equity. We've been named one of Canada's best diversity employers, and just recently the federal government has recognized our achievement with the Sector Distinction award and the Employment Equity Champion award.

We got to this point because we set equity targets, closely monitor them, and take action. Currently women make up 42% of our workforce; visible minorities make up 33%; aboriginal peoples make up almost 2%; and persons with disabilities make up 3%. In fact, persons with disabilities made up 4.8% of our hires this year. Yes, we have work to do, but we're heading in the right direction.

We also have a large range of programs to promote a diverse workplace, and we have overhauled our procurement process, looking at how we can reward companies that value diversity. We're doing a lot, and of course there's always a lot more to do. That brings me to Bill C-81.

Overall, we're very happy to see a bill of this nature, and we believe it's about time. The preceding was to let you know that we are not afraid of the bill. We're ready.

However, I'm worried that the bill is a bit heavy-handed. It also presents possibly significant administrative burdens, and I believe we'll run into some major issues in applying standards.

Additional feedback and reporting requirements in the bill would add a considerable burden, which is even more challenging when we consider the differences among airports. There are a lot of small airports that don't have the resources that we do. These airports would be much better off spending funds to install accessibility ramps than producing reports. For them, it's often one or the other.

This brings me to the proposed Canadian accessibility standards development organization. Do we really need this to do what's needed? My concern is duplication and redundancy with what other organizations are already doing in the built environment.

How can we leverage what already exists, rather than creating another body that will bring more costs and bureaucracy? An alternative would be to bring in organizations that are already doing accreditation. It could start with a general visit and not a compliance audit. For instance, we just got certified at YVR, the Vancouver airport, by the Rick Hansen Foundation.

I also agree that it's important to set standards and hold everyone accountable. Ultimately, of course, the way to ensure that is through fines. However, fines should be the last resort.

I'm co-chair of the Presidents Group, a network of business leaders in Vancouver committed to improving employment outcomes for people with disabilities in B.C. One reason the group was formed was to find less punitive ways to get organizations to comply. My question is, how much of a hard stance will we take on fines? Is there a grace period to implement the measures needed? If so, how long is it?

The reality is that there will always be areas in which we will be underperforming. We are never fully compliant. Nobody is. We're always evolving our buildings, so grandfathering is very much an issue. We're committed to getting it right, but the solutions are often expensive and time-consuming.

In conclusion, overall we support the bill and think it will go a long way to removing barriers and improving accessibility across Canada. I look forward to working with you to further improve our accessibility, and thank you for providing me with the opportunity to voice YVR's perspective today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good evening, everyone.

First of all, I want to thank everybody for joining us this evening. We are going to continue with the study of Bill C-81. I have a bit of a preamble here, so please bear with me.

Welcome to today's meeting on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The objective of today's meeting is to continue the committee's thorough review of the bill.

I would like to take a moment to remind both those participating in the proceedings and those observing the proceedings in person and on video that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study. As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways.

This includes providing sign language interpretation and near-real-time closed captioning in the room. Please note that both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language are being offered to those in our audience. Those who would like to watch the American Sign Language interpretation should please sit on the benches to my left. Those who would like to watch the Quebec Sign Language interpretation should please sit on the benches to my right. In addition, please note that the first few rows of benches have been reserved for those who wish to avail themselves of these interpretation services.

Screens displaying the near-real-time closed captioning have also been set up. The English text is to my left, and the French text is to my right. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being videorecorded for the eventual broadcast of the meeting on ParlVu via the committees website.

In light of these arrangements, the committee would ask that if you need to leave the room during the meeting, please do not walk in front of the sign language interpreters. Instead, please use the extremities of the room. In addition, we would ask that those in the room remain seated as much as possible during the meeting so that everyone in attendance can clearly see the sign language interpretations.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

I will also ask the witnesses present today or appearing via video conference and all of my colleagues to keep your speech at a slow pace to allow the interpreters to do their job and be able to keep up. If at any time I see that anybody may be going a little bit too fast, I will interrupt, so I apologize in advance. We want to make sure that your words are captured by the interpreters throughout the meeting.

I'm very pleased to welcome our first panel here this evening. From the Vancouver Airport Authority, we have Mr. Craig Richmond, President and Chief Executive Officer, joining us via video conference from Vancouver, British Columbia.

Can you hear me okay, sir?

[John Rae]

That's true. I believe it does not. There's a fairly broad definition of disability in Bill C-81. A lot of us are suggesting that the bill could be strengthened considerably with amendments and we hope that the HUMA committee will see fit to do so.

[Bonnie Brayton]

Thank you, Ms. Sansoucy.

We were very pleased to attend a bilateral meeting with the UN special rapporteur while she was in Montreal. We submitted a five-page document to her outlining our concerns and were very pleased to see she had included some of our recommendations in her remarks before she left in June.

As for the progress that has been made since our meeting, I would say that Bill C-81 shows that the federal government intends to make Canada a country that respects everyone's rights. Bill C-81 is a first step in that direction. We've seen the special rapporteur's remarks and those of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which were submitted in the spring of 2016. In them, the committee made 21 special references to the situation of women and girls with disabilities in Canada. In another presentation, CIDA also raised concerns about the situation of those women and girls. The Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, did so as well. In other words, three UN agencies have raised concerns over the situation of women and girls with disabilities in Canada.

As we now see, some situations have been going on for a long time, and that's important. It's unacceptable for Canada to view women and girls with disabilities as a small cohort. We must address this situation and give serious consideration, in the context of this bill, to the possibility of genuinely becoming a country that stands for all women and girls.

Thank you very much for raising the issue of the UN, where we mainly work for women and girls with disabilities and those who are deaf.

[John Rae, Chair, Social Policy Committee, Council of Canadians with Disabilities]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, as you indicated my name is John Rae. I am a member of CCD's national council and chair of its social policy committee.

I'm here to talk to you about the dual issues of accessibility and usability. I assure you these two concepts are connected, but they are not synonymous.

In my time I'm hoping to cover five points.

Point number one is accessibility. As the previous speakers have indicated, many published works today are not accessible to folks like me or folks like them. That needs to change. Even when I receive reports from the Government of Canada that are sent to me electronically, I wonder whether when I open the attachment, my screen reader will say empty document, the bane of my existence. That tells me that I have received a PDF document that is not readable by my screen reader. Yes, this still happens in the year 2018, and it must stop.

I have done some work with your publishing people earlier this year. I'm hoping this problem is behind me, but I'm a skeptical guy. There is, of course, a simple way to solve the problem, and that is to stop publishing documents solely in the PDF format. It is, after all, the most problematic of formats. Or, if you continue to insist on using it, publish simultaneously a version in text or HTML. They are more likely to be accessible.

The act should bind Parliament insomuch and insofar as the publication of documents. All of your documents must be published in an accessible format.

Point number two is usability. I'm sure you've all heard the notion from some of your constituents that it often seems that government documents are written for lawyers and only for lawyers. I've seen some of you are lawyers and that's all right. I started up that road and didn't get there. I'm an advocate. I also need, as do other ordinary Canadians, access to the material you folks publish.

I'm talking about the need to write reports in plainer and more understandable language, and maybe even shorter in length. That would help too. As you know when a new document is released, the media is interested in responses the day it's released, perhaps the day after. If you're really lucky and it's really controversial, maybe two days later. People like us need to be able to participate in that discourse just like all other Canadians. That's the issue of usability. Documents need to be produced more in plain language.

Point number three is Braille. For blind people, Braille is our route to literacy. It is essential. Strange though it may sound, in the year 2018, while it is easier than ever before in human history to publish material in Braille, it seems like less and less of it is being produced. We can talk about why that's the case, but we'll save that for the time being.

There needs to be greater promotion of Braille. In the past, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities has recommended that the federal government establish a national program for disability supports. One of those areas could be the provision of refreshable Braille displays to those blind persons who need them and want them, to make access to Braille easier and to encourage more and more people to use Braille, because it really is our mode to literacy.

When the accessible Canada act was introduced, I immediately asked for it in Braille, because as you know every comma, every semicolon, can make a difference. I said that I might need it when I go to meetings to talk about it. Well, I had to justify as to why I wanted it. It wasn't just that I wanted it. I had to say why I needed it. I'm pleased that I did get it, and it has come in handy.

Point number four is publishers. I want to support the point Mr. Simpson made earlier. CCD believes in the addition of a disability lens, especially to Bill C-81, but I think it could be added to the Copyright Act as well, whereby no federal funds would be given to any program, policy, contract or grant that would contribute to perpetuating barriers or creating new ones. That would include grants or contributions to publishers.

Point number five, my final point, is the whole involvement of the publishing sector. Earlier this year, the office for disability issues called together a wide range of representatives: publishers, consumers, producers. I believe many of the right players were brought to the table. The goal was to produce a five-year plan for the production and the expansion of the availability of material in alternate formats.

We last met in May. So far, no plan whatsoever has been seen. The first year of those five is ticking away awfully fast. Still, no plan has been issued. Perhaps you folks can help us get that release. That would be helpful. Publishers need to be more involved. If that would involve maybe some initial assistance from Heritage Canada to help them get started or to rev up their work in producing accessible documents, then so be it. I would support that. Publishers need to do a better job, not only of producing documents, but making them available to public libraries and making them available for direct sale to consumers.

Thank you for the opportunity to come and talk to you about those dual questions about accessibility and usability. I would be happy to respond to questions.

[Bonnie Brayton, National Executive Director, DisAbled Women's Network Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you, Karen, and members of the committee. Good afternoon.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the territory of the Algonquin people with a reminder to all of us at we are in a time of truth and reconciliation with the first peoples of Canada. I would also like to state that I am a woman of the near-north, having been born in a small village on the border between Quebec and Labrador, and I'm honoured to be sharing this panel today with one of the two northern sisters who were going to be here today. Sadly, our other sister was not able to come.

It's my understanding the panel has also invited Pauktuutit, and I would really encourage you to pursue trying to get them in to testify. I know there was a possibility today. Pauktuutit is the women's organization that can provide the most important guidance and expertise in addressing the complete absence of response and resources currently across Canada for indigenous women and women in remote regions of the north.

I was invited here to speak to the current study on the system of shelters and transition houses in Canada, including federal programs and funding for shelters and transition houses, the gap between the number of beds required and the number of beds provided and possible solutions to that gap. DAWN Canada will be preparing a detailed brief that will provide the committee with research and strong recommendations to support major policy and program reforms, not just for shelters and transition houses but more broadly, because this problem goes beyond beds and bricks and mortar.

Access to shelters and transition houses has been a central preoccupation for organizations serving women with disabilities for as long as they have existed—both the organizations and the shelters. DAWN Canada has conducted several national studies that confirm that the traditional shelter system is still not responding to our needs.

“Access” means different things to different people, and so does “disability”. In regard to disability, for years DAWN Canada has been saying that women are becoming disabled through violence. Finally, in 2018 we have data and research that confirms this terrible reality and the size and the scope of the problem, or at least it begins to.

Brain injury is a complex topic, because it has so many implications. Policy-makers are only now beginning to understand just how prevalent an issue this is. Recent and highly publicized data on the long-term impact of brain injuries, including brain injuries from sports or combat and in first responders, show that frequent blows to the head, sudden trauma, repeated trauma, all contribute to brain injury, to the onset of PTSD, which in and of itself creates physiological changes in the brain. Add to that car accidents, childhood accidents, and today's reality that most women who are showing up at shelters have almost certainly experienced violence more than once, more than twice. That they have been choked or hit or have been threatened or traumatized is a given, so brain injury is a huge issue in the context of violence against women today, including in the transition house and shelter system.

Our shelters and transition houses are already grossly under-resourced. They are often inaccessible. There are not enough of them, and they simply are not able to adequately deal with the population of women they are tasked with supporting. There is more on this in our brief, but I strongly encourage the committee to ensure they hear more from the subject matter experts in this field of research, including Angela Colantonio, who has done extensive research as part of an international working group. Angela has also worked with our colleagues from “WomenatthecentrE”, including Nneka MacGregor, whom I hope this committee will invite to speak as well.

A study they did in Toronto just two years ago revealed that between 35% and 80% of women entering the shelter system today in Canada likely have some type of brain injury. The low end is 35%. Think about that. It's one-third at the low end, and that's early data.

Intellectual disability also places women, including young women and girls, at high risk of repeated violence and abuse. The stigma, and quite simply, the poor screening for milder intellectual disabilities and learning disabilities, especially in girls, is one reason that these same women become hugely overrepresented in the homeless community, in a range of human trafficking contexts and in the prison population.

I would like to ask this committee to read our brief when it comes. Be better informed of the facts, not what you think you know. DAWN Canada uses four pillars: research, education, policy and advocacy. We are not here to do your job for you, just to make sure you are properly informed.

How many of you know that the majority of acts of violent victimization reported for all women in Canada—that's physical assault, sexual assault or robbery—were committed against a woman with a disability? That's census data from 2014, the most recent census data. The highest rate of violent victimization is committed against women with disabilities in this country. How many of you know that the majority of human rights complaints in this country are disability-related? Make it your business.

You are contemplating Bill C-81 in Parliament, an accessibility act for Canada. It's not a law about disability. It is an act for all rights holders in Canada. If you are an indigenous woman with a disability, or an immigrant or refugee woman with a disability, or you are black, live in a remote region or are transgendered, then it is your right to live free from violence and to have access to housing, to employment and to your dignity. We must understand that when we are looking at any of these issues, including access to transition houses and shelters, we must think from an intersectional perspective about where this woman lives—if she lives in the north, if she is indigenous, if she has a disability. All these things must be considered and they must be prioritized.

Shelters and transition houses are a vitally important part of the solution for millions of women and girls with disabilities who need a safe place to be, and for all women and girls in this country. We are falling short of the existing needs, but solutions have to go beyond bricks and mortar and beds, as I said when I began. What about childhood sexual and physical abuse? So many of the women who end up on the streets were once young girls whose trust and spirits were broken long before they found their way to their first shelter. What about trauma-informed counselling, screening for brain injury, and then providing the necessary supports for a full recovery? We don't do that. Why?

This study is important, but let's not oversimplify something that requires a cultural shift. It's time.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Ladies, going back to the Employment Equity Act and areas in which it is specific where Bill C-81 is vague, very quickly, do you see any low-hanging fruit that you can discuss with us?

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

This is for everybody on the panel.

Sometimes my Conservative friends across the aisle talk just about the concerns of the cost of Bill C-81. You know, “How much is it going to cost? Can we bear that cost?"

Should there be a cost to creating an accessible Canada?

Mr. Prince.

[Prof. Michael Prince]

There's only so much you can push for in legislation. I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues, particularly from People First, is...and I know the minister has talked about this briefly before. Again, on day one if this is passed and gets royal assent, what I think Canadians with disabilities are looking for in the larger context is an agenda of accessibility and inclusion that would be around programming and services and investments. Those get into budgetary items, of course, and programming, which are not necessarily in Bill C-81.

There are limits to what you can do in the bill, but there are the ideas of investments in disability supports and services, whether it's for people who are deaf, hard of hearing or hearing impaired.... There are other kinds of investments in services and in labour market agreements that have been recently retooled for employment opportunities.

To really give this bill its best chance of success is in the larger context of investments in other policies and programs, many of which are provincial not federal, in fact. But where does the federal government have a role, whether it's through the enabling accessibility fund, which would be a very important way of...?

In my call for amending clause 7 and bringing in other entities, and when I talk about incentives...either some grants or contributions, or looking creatively at tax credits or tax measures that would provide incentives for employers on accessibility in a way that we haven't. We toy around with that with home modifications for seniors and people with disabilities. We've dipped into it that way, but why can't we do similar things around other incentives?

With the enabling accessibility fund and the opportunities fund, the disability tax credit, the RDSP, the registered disability savings plan, which is a fantastic public program in this country, and we're the first country in the world to bring in something like that, there's that larger context.

I might be criticizing parts of this bill. It has a lot of room for improvement. But I would also make a plea to the committee to make this a people's bill and a social policy-oriented piece of legislation, some of which could maybe be in here, but a lot of it's going to be things that parallel and complement this. This is the right committee to be doing that.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for your presentations.

In my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, Bill C-81 certainly has been met with a lot of excitement, anticipation and hope. I work directly with organizations like CCRW, and key industries and other organizations that finally see, maybe things aren't perfect, but the light at the end of that tunnel where as a government we are moving forward and changing the culture. This isn't only an opportunity for people with disabilities, but an opportunity for all Canadians.

I have so many questions to ask. I'm going to start with how the CASDO board is comprised. I know part 2 of the bill proposes 50 plus one of CASDO board seats be allocated to people with disabilities. We certainly heard some concerns around the table about the composition of that board.

My first question is for Ms. Jodhan. How do you believe this clause could be rewritten in order to address your concerns regarding the degree to which these appointments are considered?

[Marianne Hladun, Regional Executive Vice-President, Prairies Region, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada strongly believes that persons with disabilities should be able to fully and equitably participate in all aspects of Canadian society.

Our union represents thousands of federal public sector workers, so I'll be focusing on accessibility in employment and the impact on employees with disabilities in the federal sector.

Both Bill C-81 and the 20-year-old federal Employment Equity Act require federal employers to create plans to eliminate barriers in employment for persons with disabilities. While the Employment Equity Act is imperfect, it does provide an established framework that employers and unions have been working under for many years.

We recommend improving the Employment Equity Act and referring the employment aspects of Bill C-81 to the Employment Equity Act provisions for several reasons.

Bill C-81 only mentions the Employment Equity Act twice and makes no reference to how the two pieces of legislation will work together. This overlap and lack of clarity will create confusion for employers, employees with disabilities and unions.

In order to comply with both pieces of legislation, employers will have to create two plans which at least in part do the same thing. What if the two plans conflict? Will one plan override the other?

The Employment Equity Act requires employers to consult and collaborate with bargaining agents in preparing, implementing and revising their employment equity plans. Bill C-81 only requires employers to consult with persons with disabilities when creating accessibility plans.

Bill C-81 is vague about what should be included in those accessibility plans, while the Employment Equity Act is very specific about what must be included in employment equity plans.

We strongly recommend amending paragraph 5(a) of Bill C-81 to clarify that accessibility in employment must be dealt with under the provisions of the Employment Equity Act and that all regulated entities are responsible for implementing employment equity for persons with disabilities. All other references to employment in the bill should then be amended to reflect this change.

Bill C-81 does not address hiring and supporting employees with disabilities, nor does it mention the role of the Treasury Board as the employer for the federal public service, or the role of the Public Service Commission, which oversees federal public service staffing. The Employment Equity Act does include these responsibilities.

The duty to accommodate in the workplace is also an important aspect of accessibility in employment. Even with the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act, public service workers continue to be routinely denied accommodation at work.

The Treasury Board directive on leave and special working arrangements effectively discriminates against many employees with disabilities who are on long-term sick leave by effectively forcing them to retire from the public service after two years. Accommodation-related grievances and human rights complaints often take years before they're resolved.

The Joint Union/Management Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion in the Public Service recommended that a centralized, systematic approach be developed for accessibility and accommodations, including centralized funding for accommodations.

Right now, the responsibilities are devolved to departments, resulting in a patchwork of approaches and applications of the employer's duty to accommodate. To fix this, Bill C-81 should be amended to require Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission to make annual public progress reports to the accessibility commissioner; to require departments and agencies in the core public service to provide progress reports to Treasury Board; to require Treasury Board to set up a central accommodation fund for the public service; and to require that all federal government policies be reviewed to examine and eliminate any barriers to persons with disabilities.

We also recommend making consequential amendments to the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act to centralize disability-related issues and accessibility in the public service, and to ensure that Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission are responsible for those issues and cannot delegate that responsibility.

Bill C-81 provides that individuals can file complaints regarding a contravention of the regulations, but there is no way to file a complaint about a violation of the act. This unfairly limits the substance of complaints. For example, an individual can't file a complaint if an organization doesn't even have an accessibility plan.

The complaints provisions are also unevenly applied to unionized employees in the federal sector. Bill C-81 allows for workers covered under all the federal public service labour laws to take their complaints through the grievance process. However, it does not do the same for federal public and private sector workers covered under the Canada Labour Code. All workers who have recourse through a collective agreement should be allowed to have their complaints heard through the grievance process, and the arbitrator should have the power to interpret and apply the proposed accessible Canada act.

The grievance process has embedded within it a right to appeal and review decisions. It allows workers to file a grievance that addresses multiple workplace issues, including accessibility, without making them pursue multiple parallel complaint processes.

We recommend amending subclause 94(1) to allow a complaint to be filed in relation to a contravention by a regulated entity of any provision of this act, or any regulations made under subclause 117(1). We also recommend including an additional exception, similar to those in subclauses 94(2), 94(3) and 94(4), that applies to all unionized workers under the Canada Labour Code, and that will ensure these workers can access the grievance and arbitration process.

Finally, we recommend that adequate funds be allocated to the proposed accessibility commissioner, the Canadian accessibility standards development organization and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to ensure that these organizations can fulfill their mandates under the new act.

Thank you.

Ms. Lamba and I are pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's meeting on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The objective of today's meeting is to continue the committee's thorough review of the bill.

I have a fairly substantive preamble here, so please bear with me.

I would like to take a moment to remind both those participating in the proceedings, as well as those observing the proceedings of the committee in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study. As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation and near real-time closed captioning in the room.

Please note that both American sign language and Quebec sign language are being offered to those in our audience. Those who would like to watch the American sign language interpretation should please sit on the benches to my left. If you would like to watch the Quebec sign language interpretation, please sit on the benches to my right. In addition, please note that the first two rows of benches have been reserved for those who wish to avail themselves of these interpretation services.

Screens displaying the near real-time closed captioning have also been set up, with the English text again to my left and the French text to my right. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being video recorded for the eventual broadcast of the meeting on ParlVu via the committee's website.

In light of these arrangements, the committee asks that if you need to leave the room during the meeting, please do not walk in front of the sign language interpreters. Instead, please use the extremities of the room. In addition, we ask that those in the room remain seated as much as possible during the meeting, so that everyone in the audience can clearly see the sign language interpretation.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of staff or the committee clerk.

I want to just check with the interpreters if my speed and cadence are appropriate. If so, please could they give me a thumbs-up? Fantastic.

I ask that because in the previous meetings we have gone a little fast, whether it's with opening statements or with questions and answers. I'm going to apologize in advance. I will, if given an indication by the interpreters, slow you down. Don't worry about time. We're very conscious that everyone wants to get the message out and that we are limited in time, but I have been a little liberal—no pun intended—on the timing, and have given people a couple more moments to finish their statements and stay at a slower pace.

If I believe we need to slow down, I will indicate it this way.

I want to introduce those who are here with us today, both in person and via video conference.

Appearing as an individual, we have Jutta Treviranus, Professor and Director at the Inclusive Design Research Centre from OCAD University, by video conference, coming to us from France. Welcome.

Also joining us here by video conference, from Barrier-Free Canada, we have Donna Jodhan, Founder and Chair. Welcome.

Appearing here with us today, we have Michael Prince, Professor of Social Policy from the Faculty of Human and Social Development at the University of Victoria. Welcome.

From People First of Canada, we have Kory Earle, President, and Shelley Fletcher, Executive Director. Welcome.

From the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Marianne Hladun, Regional Executive Vice-president from the Prairies region, and Seema Lamba, Human Rights Program Officer from the Negotiations and Programs Branch. I thoroughly apologize if I butchered your names.

Each group will receive seven minutes for opening statements. We're going to start with Jutta Treviranus, coming to us from France.

The next seven minutes are all yours.

Canada Labour Code

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to offer some remarks in support of Bill C-65 so we can continue to move this important legislation through the legislative process and toward being implemented as law in Canada.

I would like to thank the minister responsible for the bill, as well as all of my colleagues from different parties who have taken part in the debate from inception to today. I had the pleasure of substituting in for a handful of studies while the bill was going through the standing committee process after second reading, and I am pleased to have it return to my attention today.

The bill is meant to address harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, Crown corporations and the federal public service. Over the course of my remarks, I hope to offer some thoughts on the scope of the problem of workplace harassment and violence, as well as address some of the measures included in Bill C-65 to combat these social problems. If time permits, I will address some of the Senate amendments.

It is my pleasure to begin by discussing head-on the subject of workplace harassment and violence. This social phenomenon, quite frankly, is a serious problem that has no place in Canadian society whatsoever. It is disappointing to me that while most people we speak to would acknowledge this, workplace harassment and violence continues to persist.

I note that in a study conducted by Abacus Data, one in 10 people believed harassment in the workplace was really quite common. This is unacceptable. The standard of one in 10 thinking it is quite common should shock the conscience of every Canadian. We need to be promoting healthy workplaces where people can feel free to be their best selves and ensure they are able to contribute fully.

What makes it worse is I anticipate that most people who actually experience harassment or violence in the workplace do not come forward as often as we would like to think they do and when they do, they feel the measures are extraordinarily ineffective. This is a very serious problem. In my opinion, the system we have today disincentivizes people to report harm done to them in the workplace, incidents such as harassment or violence in the workplace.

The impact of harassment and violence at work should concern every one of us. It obviously has an impact on the individual who is the subject of this harassment or violence. We can imagine that people who are subjected to harassment or violence at work experience a far higher degree of stress or anxiety when they go to work in the morning and put in their shift. I am sure as well that it is a less satisfying experience as an employee to go to work and face this kind of harassment. It will also impact work performance if an employee is worried about physical violence or emotional harassment of any kind in the workplace. It is hard to imagine how the individual could be his or her best.

This can also have a ripple effect over the course of a person's career. We know that if people are experiencing this kind of subjugation at work from another person, it has the potential to cause them to miss work. They could actually have their careers thrown off track. People leave jobs over these kinds of incidents. Often the person who suffers the greatest consequences from harassment is the victim rather than the perpetrator, which is unacceptable in today's Canada.

However, it is not just the victim or survivor of harassment and violence who suffers consequences. Quite frankly, everyone suffers.

To remove the emotional or social context from this and to just look at hard and crass economics, it does not make sense to continue with the current system that helps to perpetuate violence and harassment in the workplace. When employees are subjected to harassment and violence, productivity of our companies go down. We know there can be reputational damage done to employers as well as severe reputational damage done to the employees when there are allegations of harassment, true or untrue, in the workplace. We need to consider this. We also know that workers who are subjected to violence have a poorer attendance records at work, through no fault of their own, by the way, and this also brings down the ability of companies to succeed in the Canadian economy.

However, this cannot be dealt with simply in terms of the hard and crass economics. We have to understand that there are individual human beings at the centre of this and that there is a disproportionate impact on different kinds of people based on the rate at which they experience violence and harassment in the workplace.

In particular, marginalized groups such as women, the LGBTQ community, indigenous people, people living with disabilities, racial and religious minorities and linguistic minorities suffer harassment and violence in the workplace at a far greater rate than the ordinary Canadian citizen. That is not okay.

I have been given every advantage in life. I am a white male from a good family. My parents both had good jobs. People whom I have worked with through my life have faced so many obstacles I have not faced. I am not okay with continuing to obtain advantages that my neighbours do not have. We live in an unfair society. Until every one of my neighbours is free and has the same advantages I had growing up, I cannot give up fighting inequality in our society.

If we want to take, for example, the experience that Canadian women have as opposed to Canadian men when it comes to workplace harassment and violence, the examples will shock members. For my first three years as a parliamentarian, I had the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Standing Committee for the Status of Women. It was an eye-opening experience for me, to say the least. We conducted studies on things like gender-based analysis, on ending violence against young women and girls, and on seeking equity in the Canadian economy.

I had the opportunity to sift through testimony. It is something that I will never forget. I have spoken personally with women whose careers have been completely derailed because of harassment in the workplace, including in Crown corporations and the federal public service and in certain agencies where the rules will change when Bill C-65 is implemented. I have heard stories about women who have been pushed into divorce because of the harassment they experienced when a husband and wife worked in the same workplace. I have heard tales of women being harassed so much that when they requested a transfer to another location, the employer would not accommodate their family being transferred as well. Those are consequences that we cannot accept, because they are having such a devastating impact on individual Canadians and a systemic impact on large groups of the Canadian population.

We know that women experience rates of workplace harassment and violence three times the rate experienced by Canadian men. We know that women are more likely to find themselves in an occupation that is subject to workplace harassment. We know, for example, that women are disproportionately represented in positions such as clerks or administrative assistants that report higher incidents of harassment and violence in the workplace.

This is holding our society back. We know that if we have rules that might in effect discriminate against women, though may not seek to do so, then those rules need to change. We will all benefit when they do.

Over the past couple of years in #MeToo era, we have come to better understand this problem in society and it is time that we do something about it. I cannot, in good faith, stand up here and argue that Bill C-65 is the panacea that will erase all of our social problems when it comes to gender and equity, but it will move the ball forward. I hope that some day we will get there, one step at a time.

It is not just women who suffer disproportionately when it comes to the social problem of workplace harassment and violence. If we look at minorities or marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ community, we know that they also face higher rates of violence and sexual harassment.

I had the opportunity to work for a human rights organization in Johannesburg in a position funded by the Canadian government. While I was there I did a fair amount of work with the LGBTQ community, helping them to access information held by the government. One of the key issues we focused on was employees who were wrongfully dismissed based on their sexual orientation or gender status. I have worked with clients who have been fired for reporting bullying as a result of their being transgender. That is not okay.

We have to remember that whatever one's sexual orientation, whatever one's gender, one does not deserve discrimination. I am talking about people who had spotless performance records, people who got along very well with their fellow employees but who, when they went public about going through a transition, were discriminated against and heavily bullied. When they reported to their employers they were experiencing this kind of bullying based on who they were as a person, the employers terminated their positions. Although it took years of fighting, we were able to obtain records demonstrating that the reason they were let go was that they had filed complaints that had caused their employers headaches. That is not okay. The rules in South Africa are not the same as the rules in Canada, but I want to highlight that we can always do better to make sure that everyone is treated equally.

If we consider indigenous people in the workplace, we need to do a better job at creating an environment and circumstances that make them feel welcome in the Canadian economy. We are dealing with the fastest growing and youngest segment of the population. This should concern not just indigenous Canadians but non-indigenous Canadians as well. If we are going to make progress as a country, we need to embrace the youngest and fastest growing sector of the population. Right now these people are being discriminated against. They experience violence in the workplace at more than double the rate of non-indigenous people.

If we consider persons with disabilities, one would not believe the lack of accommodation for them throughout our society. On a separate but related piece, I am so pleased that our government is moving forward with Bill C-81. I note that we have members in the House who strongly support those who live with episodic disabilities as well. I congratulate those who took part in that debate.

We know that individuals living with disabilities, and particularly those living with intellectual disabilities, suffer from harassment and workplace violence at an extraordinarily high rate, sometimes more than four times that of the average population. We know that those facing mobility challenges face an extraordinarily high rate of violence in the workplace as well, and are treated far too often as victims because they are seen as not having the tools to defend themselves like many other Canadians have. This is absolutely disgusting and we need to ensure that we have a process that prevents these kinds of incidents from occurring, one that offers a meaningful response, that delivers justice to the victims of harassment and violence and also creates a change in workplace culture.

My point is that workplace harassment and violence is a serious problem that we all need to play a part in addressing to ensure that we can move forward in Canada by supporting Canadians, no matter what their background.

That leads me to the measures contained in Bill C-65. It takes us to where we are today. I think it is appropriate to take a snapshot of where we are today and how today's rules can change for the better. Presently, if I can oversimplify things, there are two regimes for workplace harassment and violence in Canada. Those two regimes have different mechanisms for resolving the issues facing those who have been affected by harassment or violence in the workplace. This creates an imbalance between workplaces. To point to a defining kind of example, current sexual harassment rules only apply in the federally regulated private sector, whereas rules pertaining to violence apply to the public service as well. This kind of two-tier approach makes absolutely no sense. Whether one works in the private sector, in transportation for example, or the banking sector, as opposed to working for a branch of the federal public service, one deserves the same remedy if one is treated inappropriately, no matter where one works. This is incredibly important.

What really bothers me as well is that the workplace we all share here in Parliament does not fall under either of these categories. That has been newsworthy over the last number of years, particularly when dealing with the power imbalance between elected officials or senior members of government or of a different political party, who often deal with young people who are having their first experience in politics. There is an extreme power imbalance.

Today there is not really an effective remedy, in my opinion. We are getting better as a parliamentary community and a parliamentary family, but realistically, the stories we hear through the grapevine are predominantly of young women leaving politics after a few years of being exposed to it, if they have been victimized by sexual harassment or violence in the workplace. We need to do better and Bill C-65 is an opportunity to make us be just a little better.

There are three real pillars to Bill C-65 in how we are going to approach things moving forward. The first is that we are going to try to prevent incidents from taking place in the first place; the second that we will try to offer a meaningful response to incidents when they occur; and the third, and perhaps most important, that we will try to better support employees who have been victimized and lived through episodes of violence or harassment in the workplace.

On the point of prevention, Bill C-65 will require employers to train employees and undergo training. I was very pleased to take part in the training organized by the House of Commons to ensure that I could better understand what harassment and violence in the workplace look like. Some of the examples might be very obvious when it comes to a violent outburst and some of the more subtle instances of harassment, when viewed through the eyes of one person, who may be giving direction but can be interpreted and felt as harassment by another. Through training, employees and employers can better understand where the line that should never be crossed is.

Still on the point of prevention, employers will be required to work with their employees to develop a harassment and violence prevention policy. It is essential that this not be dictated from the top down. The feedback from those living in a work environment can contribute to the development of policy. When more voices from different perspectives come to the table, the quality of the policy on the back end will improve.

Under the second pillar of the changes under Bill C-65, the need to respond to incidents of harassment and violence, the bill would implement a number of measures. The first is the establishment of a timeline for responses and attempts to resolve a dispute. It will require that employers appoint a competent person to conduct proper investigations of incidents when they occur. It would also empower employers to share information with the workplace committee when it would not compromise the privacy of the persons involved in a given incident. It would also require that when an investigation by a competent person does take place, the recommendations of that investigation be implemented. Finally, it would require that when incidents occur, they be recorded and reported in a systemic way.

The final pillar is that employers will be required to provide assistance to employees who subjected to harassment or violence in the workplace and that employers engage the workplace committees in developing policies to help make their workplaces safer.

Bill C-65, as I mentioned, will not have every answer and will not cure every problem in a day, but it represents meaningful progress. One of the features included in the bill that would ensure that we are moving in the right direction over time is the five-year review. It would ensure that we revisit these policies after we have had enough time to determine whether they are having a meaningful impact. With the co-operation of the Parliament five years from now, hopefully we can examine how things have gone in this new world and continue to improve them.

In conclusion, it has been a privilege to learn about the issues that employees face when they are subjected to harassment and violence. It is completely inappropriate and unacceptable that we continue to discriminate against marginalized groups in the workplace, in federally regulated sectors, in the public service and in any employment situation in Canada, quite frankly. We need to do better and Bill C-65 helps move us in the right direction.

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion brought forward today by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. This is a very interesting motion.

Our government is committed to protecting and enhancing the rights of people with disabilities, including episodic disabilities, so they can reach their full potential. We recognize the importance of ensuring that Canadians with episodic disabilities get the support they need to stay in the workforce and fully participate in society.

As we prepare for the parliamentary debate on Motion No. 192, the views expressed by community partners and organizations will receive considerable attention. We recently undertook a number of initiatives that should improve the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities. Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, was tabled in Parliament on June 20. It specifically mentions episodic disabilities in its definition of “disability”, to ensure that the specific needs of Canadians with episodic disabilities are considered.

Furthermore, the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability is the first national survey to include a module on episodic disabilities. This data will be invaluable to governments, organizations working with people with disabilities and other stakeholders.

Episodic disabilities are conditions characterized by periods of good health interrupted by periods of illness or disability that may vary in severity, length and predictability. Some common examples of episodic disabilities include multiple sclerosis, arthritis, diabetes, chronic pain and some forms of mental illness.

According to a Social Research and Demonstration Corporation study based on Statistics Canada's 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability, an estimated 3.9% of people aged 15 to 64, a cohort 900,000 strong, claimed to suffer from an episodic disability in 2012. Some 40% of those people described their conditions as serious or very serious. Many episodic disability sufferers are able to work most of the time.

My time is up for now, so I would like to wish all of my colleagues a happy Thanksgiving. I hope that they enjoy every moment spent with their families and return well-rested on October 15.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that our government takes very seriously the challenges faced by people with episodic disabilities.

Episodic disability is a health condition that we all know about but that is difficult to measure and manage because of its unpredictable manifestations. It is for this reason that we take into account the needs of people with episodic disabilities in the development of our legislative programs and policies.

Episodic disability is characterized by moments of well-being and periods of illness or disability. These periods can vary in duration, predictability and severity. It is because of their condition that people with episodic disabilities may have to take time off work and thus use income replacement programs.

In 2012, nearly 3.8 million Canadians aged 15 and over reported having a disability limiting their daily activities, including those with episodic disabilities. People with episodic disabilities often face more employment challenges than people without disabilities. In 2011, almost half, or 47%, of respondents with disabilities aged 15 to 64 reported having a job, but for non-disabled respondents, this proportion was 74%.

Many of us know someone who has an episodic disability, and many people have episodic disabilities as they get older.

Motion No. 192 proposes that the House of Commons request the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to make “recommendations for legislative and policy changes necessary to ensure that the needs of persons with episodic disabilities caused, among other things, by multiple sclerosis, be adequately protected to ensure equity in government policy to support Canadians across all types of disability.”

Our government is well aware that people with disabilities face unique barriers that may limit their participation in our society and economy.

Our efforts to support and advance the integration of people with disabilities are not new. Since day one, we have been committed to this goal. In addition, we have improved and adjusted our programs accordingly. That is also why we have a minister dedicated to accessibility.

Our approach is based on collaboration and communication. That is how the government implements its commitment to people with episodic disabilities. We are committed to supporting people with episodic disabilities through many programs and benefits, such as the Canada pension plan disability program, the disability tax credit and the Canada health and social services disability benefits.

We have heard from people with episodic disabilities and the organizations that represent them that they are not always eligible for benefits of this nature because of the nature of their illness. For example, in June 2018, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology presented concerns such as these in its report, “Breaking Down Barriers: A critical analysis of the Disability Tax Credit and Registered Disability Savings Plan.”

We are constantly evaluating the extent to which our programs meet the needs of people from diverse groups, including people with episodic disabilities. We also regularly ask for advice on how our programs and policies could be more inclusive and better help Canadians. We appreciate the work of the organizations involved in this regard.

We have already taken important steps to provide better support. For example, in budget 2018, our government announced that it would expand labour provisions for a period of El benefits, maternity and sickness benefits. The purpose of this measure is to provide claimants who have an illness or injury more flexibility to manage their return to work and retain a larger portion of their El benefits.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention Bill C-81. On June 20, 2018, we tabled the accessible Canada act in Parliament. Under this new legislative proposal, our government would require organizations under federal jurisdiction to identify, eliminate and prevent barriers to accessibility, particularly in the area of employment. In addition, Bill C-81 would require consideration of the particular accessibility needs of people with a variety of disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities.

Before we introduced our bill, we talked to and listened to stakeholders. During the “accessible Canada” consultations, we heard from more than 6,000 Canadians and 90 organizations.

Our Government recognizes that it is important to ensure that people with episodic disabilities benefit from the proposed accessibility act in the same way as other people.

In response to stakeholder recommendations, Bill C-81 includes a broader definition of disability and specifically includes episodic disabilities. This addition is a clear sign to those with an episodic disability that our government is working to remove the barriers they face on a daily basis. Our government will continue to work with persons with disabilities, including those with an episodic disability. Our goal is to ensure these people are recognized and supported by our policies, programs and laws. Our commitment to inclusion and accessibility is unwavering.

I want to express my appreciation to our colleague for bringing this issue to the House. There is no reason why all Canadians cannot showcase all of their strengths and talents. People with disabilities share the same contributions to Canada's prosperity as the rest of Canadians. Canada is a country where everyone should be able to benefit from our collective prosperity. We will continue our work to shape an all-inclusive Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion No. 192, the private member's motion of my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. It seeks to enhance government policy responding to persons who suffer from episodic disabilities, including those caused by MS.

I had the pleasure of knowing my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for several years before I came to the House. I met his wife, Kathy, when they were door knocking for their by-election, and his daughter, Melissa, a wonderful lady who is suffering under snow in Calgary. She can come home to Edmonton any time. She served on my EDA. I tease David that we have the third best Yurdiga in the House today, but they are wonderful people nonetheless.

His wife, Kathy, is a wonderful lady, She spent countless hours helping out those in Fort McMurray during the disastrous fire we had a couple of years ago. Even with the issues she is facing, she still continues to give to the community, and I thank her for that.

I know my office, no doubt like other MPs here, works with constituents who need help accessing disability resources and, as is often the case, are looking for support from the system that may not be best equipped to handle changing needs, demographic and demands.

Discussions like the one we are having today are essential for establishing an action plan for community organizations that serve those who live with debilitating conditions. This type of discussion, a proper referral to committee to hear directly from those affected, how they can be better accommodated, what needs to be changed and so on, is the best way we can ensure that the needs of those who suffer from a disability, which may not always present signs or systems, are heard.

I compare this motion against the government's Bill C-81, which rather than provide an opportunity to develop a tangible plan with a road map for goals and desired outcomes, seeks to merely increase the bureaucracy and spending and add what will likely be decades more of proposals for upgrading buildings from Infrastructure Canada and PSPC. I have no doubt it will be added to the Liberals' list of “underway with challenges” on the Liberals' fabled mandate tracker.

We need to truly address the needs of persons with disabilities and, like my colleague for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake has highlighted, those whose condition may present episodically rather than chronically. The best way to do this is not through the observed experience of a policy analyst at PSPC or of a bureaucrat whose government mandated focus is fining and penalizing government agencies whose buildings are not up to code.

Bill C-81's information package provided by the government had twice as much information on how it would fine and penalize Canadians than it did on how it would implement the program or how it would help Canadians with disabilities. I would not be so cynical if there were not a clear record of the government penalizing persons with disabilities rather than helping them.

Let us go back to as recently as last year. The CRA began targeting people living with type 1 diabetes, people suffering from autism, as well as those suffering from severe mental health disorders. Autism Canada says that to this day it still is hearing too many stories of people who have had the disability tax credit, sometimes for decades, for their children with autism and it is being taken away.

What is going on with the government that it is allowing the CRA to go after families that have a loved one suffering from autism and now saying "you don't qualify"? Here is a hint to the government. People do not have autism and a tax credit one day and then the next not have autism. The way the government is acting is beyond belief.

The disability tax credit reduces the tax burden of people with type 1 diabetes and others with disabilities. Under the law, they have been eligible to receive it for the last 10 years as long as a doctor certified that they required life-sustaining therapy at least three times each week for a total of 14 hours on average. The government is now taking away tax credits from people who have diabetes or autism even when doctors certify they are eligible under the existing law and policy, neither of which has changed apparently.

This new direction appears to have happened secretly, with no public notice or consultation with the diabetes community. As a diabetes sufferer stated, "It's not like I can snap a finger and this disease turns off." Therefore, I have a question in all of this for a government that is so heavy on the need to consult. Why is it so quick to unilaterally decide on how to handle the issue of the level of disability? This is part of an alarming trend from a government increasingly desperate to raise revenue to fund its out of control spending.

I note that in its accessibility legislation, there is no mention of helping community-based organizations, those that persons with disabilities rely on during their day-to-day lives. People living with a disability do not need additional red tape, empty promises or an enhanced bureaucracy that just increases the amount of redirects they get when they call the department for help.

They need tangible change, something that can be attained by digging into exactly what is working and what is not working through a comprehensive study like that proposed under Motion No. 192. Perhaps the Liberals need to take heed of our record on disability legislation with programs that provided concrete action to address disability-related problems.

The Conservative government introduced the registered disability savings plan, which helps parents and grandparents with children with severe disabilities to contribute to the children's financial security. Over 100,000 Canadians have taken advantage of this program to save for their children's future. It took all of three months from election to legislation to create this program. Compare that to the Liberal record on Bill C-81 with three different ministers, or maybe four when we consider that it started with the current minister of PSPC under a different department. Now it is with disability and sports. With three different mandate letters over three years and it is still not accomplished.

During the former Conservative era, we invested $30 million into the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities gain employment. We supported caregivers by providing tax credits to help them through the difficulties associated with caring for a loved one. There was over $200 million for labour market agreements for persons with disabilities to assist provinces in improving the employment situation of Canadians with disabilities, millions of dollars for the initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living to connect persons with developmental disabilities with jobs, millions to support the expansion of vocational training programs for persons with autism spectrum disorder, and the list goes on.

However, the former Conservative government's action on disability resources did not stop with our previous government. The member for Calgary Shepard introduced Bill C-399,, the fairness for persons with disabilities act. This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to reduce the threshold for the number of hours necessary for an activity to be eligible for the tax credit from 14 to 10 hours. In the case of therapy that requires a regular dosage, it would take into consideration time spent on calculating the dosage to qualify for the tax credit. This would protect diabetics and certain rare disease patients for whom the calculation of their dosage takes considerable time. It would also add medical food and formula to qualifying for the DTC in order to add certainty for patients with certain rare diseases. This is the action that we need and action that will help those living with disabilities.

The member for Carleton introduced Bill C-395, the opportunity for workers with disabilities act to ensure that those with disabilities, upon gaining employment, are not net losers when government benefit clawbacks occur. Again, this is real action, common-sense action to help. Now my colleague for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is introducing this motion to develop a road map that would close the gaps in policy for people who are not always presenting signs of a disability, as is often the case for people suffering from MS.

We need a record that clearly shows what Canadians are saying about how the current system affects them and how it must be changed to help them not only live with dignity but continue to be active and contributing members of Canadian society. Motion No. 192 provides the action plan to do exactly that and I hope my colleagues on all sides of the House recognize what it seeks to do and support it.

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for bringing forward this important issue and, in particular, for sharing his personal stories about the importance of this issue. Of course, the impact of episodic disabilities is not limited to his family but also is significant for Canadians in every part of our country.

Our government understands that people with episodic disabilities such as MS, arthritis, diabetes, chronic pain and some types of mental health issues as well face particular barriers to their social and economic participation in society. At its core, what this motion seeks to do is to have a committee study the issue of episodic disabilities to ensure the people who live with these disabilities are adequately protected.

With respect to my hon. colleague's motion, before I commit on the spot to what seems like a sensible thing to study, I would like to have the opportunity to chat with some of my colleague who serve on the committee to ensure, first, that episodic disabilities would be part of the study on Bill C-81, and to ensure that we are taking steps in that bill to address the issue. If it turns out that this motion would indeed make a difference and not duplicate the work, it would have my support.

Episodic disabilities are characterized by fluctuating periods of wellness and periods of illness or disability. These periods may vary in length, severity and predictability. In 2012, almost 3.8 million Canadians reported having a disability that limited their daily activities. This figure includes people with episodic disabilities.

Persons living with disabilities often face more challenges in the labour force than those without disabilities. In 2011, close to half, or 47%, of 15-year-olds to 64-year-olds living with disabilities reported that they were employed. The figure for their contemporaries without disabilities was 74%. Employment is one of the key aspects of independent living and full participation in society. As such, the Government of Canada strives to empower all adults of working age, including people with episodic disabilities, to fully contribute to their communities and achieve their personal goals.

Our government is committed to supporting people with all forms of disabilities. One of our important initiatives is to remove barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction. On June 20, 2018, we tabled in Parliament Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act. I should stress that barriers can not only be physical in nature, such as access to built infrastructure like buildings, but that attitudinal barriers can also limit access and full inclusion. For example, persons living with disabilities can face discrimination in their workplaces or in seeking employment.

Earlier, I mentioned the discrepancy between the employment rates of those living with disabilities compared with other Canadians. However, the survey indicated that 51% of potential workers in that age group thought employers considered them disadvantaged as a result of their condition. This simply is not right. Under the new proposed legislation, organizations falling within federal jurisdiction would be required to identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility, including in the area of employment.

Under this important bill, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility would be responsible for the act and would implement aspects of it related to employment across all sectors within federal jurisdiction, including transportation, broadcasting and telecommunications.

Bill C-81 would also make use of a broader definition of disability. This speaks to the content of the motion in particular, because the definition includes a specific reference to episodic disabilities to signal our commitment to reducing barriers for people who live with episodic conditions. If passed, Bill C-81 would require consideration of the particular accessibility needs of people with a variety of disabilities, including episodic disabilities such as multiple sclerosis. For all people with disabilities, we are taking action.

To support the implementation of the proposed new legislation, the Government of Canada has committed approximately $53 million over six years toward a new strategy for an accessible Government of Canada. As part of the strategy, and as Canada's largest employer, the Government of Canada has committed to hiring at least 5,000 new employees who live with disabilities over the next five years. We are also introducing a federal internship program for Canadians with disabilities, and establishing a centralized workplace accommodation fund to better manage workplace accessibility for federal public service employees who live with disabilities. This is real action to effect change, and it will impact individuals who live with episodic disabilities.

These initiatives would support Canadians in accessing secure, gainful employment opportunities. Supporting and advancing the inclusion of people living with disabilities is not new to this government. From day one, we have been committed to this goal and have been improving our programs and benefits to better fit people's needs. This is also why we have a minister dedicated to supporting persons living with disabilities. Our approach is based on collaboration and communication. Notably, we have heard from people with episodic disabilities and stakeholder organizations that these individuals may face barriers in accessing federal supports.

I am proud to say that our government has taken significant action to enhance the federal programs in place to support these individuals. For example, in budget 2018, the Government of Canada announced that it would extend the employment insurance provisions for those working while on claim to sickness and maternity benefits. This would allow claimants dealing with an illness or injury to have greater flexibility managing their return to work and to keep more of their employment insurance benefits. This measure could have a positive impact on improving workforce attachment for people with episodic disabilities.

In 2017, the CRA reinstated the disability advisory committee, a committee of 12 members and two co-chairs, including people living with disabilities, advocates from the disability and indigenous communities, qualified health practitioners and tax professionals. This committee is mandated to advise the Minister of National Revenue and the commissioner of the CRA on interpreting and administering tax measures for Canadians living with disabilities in a fair, transparent and accessible way.

Enhancing the accessibility of the CRA's services to persons living with disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities, is an ongoing effort that will be greatly assisted by the committee's work. The Government of Canada is also committed to filling knowledge gaps around the experiences of people with episodic disabilities.

Statistics Canada's 2017 Canadian survey on disability is the first national survey to contain questions aimed at identifying people with episodic disabilities, and will provide valuable information to be used by governments, disability organizations, and other stakeholders. Results are expected to be released later this fall.

In these ways, the Government of Canada continues to implement its commitment to advancing the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities. We will maintain communications with Canadians with episodic disabilities so that we can always improve the support we provide and empower them to get the most out of life.

We believe in a truly accessible Canada, one where everyone has a fair chance to succeed.

I look forward to second reading of the hon. member's motion and having the opportunity before it comes back to the House to chat with my colleagues to ensure that the motion will lead to greater support for those living with episodic disabilities.

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and appreciate his coming forward and talking about his most personal story with his spouse, someone living with MS. The fact that more Canadians suffer from this dreadful disease than anyone else in the world is something we really have to take seriously. Episodic disorders like MS are very individualized to the person. My heart goes out to him and his family.

I want to talk about the present bill, Bill C-81, which is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities. The bill actually includes specific mention of episodic disabilities in its definition of disabilities to ensure consideration of the particular accessibility needs of Canadians with this type of disorder.

The member's motion calls for the committee to report to the House by February 2019. I wonder if the member would be flexible in his timeline. It is important to give the committee the time it needs to make sure that it hears all questions and answers about this very important issue.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes]

Additionally, we just tabled Bill C-81, the Canadian disabilities act. Do you see workplace participation as a gap in the current legislation? Have you had a chance to look at it?

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

Thank you.

I will try to talk slowly for the interpreters, but I might have to go fast.

I want to talk about the accountability. The federal government is the largest employer. It's going to be the most affected by Bill C-81. It's the largest organization that is going to have to obey the legislation, but at the same time, the key agencies that do enforcement and oversight are going to have to report to the federal government. I see that as being problematic.

I know there are probably ways we can strengthen the bill. How can we make these agencies more independent? Instead of reporting to the federal government, should they be reporting to Parliament, or have you already anticipated this? What are the ways we can make sure these agencies are operating in an independent manner?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

The standards that are going to be laid down in Bill C-81 and information that you get from the public will both be helpful for making improvements.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

When we talk about development and implementation of accessibility standards, I have already heard here that you try to have consultations and that you get better information from the general public. Do you think Bill C-81 will provide better provisions for bringing the regulatory changes, or is it better to get it from the general public?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions will be mostly regarding the Human Rights Commission, and either Madame Landry or Madame Daye can answer my questions.

As chair of the Human Rights Commission, the human rights organization involved in accessibility issues, you are already dealing with complaints from persons with disabilities. I think more than 60% of complaints come to you regarding disabled parties. In dealing with those complaints, you are not able to give them full relief, because some of the accessibility standards were not met and you are not able to provide better results.

Do you think now with the implementation of Bill C-81 that you will perform those duties better and be able to give better progress reports? Will accessibility standards be better met than before?

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

Thank you.

My next question, I believe, will be for Canada Post.

I live in a rural community. I know that you mentioned this in your remarks, that services can't.... It's not a one-size-fits-all approach for different services. In many rural and remote communities, local businesses are authorized dealers for Canada Post. Will these businesses be required to comply with the accessibility standards established through Bill C-81? I'm talking about those small towns of about 400 people or fewer. Will these costs associated with complying, if there are costs to these standards, be the responsibility of the local business?

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

Wonderful. Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank you all for being here and sharing your experience about what's currently going on.

My first question is for the Human Rights Commission.

In Bill C-81, the accessibility commissioner is responsible for compliance and enforcement activities. How does the role of the accessibility commissioner differ from the current powers of the human rights commissioner?

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. McDonald, one of the more interesting presenters I've seen in HUMA in my three years was Randy Lewis. He was the vice-president of Walgreens. He talked about how he transformed his distribution centres using people with disabilities as employees. Absenteeism went down. Productivity went up. Turnover went down. He talked about the cultural shift, about how it took a cultural shift.

I mean, we can put legislation in Bill C-81 and bring that forward, but this also takes a cultural shift from the top. I compare Walgreens and their distribution centres to Canada Post and their distribution centres. I want to talk about your delivery programs in a second, but can you talk to how Bill C-81 will transform internally the distribution centres at Canada Post itself? How will Bill C-81 transform that and break down barriers for people with disabilities?

Also, can you talk to what you have done over the past year or two, maybe, to break down those barriers?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for indulging our rules of procedure, but it probably has you thinking about definitions. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how the definition in Bill C-81 can be strengthened or how it serves its purpose effectively as it is.

Who would like to go first?

I was very intrigued to hear all of your comments earlier, Ms. Daye, Deputy Minister Laroche, Ms. Landry—

[Yazmine Laroche]

Thank you. That's an excellent question.

I think the reason my job has been created is there's a recognition that the Government of Canada needs to show leadership. Certainly Bill C-81 has helped to galvanize and focus the attention. Would we have gotten there anyway? I think we were starting to move in that direction, but having a deadline and knowing that the act is going to be proclaimed, we hope, in the coming year, and being told that we need to have a strategy ready for implementation a year after the date it comes into effect really do help to focus the attention.

Knowing what the act is trying to achieve also helps to focus the attention. Knowing the areas it's going to be looking at allows us to better focus our own efforts and not necessarily go off in a million different directions, so it is helping.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Do you think you could do that without Bill C-81? Is Bill C-81 the integral piece that was missing to ensure a whole-of-government approach?

[Jessica McDonald, Chair of the Board of Directors and Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation]

Thank you.

Hello, everyone.

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for inviting Canada Post to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-81.

My name is Jessica McDonald. As you said, I'm chair of the board of directors. I'm joined today by my colleague, Susan Margles, senior vice-president of corporate affairs. It's a pleasure to be here today and to speak to the committee.

Identifying, removing and preventing physical and non-visible barriers in the workplace and society is an incredibly important issue for our country, but also for Canada Post. We fully support Bill C-81 as proposed and embrace the goals of the legislation.

Canada Post recognizes the significance of this legislation to Canadian citizens, the Government of Canada and parliamentarians, including our minister, who is a champion for accessibility and removing barriers. We also know that as a Crown corporation we can and must always do more in this area. Identifying, removing and preventing barriers is a continuous evolution. Canada Post takes very seriously its obligations under the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as the Employment Equity Act.

We strive to ensure that our services and facilities are accessible to all Canadians. In the next few minutes, I will outline our approach for helping to improve accessibility for our customers and employees.

First, it's important to understand the size and scope of our operations. More than 50,000 people, full- and part-time employees, work for Canada Post, not including our subsidiaries. That makes us one of Canada's largest employers. We have the country's largest retail network, with nearly 6,200 post offices across Canada. Most of these are operated in urban centres, but many are operated out of very diverse locations, such as pharmacies, corner stores, or people's homes.

Often in remote reaches of the country, we've learned from experience that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work when it comes to providing services. We deliver to more than 16 million residential and business addresses in every corner of the country. We're proud to partner with small businesses across Canada, and we understand their importance to the Canadian economy.

We recognize the need for our services to be as accessible as possible to help small business owners and customers with disabilities. It's our job to serve Canadians, and we're proud to do so. Because of our size and scope, we're keenly aware of the importance of removing barriers for Canadians with physical and non-visible disabilities. We understand that the nature of disabilities can be as diverse as the people who experience them.

In supporting the legislation, we also know it will take some time to fully grasp how it will affect Canada Post. We're looking forward to better understanding the impacts and the opportunities from Bill C-81. Being a large organization with legacy infrastructure in communities across Canada, we recognize it will require significant effort and resources to make improvements going forward, but we are absolutely committed to respecting the legislation and regulations, once adopted.

As you may recall, the Government of Canada launched a review of Canada Post to better position us for the future. Based on feedback from the public and stakeholders, the government announced a new vision for Canada Post earlier this year. One of those pillars was to enhance our existing accessible delivery program. Canada Post is committed to ensuring that all customers, including seniors and persons with disabilities, have access to their mail and parcels. This specifically includes persons living on first nations reserves. We have a dedicated team in place to respond to each customer's needs on a case-by-case basis and together determine appropriate accommodation options. Again, we know we can do more and improve our processes.

We take our duty to remove barriers and accommodate disabilities and mobility issues very seriously. We're working diligently to ensure that our operations and services respect Canadians' right to dignity, autonomy and privacy, and that everyone has equal opportunity to access our services and compete for a job.

In all aspects of our operations, when a situation of inaccessibility is brought to our attention, we take action to address the situation as quickly as possible.

For Canada Post, Bill C-81 is an opportunity to improve accessibility to our services and facilities to meet the needs and expectations of an aging population. The 2016 census showed that for the first time in Canadian history, seniors now outnumber children in Canada. There are now nearly six million seniors in Canada, and by 2031, close to one in four Canadians could be 65 years of age or older. We absolutely recognize the need to adjust our operations accordingly.

We have also been working hard on creating an accessibility advisory panel. This panel will provide ongoing input and be a forum for dialogue that will help us make delivery services more accessible to persons with disabilities and to seniors. We're very delighted that some leading experts and strong advocates with lived experience have agreed to sit on the panel and take on this important role. We expect to announce the accessibility advisory panel very soon.

I wanted to quickly share some of the other services we currently provide that make it easier for people with disabilities to access our postal products and services.

In our retail locations, examples include access ramps, electronic doors, accessible payment devices and the welcoming of service animals.

To support the visually impaired, we provide a literature for the blind service that allows specific items used by blind persons to be mailed for free, such as materials impressed in Braille and sound recordings, such as CDs. For the hearing-impaired, we have a dedicated toll-free TTY customer service line. We also provide instruction to our employees on how to deal with customers with visual or hearing impairments.

We are also committed to making our website accessible to all Canadians. Some of the accessibility features include keyboard shortcut options for navigating without a mouse, an ability to change text size, and quick-access links.

We also have a disability management team. Canada Post provides training for employees on how to accommodate physical and non-visible disabilities in the workplace. Our collective agreements with our unions all address accessibility. We collaborate with unions and have joint decision-making on how to remove barriers. Each union also has a specific committee with Canada Post on respecting human rights.

As a major federal employer, service provider, and procurer of services, Canada Post recognizes that this legislation and its regulations will impact many aspects of our organization going forward. The legislation will require us to identify, remove, and prevent barriers in six key areas identified in the bill.

Recognizing that we have much work to do in this area, I also want to note that Canada Post is in the process of hiring a director of accessibility policy. This is an important step as we work to improve accessibility at Canada Post.

We know that this work will require a lot of resources, but as I mentioned earlier, we welcome this important legislation and we embrace its goals.

We hope that our efforts and continued commitment to doing more demonstrate the importance Canada Post places on improving accessibility for our customers and employees.

On behalf of Canada Post, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear.

We applaud the government and members of the committee for working to remove barriers and improve accessibility for all Canadians through Bill C-81. This is an important conversation, and we are very happy to contribute to it.

Our approach to improving accessibility has evolved over many years and aligns with the goals outlined in the bill. We look forward to further understanding what the legislation will mean for Canada Post going forward.

We would be very happy to take your questions.

Thank you.

[Marie-Claude Landry, Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission]

Good morning.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to take part in your study of Bill C-81. With me is Marcella Daye, senior policy adviser at the commission.

The commission is an independent agency of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and Canada's human rights watchdog. Bill C-81 is a positive step toward ensuring that everybody can live free from barriers: barriers in the buildings we work in, barriers built into the technology we use, and barriers created by attitudes and stigma that prevent people from contributing fully to society. This bill will improve accessibility, and so we congratulate the government on this very important initiative.

For the CHRC, the bill provides for a new accessibility commissioner and a new accessibility unit. It also designates the CHRC as the monitoring mechanism for the UNCRPD, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and we welcome this designation. The Canadian Human Rights Commission supports this bill, and we urge you to pass it.

I would like to highlight two sets of changes that the CHRC believes will have a positive impact on the success of the bill's implementation.

Our first suggestion is about making sure the legislation begins to work immediately. This comes in two parts.

First, the bill states that the government may choose to put regulations in place. We believe that the legislation should require government to make regulations. It needs more. It needs a kick-start to action. We recommend in subclause 117(1) changing “may” to “shall” and adding the words “which may include” at the end of this subsection. We therefore propose that subclause 117(1) would read as follows: “Subject to sections 118 to 120, the Governor in Council shall make regulations which may include”.

Two, we also recommend that the bill require timelines to be set for organizations to meet any standard that is passed into regulation. We propose to add to the end of subclause 117(1)(c) the words, “and timelines for their implementation”. With our proposal, subclause 117(1)(c) would read as follows: “establishing standards intended to remove barriers and to improve accessibility in the areas referred to in section 5 and timelines for their implementation”.

With these changes, we believe the legislation will inspire and compel concrete action. It will ensure that neither the government nor organizations will be able to let good intentions gather dust, and it will embed accountability.

Our suggestion is about the lack of clarity around the application of this legislation in first nations communities. They are not excluded, but they are also not specifically included. We are concerned that this lack of clarity may lead to a gap in human rights protection for indigenous peoples. This is why we welcome the government's commitment for more robust consultation with first nations, the Inuit and the Métis nation. The commission is familiar with the consequences of excluding a group of people from human rights protections. Prior to 2008, section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act excluded persons living on first nations reserves. It was intended as a temporary measure. It remained for 30 years. We must ensure that such a gap does not happen again.

Bill C-81 has the potential to bring about incredibly positive changes for those living with disabilities in first nation communities. We urge the government to work quickly in consultation with first nations towards the effective implementation of the Accessible Canada Act on reserves. Such work must of course take into accounts their rights, unique interests and circumstances. We also encourage the government to provide adequate resources to first nation governments to meet the urgent needs that exist in far too many communities.

On a last note before I conclude, during your review of the bill, you will likely hear many concerns, including those about the very broad exemption powers in the act and the lack of recognition of American sign language and la langue des signes québécoise. We believe that concerns of civil society such as these merit consideration by this committee.

The CHRC is committed to putting in place the people, tools, expertise and partnerships needed to play our part in this ambitious legislation. This includes our setting up of working groups with the CTA, the CRTC, the FPSLREB and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

I want to thank you again. Marcella Daye and I look forward to answering your questions.

[Yazmine Laroche, Deputy Minister, Public Service Accessibility, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee to discuss Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. I am delighted to be here with my colleagues to speak about this bill.

The goal of of Bill C-81 is to vastly improve the quality of life for Canadians with disabilities through the progressive realization of a barrier-free Canada. Currently, barriers to accessibility continue to adversely impact Canadians with disabilities and their families.

The bill, if passed, would require organizations under federal jurisdiction to identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility in six key areas: the built environment, employment, information and communications technologies, the procurement of goods and services, the delivery of programs and services, and transportation.

Chief among these organizations is the Government of Canada. As such, the accessible Canada act has the potential to significantly change the way that the federal public service does business and serves Canadians, as well as to improve the lives of federal employees with disabilities. As the largest employer in Canada, the government must lead by example.

Our goal is a simple one: to make the public service of Canada the gold standard of an accessible and inclusive public service.

But we have our work cut out for us.

Among the 12,000 respondents to the PSES, the public service employment survey, who self-identified as a person with a disability, too many report facing more challenges in the workplace than those without disabilities.

Public servants with disabilities report higher rates of harassment, feeling emotionally drained after their work day and that their work-related stress is high or very high. They also report being less engaged, less empowered and less respected than people without disabilities.

To address this, Treasury Board is taking action in its capacity as employer of the core public administration.

Today I'd like to briefly outline some of the work that's currently taking place at the secretariat.

As the first-ever deputy minister of public service accessibility, just appointed in August, I have charged my team with developing an overarching strategy and an implementation plan. Our work will be based on consultation with partners and stakeholders that will help the federal public service show leadership in meeting the requirements in the accessible Canada act.

My office will act as a hub, providing strategic advice on accessibility issues for all Government of Canada departments and agencies. We will leverage the expertise of partners in other levels of government, as well as both the private and non-profit sectors.

One of the goals set by the Government of Canada is to hire 5,000 new employees with disabilities by 2025. Beyond recruitment, we will also lead initiatives to remove barriers to inclusion and full participation in the workplace, and ensure employees with disabilities can access the adjustments they need in a timely manner.

Our goal is to optimize productivity and maximize every employee's contributions.

We will also take an active role in supporting departments and agencies in publicly reporting on their progress through multi-year accessibility plans. In this way, we can be held to account.

While our office is new, much work is already underway thanks to my colleagues, like Carl Trottier, in the office of the chief human resources officer.

This office within TBS has been developing the diversity and inclusion strategy and action plan for the public service, to be launched this fall.

On recruitment, TBS is developing a strategy to address gaps and barriers for equity seeking groups, including persons with disabilities.

One of the components of this strategy will be to examine opportunities to reach Canadians with disabilities, and further understand and address barriers to recruitment, retention and engagement once in the public service.

The secretariat will build on its own experience with successful pilot programs, such as the youth accessibility summer employment opportunity for students with disabilities and its partnership with LiveWorkPlay for people with intellectual disabilities.

The secretariat has identified the need to train and support managers and human resources professionals early in the recruitment process and to provide timely access to services such as the accessibility, accommodations and adaptive computer technology program at Shared Services Canada.

Mr. Chair, allow me to turn to the work now currently being led by my colleague Alex Benay, Canada's chief information officer.

In a modern workplace, information and technology are key enablers that support collaboration, innovation and mobility.

However, in today's public service, information and communications technologies are not as accessible as they should be. Many work tools can pose accessibility and usability barriers to employees with disabilities.

To address this, TBS is evolving the current suite of collaboration tools into an open and accessible digital workspace for public servants.

Using modern open-source technology and tools, this workspace will be accessible by design, ensuring that all of our employees can bring their diversity and passion to the table to provide better services to Canadians.

As well, the Government of Canada recently released the digital standards, which include accessibility by design. As the government continues to transition towards digital, a key focus will be keeping user needs, including accessibility, at the forefront of the design of all government services and operations.

In closing, let me plainly say that the public service should reflect the diverse nature of the citizens it serves. We know that diverse and inclusive organizations are more creative, innovative and productive.

Our goal is to create a workplace where every federal public servant has what they need to do their very best work so that they can do their best for Canada and for its citizens.

Thank you so much. We'd be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everybody.

I have a preamble that I need to go through at the beginning of each of these meetings, so please bear with me.

We are meeting on Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The objective of today's meeting is to continue the committee's thorough review of the bill.

I would like to take a moment to remind both those participating in the proceedings, as well as those observing the proceedings of the committee in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study.

As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation, and near real-time closed captioning in the room. Please note that both American sign language and Quebec sign language are being offered to those in our audience.

For those who would like to watch the American sign language interpretation, please sit in the benches to my left. For those who would like to watch the Quebec sign language interpretation, please sit in the benches to my right.

In addition, please note that the first two rows of benches have been reserved for those who wish to avail themselves of these interpretation services.

Screens displaying the near real-time closed captioning have also been set up, with the English text to my left and the French text to my right. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being videorecorded for the eventual broadcast of the meeting through ParlVu via the committee's website.

In light of these arrangements, the committee would ask that if you need to leave the room during the meeting, please do not walk in front of the sign language interpreters. Instead, please use the extremities of the room.

In addition, we would ask that those in the room remain seated as much as possible during the meeting so that everyone in the audience can clearly see the sign language interpretation.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

The last meeting was our first meeting with the sign language interpretation. You can tell from my tone and pace that I am trying to slow things down a little bit, so please take your time. I won't be as strict with the timing as usual.

We did have some issues at the first meeting with the interpretation having trouble keeping up with the speed of the speakers. If I get an indication that you do need to slow down, I will do this. I'm not saying to stop; I'm just saying slow down.

I'd like to welcome all of the witnesses here today. We have a very large group, so we'll get right to it.

From the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Yazmine Laroche, deputy minister, public service accessibility; Alex Benay, chief information officer of the Government of Canada; and Carl Trottier, assistant deputy minister, governance, planning and policy sector, office of the chief human resources officer.

From the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we have Marie-Claude Landry, chief commissioner, and Marcella Daye, senior policy adviser, policy and legal services branch.

From Canada Post Corporation, we have Jessica L. McDonald, chair of the board of directors and interim president and chief executive officer, and Susan Margles, senior vice-president, corporate affairs.

Welcome again to all of you. I believe we are going to start with Yazmine Laroche, deputy minister, public service accessibility, for seven minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you to everybody present today and watching at home. I want to personally thank those involved in working on the logistics and set-up we have here today. This is unique, and I think it's important to recognize their efforts and the efforts moving forward in this study.

Just as housekeeping on future business, on October 4 we are back here in this space. Again we're going to be working on Bill C-81, in our first session with witnesses. After the break we're back here again in this space on October 16 to meet with the minister and witnesses on motion M-110. Again, thank you to the department officials for being here with us today.

The meeting is adjourned.

[James Van Raalte]

It's 5.6%. Thank you.

When you match that against the fact that 14% of the Canadian population are persons with a disability, while we are meeting our employment equity targets, it still falls quite short of representativeness across the country.

The 5,000 additional hires over the next five years will bump that 5.6% up to somewhere between 7% and 8%.

Again, there's a lot more that can be done in terms of recruitment within the public service to make the public servants representative of persons with disabilities. I'm sure Deputy Minister Laroche will have a lot to say about that on Tuesday. It's something that is near and dear to her heart.

In terms of the new organizations that are contemplated under Bill C-81, just at a high level, I've explained that the Canadian accessibility standards development organization will have a mandate for developing standards on an ongoing basis for the government to consider from a regulatory perspective. It will also have a technical assistance mandate, in terms of being able to help organizations translate what a model standard actually means for an organization. It also has a research mandate, in terms of contemplating and getting ahead of the standards that are needed for the next generation, so that we're not in a reactive mode in standards building or standards development. We'll be looking at and leading on the next range of standards that are going to be needed.

The chief accessibility officer, as I believe I've explained, has that systemic monitoring role. The person will be required to report annually on the progress and implementation of the legislation across the system. Again, it will have that special reporting capacity, should either the minister or somebody from the outside signal that there are problems with the system.

Then finally, there is the accessibility commissioner, who will be housed within the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is intended to take advantage of the infrastructure that already exists in place within that commission, and will have the proactive compliance and enforcement as well as the complaints-handling mandate that my colleague has explained for the committee.

[James Van Raalte]

I'm happy to answer this. It's a fundamental question of culture change. The minister speaks of this frequently. I think there are three levers, if I can use those words. One of them is quite formal and then two are more on the informal side.

On the formal side, Bill C-81, again, contemplates the creation of CASDO. The independence of CASDO is very important in terms of its ability to establish model standards that any organization can use. From an ideal perspective, the minister can ask CASDO to establish standards, but other organizations can work with CASDO to establish model standards as well. A province, a municipality or an international organization can approach CASDO and ask it to develop a model standard on—let's pick open spaces, not the built environment, but parks and recreational areas. They could say, we want a model standard, and we want you to form a technical committee. Could you do that for us? CASDO has that ability under the proposed legislation to do that.

Model standards, once they're developed, as I said, can be used by any organization. Having that independence and that model standard means that any jurisdiction, province, territory or municipality can use that model standard to have that coherent approach across Canada.

On the informal side, there is the regular ongoing conversation at a political and officials' level with our provincial and territorial counterparts. For the past two years, as an example, I've been co-chair with my Ontario and Saskatchewan colleagues of an open forum on accessibility, to set the groundwork for a more formal consultation with the provinces and territories, should Bill C-81 be adopted.

How are we going to work together in terms of accessibility coherence across jurisdictions? As I indicated, there is the leadership from Ontario, Nova Scotia and Manitoba. Also active at the table, I would say, are Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia with lots of interest in what we're doing and how we're going to work together. I know the minister has had a number of occasions to talk to her provincial and territorial counterparts going forward.

The final informal piece is behaviour change. That is the conversation about how you can do better and how you can take it to the next level. The legislation is just one part of that conversation change. It's a lever to ensure that organizations are talking about accessibility. I think the minister, especially in her business case for why it makes sense to hire persons with disabilities, is also a big, important part of that conversation.

[James Van Raalte]

I am pleased to respond to this question, because I think it speaks to quite a bit of work the public service has undertaken, also in consultation with the disability community across the country and internationally.

I think it's important to give credit where credit is due in terms of some of the provincial leadership that has been undertaken over the past decade—namely Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia—and that has allowed us to build on that foundation.

There's quite a bit of similarity between C-81 and what it sets out to do and the legislative frameworks within those three jurisdictions I mention, in four areas in particular: the development and enforcement of standards; the concept of the accessibility plans; issues related to compliance; and then review mechanisms, again at the end to make sure the legislation is meeting its needs.

I am referencing the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which was passed in 2005; the Accessibility for Manitobans Act, which was passed in 2013; and most recently, the Accessibility Act in Nova Scotia in 2017.

From a standards development perspective, it varies somewhat amongst how the provincial accessibility laws generally provide for the creation of standards through standard development committees and/or an accessibility advisory board that may create committees to develop standards.

By contrast, C-81 proposes CASDO as that arm's-length independent standards-setting process and the technical committee piece. I'm happy to answer questions about CASDO and its ability to set model standards.

From an accessibility plan perspective—again, similar to provincial laws—C-81 sets out that planning and reporting requirement. One of the big differences, however, is including persons with disabilities in that process in terms of, as well, having a feedback mechanism.

Provincial accessibility laws and Bill C-81 all include provisions to ensure compliance, including provisions for inspections, compliance orders and administrative monetary penalties. In the provinces, these are undertaken by designated directors and inspectors. These individuals are housed within the government departments responsible for administering the act, whereas Bill C-81 establishes unique remedies in relation to the contravention of accessibility requirements that result in harm.

Finally, in terms of that review process, similar to provincial accessibility acts Bill C-81 provides for periodic reviews of the provision and operation of the act, to make sure the act is—

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

Thank you for coming in this morning.

I don't think there's any question that C-81 is going to open up opportunities and break down barriers for people with disabilities.

I do have a few questions for you this morning. How does this legislation compare to accessibility legislation in other jurisdictions, provincially and internationally?

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

Thank you, Minister, for being here today, and thank you for your work on this file. It's been a long time coming, and taking into consideration all the consultation that needed to happen, I completely understand that.

You mentioned that 14% of Canadians have disabilities. I would add that they touch most of us if not all of us. I remember when a private organization offered a job to my brother, who has faced barriers all of his life. It was a simple job, but he got a paycheque, and I remember how he felt. That's what we need to be offering Canadians today—the opportunity to move forward and to feel good about themselves. That's why I'm so excited about this legislation.

Minister, can you talk to us about why it's so important that Bill C-81 establish a framework for addressing issues facing persons with disabilities rather than incorporating standards directly into the legislation so they can be implemented immediately?

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

Thank you, and thank you for having me.

It's a pleasure to be here to advocate for Bill C-81, which has some meaningful amendments to it. I think we all celebrate the act.

To use our time effectively, I just want to jump in with the minister, who has really been a champion. I love the way, Minister, you just articulated that we wanted to see with this a profound change in how we look at or how we take a medical or prescriptive approach rather than a social and inclusive approach. That's the disability lens aspect of it that is so extremely important.

I see lacking—and this also came from the consultations—that we're not requiring federal laws or policies or regulations to be studied through a disability lens. I think maybe it's implied. I could make that argument on the other side, that it's implied, but I would make the argument that it needs to be articulated. This is our historical achievement with this national act. Although it does not bring us far enough to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—I will say it falls short of that—we can make amendments and bring it in that direction.

I believe, Minister, some of your comments were about government being nimble in reassessing and looking at this in the future, so I'm hopeful for that.

I'd like to hear a little bit of what you think the potential might be now for us to actually anchor this a bit more, this looking through a disability lens.

I notice that your title, Minister, includes “public services, procurement and accessibility”. Can you imagine if we had a federal directive to look through a disability lens for procurement? I just feel that if we're going to do this, we have some tangible ways that we really can anchor this just a little bit more. I'd like to hear some of your thoughts, your takeaways, what you are thinking we can move forward on and what some of the potential opportunities are for us to look at here with the committee.

[Carla Qualtrough]

I certainly am. I can tell you that the biggest compliment I've had since we tabled Bill C-81 was when a prominent member of the disability community looked me in the eye and said, “I see myself in this. I see the feedback I gave in this, and I really appreciate that. Thank you for listening.”

[Carla Qualtrough]

Bill C-81 is focused on removing barriers. The idea is that, if I can get into your building, I can shop there, I can work there and I can participate meaningfully in whatever is going on there. I can access services there. The idea is that we are going to remove the obstacles to inclusion before discrimination happens. That is a real key, as I've said, a shift to a proactive approach from a reactive approach.

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

I've seen it time and time again in the riding that organizations seem to understand the potential, but, in going from understanding the potential to actually enacting and hiring people with disabilities, there seems to be a gap there, a lack of preparedness, I guess, or maybe fear of the unknown.

Could you speak to what we can do? What will Bill C-81 do to alleviate that?

[Carla Qualtrough]

I think what you're referring to at the beginning of your question is what I've come to think of as the untapped economic potential of the 14% of Canadians who have disabilities. Savvy, innovative, progressive, thoughtful and clever businesses, like the ones you mentioned, have figured that out. We know that including Canadians with disabilities is a game-changer in terms of the economic benefits.

The Conference Board of Canada has estimated that, if we remove barriers and accommodate Canadians with disabilities, you're looking at $1.3 to $1.9 billion annually of economic growth. That's significant.

We know that there is improved loyalty, less absenteeism and all the benefits you talked about when we remove barriers. That's the game-changing aspect of Bill C-81. It puts the onus on the government to remove barriers to inclusion up front for Canadians with disabilities. That is a fundamental shift in how we approach accessibility and disability rights in this country.

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

Good morning, Minister. Thank you so much for coming this morning. I just want to thank you for your incredible leadership and advocacy of those living with disabilities.

My eyes were wide open to the challenges and barriers faced by people with disabilities on this HUMA committee. Several months back we interviewed a couple of gentlemen, Mark Wafer with Tim Hortons and Randy Lewis with Walgreens. We talked to them, learned from them, and heard from them that their organizations' employee turnover dropped, absenteeism dropped, productivity increased and morale increased.

In my own riding of Saint John—Rothesay, there are two organizations in Key Industries, run by Christine Evans. Then there's CCRW run by Joan Mallory and Misti Denton. They work with people with disabilities daily. They help integrate them into society. Again, you see the wonderful opportunities that are there that Bill C-81 can certainly help with. Unemployment rates amongst people with disabilities are upward of 80%.

The bill itself, Bill C-81, signifies the largest advancement for persons with disabilities since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Could you tell the committee how this will fundamentally change the relationship between the federal government and persons with disabilities? Why is the bill necessary, in your opinion?

[Carla Qualtrough]

I have a couple of things in an immediate response around the consultation. Make no mistake—a lot of work has happened over the past three years.

We're very proud of the intentional effort around our consultations to be included, to have a national conversation, which, I would submit, has never happened before around disability issues. We needed to take the time to properly consult and include anybody and everybody who wanted to speak on what their vision of an accessible Canada was. I'm incredibly proud of the consultation process. I think it set a gold standard for how we can be inclusive in the way we consult as governments of any stripe.

What we clearly heard through the consultation was that Canadians with disabilities wanted to enshrine the concept of “nothing about us without us” in law. What that means is, “We don't want to have standards or requirements imposed by law, by government, that will impact our daily lives.”

What Bill C-81 does is create a framework of a process, a system, whereby Canadians with disabilities are squarely at the centre and have direct input into the decisions that are being made around the barriers to accessibility that they're facing.

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your intentional and deliberate efforts and success at making these committee meetings inclusive and accessible for everyone. I know that the members of the disability community certainly appreciate it, as do I.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting me here today to present Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, the accessible Canada act.

It was an honour to stand up in the House of Commons two weeks ago and open debate for this proposed act. The bill, should it be enacted, will allow for the identification, removal and prevention of barriers that keep all Canadians from participating in society. Bill C-81 would significantly transform how Canada addresses accessibility. It would allow us to become proactive instead of reactive. It would allow for a fundamental shift in the way the Government of Canada does business.

We need to ensure equality for all from the start. It's time for broad organizational and cultural change. There is no reason to wait for people to be discriminated against before we act. We know discrimination exists. We know that over 50% of the complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission are on the basis of disability.

Canadians with disabilities deserve better, to be valued as civic, social and economic contributors to Canadian society with the full rights of citizenship.

An incredible amount of dedicated work and public consultation went into the drafting of this bill. We heard from over 6,000 individuals and organizations from all across the country.

This extensive consultation allowed us to better understand the needs of the disability community.

We came to the conclusion that policies and practices currently in place simply do not adequately take into account the barriers faced by Canadians with disabilities in their day-to-day lives. Canadians with disabilities do not want to be treated as a burden, but as full, equal members of society. They should have the same rights and the same opportunities as everyone else, and accessibility is about addressing the barriers created by society that prevent people with disabilities from enjoying their human rights on an equal basis with others.

Bill C-81 will lead to the establishment of accessibility standards in the areas of employment, the built environment, information and communication technologies, the delivery of programs and services and transportation. It will apply to Parliament, the Government of Canada, crown corporations and federally regulated entities, including organizations in the transportation, telecommunications, broadcasting and banking sectors.

Thanks to Bill C-81, Canadians with disabilities, who are valued and contributing members of society, would have greater opportunities to participate in their communities and in the workplace. It would make it easier for them to get a job and stay in that job, to travel, to communicate with friends and family, and to access products, programs and services on an equal basis with others.

Bill C-81 would create a framework and new organizations for developing accessibility standards, establishing and enforcing accessibility requirements, and monitoring implementation. It would establish the Canadian accessibility standards development organization, or CASDO, in order to create standards that work for both industry and the disability community.

The majority of CASDO board members would have lived disability experience. Once accessibility standards are developed, they would need to be adopted into regulations by the Government of Canada to become law. Standards would change over time with changes in technology and best practices. Having standards in regulations, rather than in the proposed act, would mean they can be updated more readily to reflect these changes.

Our intention is to allow the government to move more quickly to improve accessibility by adopting recognized and established standards that have been developed and validated by technical experts, industry and people with disabilities.

What would all this mean for Canadians with disabilities? An example I like to use involves the accessibility of a bank ATM for a person with a visual impairment. In our current system, if a customer is blind and can't use the ATM and this isn't addressed by the bank, the person would need to file a discrimination complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Once a decision was made—and this could be years later—in favour of the complainant, it would be applicable only to the specific ATM in question and not to all banks and certainly not all ATMs across the board.

To compare this with what the scenario would look like under the proposed legislation, it would be CASDO— through a technical committee comprising persons with a disability, industry representatives and technical experts—that would define the standards for accessible ATMs. The standard would then come to the minister of accessibility for adoption through the regulatory process, after which time the regulation would apply to all banks in Canada. The accessibility commissioner would monitor compliance with the regulation and would have the ability to impose monetary penalties if the banking sector was not adhering to the regulation.

This example shows how this important change in framework and process shifts the burden from the individual to the system and also allows for a more comprehensive and consistent application of accessibility within areas of federal jurisdiction.

This is a very tangible example of how this legislation will positively impact Canadians.

The proposed legislation would require organizations to think about how to integrate accessibility into their day-to-day operations. However, there may be circumstances, albeit exceptional, in which it would be appropriate for a regulated entity to be exempted from certain requirements under Bill C-81.

For example, it may be appropriate to exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a small business, because it might be more productive for this organization to focus its resources and efforts where it can have the biggest impact on accessibility.

To ensure transparency and accountability, the exempting authority—the designated minister, the CRTC or the CTA—would be required to make exemptions public by publishing them in the Canada Gazette.

The bill also provides real teeth to ensure meaningful and lasting change among organizations under federal jurisdiction. Compliance, enforcement and complaints would be processed through the accessibility commissioner, with the exception of those under the jurisdiction of the CRTC, the CTA and the Federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board.

This model builds on existing sector-based mandates for the purposes of efficiency and takes advantage of accessibility experience and expertise. Bill C-81 includes provisions for a "no wrong door" approach to ensure collaboration and coordination across organizations for efficient and expeditious referral of accessibility-related complaints.

If passed, this legislation will also be a significant step in Canada's ongoing implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which Canada is a proud state party. Once Bill C-81 receives royal assent, the Canadian Human Rights Commission would become responsible for monitoring the Government of Canada's implementation of the convention.

Make no mistake. There is still a lot to be done to create a Canada without barriers and it's imperative to do things right from the get-go. As proposed, the legislation includes a number of foundational elements. It's anticipated that new organizations such as the Canadian accessibility standards development organization, CASDO, the accessibility commissioner and the chief accessibility officer would be up and running within six to 12 months of the legislation coming into force and that the first set of regulations under the legislation would come into force in 2020-21.

I'm being told to slow down.

How will Canadians know that organizations are taking steps to improve accessibility? Under Bill C-81, regulated entities would be required to prepare and publish accessibility plans in consultation with persons with disability. These plans would describe the organizations' strategies for improving accessibility and meeting their legal obligations. The organizations would also have to establish feedback processes on their accessibility from employees and members of the public, and prepare and publish annual progress reports on the implementation of their plans.

Moreover, a new position, called the “chief accessibility officer”, would be established. The person appointed to this role would be responsible for monitoring and reporting on the overall outcomes achieved by the act and in respect of systemic and emerging accessibility issues.

These measures would allow for Canadians to monitor progress on accessibility and the implementation of Bill C-81 in a very transparent manner.

If adopted, Bill C-81 will bring broad organizational and cultural change.

Through the creation and enactment of new accessibility standards, new planning and reporting requirements, and strong proactive enforcement tools, Bill C-81 will lead to greater accessibility for everyone in Canada, especially persons with disabilities.

Bill C-81 would set a standard worthy of Canadians and Canada's place in the world.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer questions, and I promise to speak more slowly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good morning. Welcome to the committee's first meeting on Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The objective of today's meeting is to start the committee's study on the bill. We will begin this process today as we are joined by the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility and her officials.

Bear with me, I've got a bit of a preamble here. I'd like to take a moment to remind both those participating in the proceedings as well as those observing the proceedings of the committee in person and on video that the committee adopted a motion on September 18 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public on this study.

As a result, the committee has made arrangements to make all meetings in relation to the study of Bill C-81 as accessible as possible in a variety of ways. This includes providing sign language interpretation and near real-time closed captioning in the room. Please note that both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language are being offered to those in our audience. The sign language interpreters in the room are also being videorecorded for eventual broadcast of the meeting on ParlVU via the committee's website.

In light of these arrangements, the committee would ask that if you need to leave the room during the meeting, please do not walk in front of the sign language interpreters. Instead, please use the extremities of the room. In addition, we would ask that those in the room remain seated as much as possible during the meeting so that everyone in the audience can clearly see the sign language interpretation.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

Thank you very much, everybody, and without further ado, I would like to welcome the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, as well as James Van Raalte, director general of the accessibility secretariat, and Erik Lapalme, senior policy analyst, accessibility secretariat.

Welcome to all of you, and Minister, I believe you have some remarks. The next 10 minutes are all yours.

Opposition Motion—Housing

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

It is my pleasure to rise today to take part in the opposition day debate on housing. It is not often that an opposition party gives the government a chance to talk about all its achievements, but thanks to the member for Saskatoon West, we are doing that today.

I am not just going to speak about our record on housing. I am going to talk about what we have done for seniors, for people living with disabilities and for vulnerable Canadians. Most of all, I am going to speak about what we are doing in the fight against poverty, because that is at the core of this opposition day motion. What is the government doing to fight poverty in Canada? The answer to that question is simple: We are doing more than any government has done in generations.

I will start with seniors. We all know that Canada's population is aging. However one looks at it, Canadians are living healthier, longer lives, and with these demographic changes, our country will have both challenges and opportunities. Our government recognizes this, which is why a key focus since taking office has been improving the quality of life for an aging population.

We increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, improving financial security for almost 900,000 seniors and helping to lift thousands of seniors out of poverty. We enhanced the Canada pension plan for the first time in a generation, which will help the seniors of tomorrow with increased retirement benefits, particularly for disabled contributors, widows and widowers. Indeed, in my riding, I cannot tell members how many seniors have come in who are trying to survive on the Canada pension plan, the OAS and the GIS. They struggle. This is a huge accomplishment. Of course, we reversed the Harper government's disastrous changes to OAS and GIS eligibility, restoring the age from 67 back to 65, which will prevent 100,000 seniors from falling into poverty every year.

Let us talk about what our government is doing to promote accessibility and help Canadians living with disabilities. Today, one in seven Canadians reports having a disability, and disability continues to be the most common ground for discrimination complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is why our goal is to make a barrier-free Canada a reality within the federal jurisdiction and why, last June, we tabled Bill C-81, Canada's first-ever national accessibility legislation. Thanks to the accessibility act, our government is taking a proactive approach to get ahead of systemic discrimination across all areas of federal jurisdiction to achieve the progressive realization of a Canada without barriers.

We are also putting money where it matters through programs such as the enabling accessibility fund and the social development partnership program. Initiatives like these support community-based projects across Canada aimed at improving accessibility and safety within communities and workplaces. They get us closer to a barrier-free Canada, where people with disabilities can have a real opportunity to succeed.

We can talk about housing. Our government is proud to have announced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, our 10–year, $40-billion plan to give more Canadians a place to call home. Thanks to the national housing strategy, we are going to create 100,000 new housing units and repair and renew more than 300,000 housing units. We are going to reduce or eliminate housing needs for 530,000 Canadian families across Canada. We are going to protect an additional 385,000 households from losing an affordable place to live. We are going to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027–28.

It is important to note, however, that our commitment to make sure that Canadians have access to safe, affordable homes runs deeper than the national housing strategy. From the beginning of our mandate, we have been making unprecedented investments in housing. These investments are already paying off. Whether it is eliminating chronic homelessness in Victoria, funding new community housing projects in Calgary or Kitchener, or funding seniors in supportive housing units in St. John's, all across Canada we are helping to create homes for people who need them the most. In fact, since forming government in 2015, we have invested nearly $5 billion in housing, which has benefited nearly one million Canadians from coast to coast to coast. By comparison, the party that initiated today's debate promised less than $3 billion over four years for housing, and those commitments were conditional on first balancing the budget.

Our government understood from day one that meeting Canada's housing challenges could not wait, which is why we have invested from the beginning of our mandate and why we have committed to providing stable, long-term funding to our partners for the next decade. This will bring certainty for our partners over the next decade so that they can plan and start to look forward as to how they can help resolve some of these issues.

Let us talk about poverty. As we outlined recently in opportunity for all, which is Canada’s first-ever national poverty reduction strategy, and there seem to be a lot firsts coming along here, our government has a plan to achieve the lowest level of poverty in Canada's history by 2030. That is millions of people removed from poverty. We are also going to establish the first-ever official poverty line so that we can accurately measure how we are doing in the fight against poverty rather than leaving it up to the government of the day to set its own definitions.

In the committee I sit on, I asked all the witnesses about data. We need that data. We need to understand the baseline. How are we doing compared to where we were? How are we doing in meeting our future goals? That is critically important in executing any operational plan.

Once again, we understand that the fight against poverty is not something that can wait, which is why we have invested heavily in that fight since we took office. To date, we have invested more than $22 billion in the fight against poverty. I am proud to say that those investments are paying off. Thanks to the Canada child benefit, enhanced seniors benefits, and starting next year, the Canada workers benefit, by April 2019, we will have lifted more than 650,000 Canadians out of poverty, including more than 300,000 children. This is an incredible achievement and something we are very proud of.

Our government understands that there is still more work to do. The Prime Minister likes to say, “better is always possible.” However we look at it, by whatever measure we use, we are making real change happen. We were elected to help Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it, and through unprecedented investments in housing, seniors, and the fight against poverty, our government is making it possible for more and more Canadians to have a real and fair chance at success.

I would like to add that in my riding, we see these issues being played out every single day. I have sat in on countless round tables and town halls. I have been in some of these consultations with our colleagues. What we have heard and what we are putting down as a plan is what the experts have been telling us we need. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction. We need to have a long-term plan that we can count on so that we can effectively move forward over the next decade.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I think it is germane in the sense that we will wait with anticipation for that.

In relation to this, I think it's appropriate that we hear from the CEO of Ontario, and begin the process.

I don't think anyone wants to see us taking up time and wasting our time. There are other matters this committee needs to and ought to deal with.

An order of reference that has come to this committee is a prima facie question of privilege in the House related to Bill C-71. As we take up time with the study of this bill, that is a matter that is being pushed off. We do want to see that come before the committee. Within the House of Commons a question of privilege takes priority over all other matters of business. I believe the same ought to be true in committee, so I am eager to see that come before this committee within the foreseeable future.

Related to this committee study, we all received from the clerk a request to appear before this committee from the CNIB, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I think it's rather appropriate that we received this request when we did. As members know, this week and earlier last week, we were debating Bill C-81 in the House, known as the barrier-free Canada Act, the accessible Canada act. It was adopted yesterday in the House of Commons shortly after question period by unanimous consent, I believe. I wasn't in the House, but there were no bells, so I assume that either five members didn't stand or it was by unanimous consent. It was nice to see that bill go to committee. I think it's a worthwhile discussion we need to have, although I'm sure there are some concerns.

I think it's appropriate and germane that the debate was occurring when we did receive this request. I would hope that this would be something we might be able to accommodate before going to clause-by-clause.

Ms. Clarke, a government relations specialist from the CNIB, does request to appear specifically on Bill C-76. They mentioned they're celebrating 100 years in 2018. I think 2018 is a special year for 100th anniversaries. It's also the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. I'm not positive, but I believe there was a connection to the CNIB's founding and those veterans coming home from the First World War with visual impairment because of the war. I do think it's appropriate that we hear from them.

One of the lines in the request.... As someone whose mother-in-law uses a wheelchair—she lost her right leg to amputation about 15 years ago following an automobile accident—I think applying a disability lens to legislation is important, particularly when we're talking about elections.

I was pleased with the efforts that Elections Canada made in the 2015 election to make voting locations accessible, or as accessible as possible, at least for those with mobility issues. There are other disabilities that are not necessarily always as—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to talk about here. It is sad that I only have 10 minutes, but I am going to start with the priorities.

First of all, this motion calls for the government to bring forward 50% of the strategy's funding before the next election. I am glad it was put forward in this proposal. The government has a rather annoying habit of announcing funding that is only going to happen after the next election. It is mythical funding if the Liberals are not re-elected, and I am very hopeful that they are not.

We have seen the infrastructure money that was promised 10 years out. That is assuming that they will be re-elected twice, which is really scary. I think we need to spend infrastructure money in this country, and affordable housing is one of the areas that needs that funding. If I think about the promises the Liberals were elected on, they were going to run really small deficits, and they were going to spend that money on infrastructure in municipalities. However, here we are, the third year into their mandate, and less than 40% of their infrastructure money has even been spent. What a disaster that is.

In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, we have a lot of opportunities to spend that money. It is really badly needed. The affordable housing situation we have requires $40 million in renovations for the existing affordable housing in my riding. That said, I am in a similar position as some of the other members who have testified in this House today. There is no place affordable to live for anyone looking for a house. I had one of my constituents call the office, a single mother just coming out of the women's assault centre. She had no place to live for her and her two children that she could afford, and she is working full time.

The wage base has not kept up with the increase in house prices. We certainly need to do something about that. I would love to see the government actually spend the money that was promised and put it into the affordable housing area.

With respect homelessness and the plan to end homelessness, I was on the board of a homeless shelter. We have a significant homelessness issue in Sarnia. Maybe it is not as bad as in some of the larger cities, but still it is very serious. What we find is that in many cases, there are mental health issues, addiction issues and other problems that lead to people finding themselves in this homelessness place.

Interestingly, the homeless shelter I was on the board of put in place a unique solution of coming alongside those people, befriending them and helping them. They were able to pair them up with people they became friends with at the homeless shelter, and then they were able to live independently, and we would help them manage their money, because many times they were not very good at managing the money the government was providing to support them. It was so successful, in fact, that the Province of Ontario decided to donate money to the homeless shelter, or provide funding, to continue to expand the program, because we were very successful in getting people out of homelessness and into independent living. Part of the success of that solution is finding affordable housing. We can see how affordable housing is going to be so important to achieving a number of the things that are in this motion today.

This motion also talks about the administration of programs that meet the special needs of seniors and persons with reduced mobility. I was pleased to rise the other day to speak to Bill C-81, which was about people with disabilities and how we are going to enable them to have the same rights and freedoms other people enjoy in the country. I shared an example that I think speaks to the affordable housing area.

We have a fellow in my riding who was, unfortunately, paralyzed in an accident and is in a wheelchair. He is such an inspiration in our community. He partnered with the architect for a fundraiser that the hospital has called the dream home. They sell tickets for the dream home, and it is a way of raising money for the hospital. In this case, they worked together, he, Dan Edwards, and the architect, to create a visitable home. It is a home that is totally accessible for a person in a wheelchair, who can absolutely cook and do all the things they need to do in a house, and it is a reasonable price,

I think there are ideas out there that could be incorporated into affordable housing, because many people who find themselves in need of affordable housing are seniors. Our seniors are struggling to make ends meet, and they are finding it very difficult to find places they can afford to live. The size of their pensions or their CPP and OAS is not increasing, and as the price of a place to live continues to inflate, they are the ones having difficulty. In many cases, over the years, they are going to become less able to walk and will have other disabilities that will need to be dealt with. Certainly, this is an area where, if we are building affordable housing, we should make sure that we are making it accessible and think about seniors and the needs they are going to have.

The other part of the motion I want to talk about has to do with housing for indigenous communities. There is an awful lot of rhetoric coming from the Liberal government about its nation-to-nation relationship. However, when I look at what is actually happening, there is a lot of talk but there are not a lot of results, when we think of building housing, addressing the boiled water advisories, etc.

There is a need out there, but we want to make sure that we do not get back into a situation such as what happened at Attawapiskat. Members might remember when $300 million was given to the community. There were about 80 people in the community, and they were all living in tents and horrible living conditions. In my mind, there was no resolution, because $300 million should have been enough to build affordable housing and it should have been satisfactory.

There is a need the government is not addressing within our indigenous communities. It would be great for the government to spend some of the money it futuristically planned. It should spend it now, because the need is immediate, and it is important that the government do that.

On the right to housing as a human right, I am not sure I am really on that page, because as soon as we say it is a human right for people to have housing, the question will be what kind of housing they deserve. There is no definition provided of what is acceptable. Do we think everyone should have a $300,000 house, or should we all be able to buy a house in Vancouver or Toronto? I think that is a point of discussion.

My youngest daughter recently purchased a home. They are first-time home buyers in London. The member for Elgin—Middlesex—London indicated that the typical price of a house there is probably $300,000. Well, for a first-time homebuyer, one needs a 20% down payment because of what the finance minister put in place. That is $60,000. What kind of young first-time homebuyers have $60,000? If they do not have parents who are reasonably well off and generous, they are not going to be able to get into the housing market. Therefore, another helpful suggestion I would give to the government is to get rid of that 20% requirement for a down payment. I mean, if one is going to have a mortgage of $240,000, there is not that much difference between that and one for $300,000, but it is a huge difference in terms of young people being able to have that dream of owning a home. I think that is important as well.

When we look at all the parts of the motion before us, there are many priorities the government could be doing something with. I hope it spends money on infrastructure. I hope it meets the needs of indigenous communities. I hope it provides affordable housing by letting members of Parliament who are in the House actually submit what the municipalities need in their areas. There is more than enough need to help the government spend the 60% of infrastructure money that has not yet been spent.

I do not see a plan to end homelessness coming from the government, but there are many wonderful solutions in communities, such as the one I talked about, that could help end homelessness. I am glad to hear that the housing first program was not cancelled, because it is certainly something we need. We have to have a place where people can go, because that is part of getting people back to health and back to work.

I did not talk about the expansion of rent supplements, because I did not really understand what was intended and what they would like to see in place. Because there is no affordable housing, the amount of money the government is giving for rent is not enough, which I think is fair to say, and it is worse in larger communities like Vancouver and Toronto than it is here.

Overall, I am glad to see that the motion was brought forward.

Accessible Canada Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by acknowledging the excellent work of our former colleague, Jim Flaherty.

I am going to take my colleague up on his offer. I would like to visit the centre he just talked about because we do focus a lot on the disabilities rather than the abilities. Many members should tour this centre. We tend to take for granted that there is always someone else taking care of these problems and the people who really need help. We always believe that an association or that someone in some government agency is looking after it for us. However, that is not always the case.

Now the government is telling us that it is going to spend $290 million on this file, but what exactly is it going to do with that money? They are going to hire people who will prepare plans. What will happen next? What are they going to do with those plans? What guarantees does Bill C-81 provide that there will be real change?

If that is the cost of making changes in these peoples' lives, it is a small price to pay. However, if nothing comes of it, it is money down the drain.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He provided us with a greater understanding of the challenges people face with regard to mobility.

We always rely on support staff on these types of files. On that subject, I want to acknowledge the research and writing that went into my speech on Bill C-81. That work was done by Hugo Berthiaume, who recently joined my team as an assistant. I wish him lots of luck and especially lots of work. Opposition members often rise in the House to talk about good causes and the people who are important to them, the people in their ridings.

In this case, we are speaking on behalf of persons with reduced mobility, who have to overcome many barriers in their lives.

Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, is a step in the right direction. Every member in the House supports measures to reduce barriers for all Canadians in every aspect of their lives.

Canadians with disabilities deserve to have a government that always keeps mobility in mind to ensure that those with reduced mobility can live in a barrier-free society.

Unfortunately, even if it is a step in the right direction, Bill C-81 will not improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities in the short term. To this day, our society does not always bring forward measures that will make life easier for Canadians with disabilities.

We believe that we need to take action to help them, and we want to work with the government to find real solutions. However, this bill is proof that the Liberal government is somewhat out of touch and that it does not always understand the challenges that people with disabilities must face. With this bill, the government is going to use taxpayers' money to write reports or action plans.

I am going to talk a bit about my experience as mayor and, in particular, as the former president of an association that works to improve the quality of life of the disabled on a daily basis.

People with reduced mobility need us to deal with their infrastructure, both their homes and their workplaces. We must do everything we can to make it possible for them to get to work and contribute to Canadian society.

We need to help more Canadians with mobility issues enter the workforce. Our political party has always been committed to our country's economic development, and we believe that absolutely everyone can contribute.

There is no greater boost than feeling a sense of accomplishment and achieving one's full potential. Too many Canadians live and work in environments that, unfortunately, do not meet their needs. For example, they have poorly adapted apartments or houses, there are too few parking reserved spots at shop entrances, and public transit systems are inadequate.

It is our responsibility to do more and do better for those most vulnerable. We must work hard to ensure that every single Canadian has access to the same society, regardless of their physical abilities. On this side of the House, our goal is to help all Canadians.

The Liberal government wants to invest $290 million to develop accessibility plans and set objectives. I repeat, it wants to invest $290 million to develop accessibility plans and set objectives.

That seems like a lot of money to me. This money will be spent over a period of six years. Does that mean we will have to wait six years to see any changes? Will any other funding be announced in the meantime for putting these plans into action and achieving the objectives? Unfortunately, the bill before us has no answers to those questions, so it is hard for us to get a clear idea of what is actually going to come out of Bill C-81.

Canadians with disabilities cannot understand how a government can think it is totally normal to spend $290 million on plans and objectives. These people are living their lives right now, and now is when they want improved living conditions, accessible workplaces, and help to participate in this country's economic development.

People with mobility issues do not need a government that will invest in bureaucracy. They need a government that will actually tackle problems by adapting infrastructure.

I just want to point out that it was the Harper Conservative government that signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007. The purpose of this convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. The previous government created the enabling accessibility fund, which had a real impact on Canadians' everyday lives by funding infrastructure upgrades for thousands of Canadians. That is the way to help Canadian families and people with reduced mobility. This fund is still being used today to build projects in my riding and in many of my colleagues' ridings. It does not take six years of study to figure out when a two-storey building needs a stair lift.

The Liberals are pros at running deficits and burdening future generations. The worst part is that the money is being spent on plans and committees instead of going directly to the people it is supposed to help. We have a lot of questions, as I said. We know the Liberal government wants to create a Canadian accessibility standards development organization. The bill seems pretty good at first blush. Will the government be working closely with people with reduced mobility? Why wait so long before taking action? How will that $290 million be spent? I sure hope the government will be consulting the people it is supposed to be helping and will invite them to play an active role in the organization.

As I was saying, there are far too many unknowns in this bill. Again, with this $290 million we can really make a difference in people's lives. I can only imagine what local advocacy groups in each of our ridings can do with $290 million over six years to help persons with disabilities. These organizations work miracles with very little money. Through their actions and awareness raising they manage to get municipal and private buildings adapted. They achieve that with little to no resources. Therefore, $290 million is good. If it is needed, it is good, but if it is going to be used only to draft plans that will be shelved then we have cause to reconsider and to be concerned. We sincerely hope this is not the case.

We have many concerns. I would remind hon. members that it was not so long ago that we were standing here heavily criticizing the criteria for tax credits for persons with disabilities that penalized countless people with diabetes. Fortunately, the opposition's repeated questions made the government take a step back and correct the situation. However, would the government really have changed its mind if advocates and the official opposition had not spoken out against this anomaly? I have my doubts.

For all of these reasons, we need more answers to our questions in order to ensure that taxpayers' money will actually be used to benefit people with disabilities, whether in federal buildings or elsewhere. The Liberals do not have a very impressive track record when it comes to accessibility. Canadians expect better. The Liberals have been in office for three years, and they are just now beginning to take an interest in this issue, even though this was one of their election promises.

Let us come back to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Mobility is one of society's major challenges, and it is even more of a problem for people with disabilities. I would say that this is an ongoing battle in these people's lives. Every day they have to deal with difficult situations that may seem trivial to others. People with reduced mobility do not have the same access everywhere. Think about the shelves at the supermarket and other stores, offices that are not adapted, and workplaces they cannot get to. There are far too many places and things that are inaccessible to them.

We must be ambitious. The proposed plan is questionable. It serves only to implement bureaucratic measures that will have no real impact on these people's lives. We need to be more aware of this reality and always be in a position to act. There is still a lot of work to be done before we have proper facilities for all Canadians. We must give all Canadians the same opportunity to be empowered. In order to get there, we must be more inclusive and include as many organizations as possible. We must address the issue of accessibility in close co-operation with the provinces and municipalities across the country.

We can do better. We hope that we will get some answers in committee and that we will be able make amendments to the bill so that it really meets the needs of the people it is targeting, and so achieves in , thus creating a more barrier-free Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in voting for Bill C-81 at second reading to go to committee. I do so in the fervent hope that we will see many improvements made to it at committee.

I do not understand why at this stage, after years of consultation, we would bring forward legislation to achieve a barrier-free Canada that uses language like “progressive realization of”. I have checked and there is no legislation anywhere else in Canada on any topic that sets a goal of “progressive realization of”. Our legislation usually says that by so many years or months from royal assent, we will have achieved tangible goals.

The disability groups that have commented on the proposed legislation say that “progressive realization of” could mean one ramp a year built somewhere across Canada to remove a barrier. I do not think the government and the fine ministers who brought the bill forward actually intend a go-slow plan to remove barriers. This is why I hope that in committee the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Liberal members of the committee will accept amendments to provide real progress, which is measurable toward a barrier-free Canada.

I invite the member's thoughts on this as we go to committee.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. I think all of us in the House have a story about someone in their families, or their friends or their circle of network who has experienced some kind of barrier to participating fully in their community.

I know my colleague for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake spoke about issues with his family member who had multiple sclerosis. I am going to do the same because it feels very appropriate right now.

My mother had a very progressive form of multiple sclerosis and quickly went from a very thriving person, full of life and active in the community to slowly finding herself unable to participate, unable to even get out of bed on some occasions. For someone so active, that was hard to take. She was used to getting up everyday, going to work, coming home and going out to volunteer. It really took its toll.

When something like that happens, we start to realize the things we take for granted, such as working in the kitchen. If we have trouble standing that day, all of a sudden we cannot reach the cupboards on the top, or when we go into the bathroom, we are unable to step over the top of the tub. All of these challenges can become very real, very quickly and, at many times, very costly.

Thanks a number of organizations that are working to help remove barriers, like the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation and many others, my mother was able to find ways to help her adapt to this new reality and to help us, as a family, come to terms with the it. I think many Canadians struggle with that. We all have friends who have been diagnosed with an illness that may start very quickly or may start very slowly, which gives that person more time to react.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that my mother's form of MS was very progressive and moved quite quickly. At first when we heard the news, coming to terms with it was one thing. Then it was trying to figure out what the next steps would be. Trying to locate all the services available in our communities was very tough.

It can be quite overwhelming for family members as well as they try to go about their daily lives and deal with this new reality. Unfortunately, overtime she was unable to walk anymore and was confined to a wheelchair. To go outside her front door, she needed a ramp. It was an extensive ramp, because the house was built on a bit of a hill, which was a challenge for us as well. Just going along the sidewalk in our municipality was a challenge. Being from Ontario, winters can be long and sidewalks are not cleared as often, which becomes a problem. Often the curbs were high and the wheelchair was unable to get onto the road to allow her to cross.

Again, these were challenges for someone who was active at one time. To now go into the community and participate, these challenges were very real and hard to overcome at times, especially as she was suffering.

It affects a person's mental health as well and the desire to go out into the community and participate. It kind of wears on that person. My mother certainly dealt with that. At times, she did not want to go outside. I should point out that my mother was a very positive person. She was a fighter.

I share this story, as my colleagues on both sides of the House have done, to talk about the importance of creating a barrier-free Canada in which everyone can participate fully in their communities.

On this side of the House, we are going to support Bill C-81 at second reading. We thank the government for bringing it forward. This will allow all of us to have a robust debate in committee, and in the House, and talk about how we can make all our communities in Canada more accessible for everyone, not just those who do not have mobility issues.

I thank everyone who participated in the debate. I know for some it was challenging to bring their stories forward . However, by bringing our circumstances from real life forward, it shows that we are all in this together.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to support Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The bill is an excellent step in the right direction in reducing barriers for people living with disabilities.

Millions of Canadians are impacted by some form of disability. Every day, more Canadians are either afflicted or diagnosed with life-altering disease, ailments or injury. It is estimated that 3.5 million Canadians live with some form of disability and 1.4 million Canadians live with a disability that requires daily care.

Disabilities can be physical, mental or episodic in nature. Unfortunately, Canadians with disabilities are on average underemployed, earn less and are twice as likely to be victims of abuse.

This is an issue near and dear to my heart. In 2004, my wife Kathy was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Ever since, my family and I have worked together to navigate the often difficult road for people with disabilities. My wife's disability, MS, is an unpredictable, chronic, often disabling disease of the central nervous system. When someone or their loved one is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, life can change in an instant.

Kathy suffers from what is called an episodic disability. This means sometimes her body functions normally and then it sometimes stops working the way she needs it to.

Canadian legislation should treat individuals living with all types of disabilities equally. A disability can happen to anyone, anytime, without warning, and so it is of interest to everyone to protect Canadian citizens living with disabilities. Every Canadian deserves the same rights as any other. However, most Canadians with disabilities are treated differently, not only by society, but by the very institutions put in place to protect them.

It is true that there are thousands of pre-existing programs and funding options for people with disabilities, but we all know we can do more and we can do better. The 2015 Liberal platform promised they would eliminate systemic barriers and deliver equality of opportunity to all Canadians living with disabilities by introducing a national disabilities act.

The bill sets out to benefit all Canadians, especially Canadians with disabilities, through the progressive realization of a barrier-free Canada. Over $290 million has been committed to be spent over six years. This is an excellent first step, but people with disabilities deserve more. They deserve more funding, more research, more programs and more access.

Together, we can create better employment supports; improve income and disability support; increase access to treatment, comprehensive care and housing; and invest in fundamental research for all disabilities.

Stakeholders, community leaders, health care professionals and of course, Canadians with disabilities are all saying the same thing: This legislation is a step in the right direction. We can always do more to create equity in legislation for Canadians with disabilities. As the Government of Canada, we can and we should do more.

We need to give Canadians back the dignity and independence they deserve. It is time to break down barriers in the way of individual success. Creating an equality of opportunity should be a top priority. With the increased investment, we can provide employment opportunities, foster a safer environment within society, provide new information and communication technologies, and deliver better quality programs and services to Canadians living with disabilities. Together we can make these changes.

Of course, the government alone cannot change the way people with disabilities are treated here in Canada. There are several noble organizations that play a fundamental role in providing programming, education and scientific research for Canadians with disabilities.

Over the past few months, I had the honour of working with my friends at the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Together, we drafted private member's Motion No. 192. This motion strives to ensure Canadians living with episodic disabilities like multiple sclerosis are treated equitably in Canadian legislation.

With their help, we have reached over 3,000 signatures on our online petition, and we have received thousands of pieces of correspondence in support of the motion. The outpouring of support in favour of this motion from Canadian people has touched me and my family to no end.

When my wife was unexpectedly diagnosed with MS 14 years ago, our entire world changed. Everyday tasks became difficult for her to complete and we had to re-evaluate the role she played in our family business. Disability changes everything. It impacts not only the physical ability for someone to do something, but also the way society treats the individual and his or her economic opportunities in the workforce. My private member's motion aims to shed light on the fact that people living with disabilities and their families face several challenges in securing employment, income and disability support. They struggle daily in accessing treatment, comprehensive care and housing, and moving around in the communities where they live.

Research is the most important step to obtain new treatments and better quality of life, and increased funding is the best way to kick-start the pursuit of a cure. There should always be a desire for our government to lend a helping hand. No one should be forced to face living with a disability alone. This is why I ask my friends and colleagues sitting here with me today to commit to supporting all legislation put forward to benefit Canadians living with disabilities. While Bill C-81 is a step in the right direction, there is still so much more the government can do for Canadians with disabilities. The barriers that exist for Canadians living with disabilities are unacceptable. Together, we must tear all barriers down and make Canada an international model for disability equality.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have my colleague's long memory and the realization that it was under the previous government of Brian Mulroney when we had our first minister for disabilities issues.

I found this legislation curious, in that it states that the Governor in Council may appoint a minister to be responsible for this area of responsibility. I think it is clearly the government's intent that there will be such a minister because so much hangs on a minister acting.

Can the hon. member for Brandon—Souris suggest any reason why this would not be supported by all parties to make it a mandatory responsibility of cabinet to appoint a minister to have conduct of Bill C-81?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada today. Almost every Canadian family has or knows someone with a disability. They were either born with it or became disabled some time in their life. I have long advocated for the rights of those with disabilities, as I know first hand the daily challenges and barriers they face. My own son, who fell in a work-related accident 14 years ago last week, has shown me how someone, through tremendous perseverance, can come through great adversity.

There are also great Canadian heroes, such as Rick Hansen, who have inspired millions around the globe. Through his Man in Motion World Tour, he raised awareness and helped raise millions of dollars for research. To date, Rick has continued his advocacy and is a beacon of hope to all those who are impacted by disability. In my own constituency, my annual charity golf tournament has donated thousands of dollars to the Rick Hansen Foundation and Special Olympics.

Our society has come a long way in recognizing that those with disabilities have a lot to offer. They are full members of society and must have the same access and rights as anyone else. I am proud to belong a party that has advocated and supported many of the measures that have improved the lives of Canadians who suffer from a disability.

Just next month, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney will be conducted into the Canadian Disability Hall of Fame for his steadfast support, and for being a strong national leader on this issue. He was the first prime minister to appoint a minister responsible for disabled persons. This ensured that there was an advocate for the disabled around the cabinet table. His government also created the disabled persons' participation program, which dramatically increased support for organizations involved with disabled people. It was also his government that expanded disability-related deductions for income tax purposes. Let us never forget that it was the Hon. Jim Flaherty who implemented the registered disabilities savings plan and heavily invested in the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities get the necessary training to obtain employment.

These are just some of the tangible actions that have dramatically improved people's lives. We know that the first step in breaking down barriers involves education and helping people better understand the everyday challenges those with disabilities face. Since being elected as the member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris, I have been a staunch advocate of the enabling accessibility fund, which has supported projects that have made buildings and community infrastructure more accessible. Just this summer, I worked with a community-led organization in Ninette, Manitoba to make it easier for those in wheelchairs to access Pelican Lake. I have worked with communities to secure the necessary funding to renovate bathrooms in places like the Deloraine theatre, so they can be accessible to seniors. I worked with the Brandon Legion so that veterans can now access all parts of their building as well.

These are just a few of the projects that have happened in my neck of the woods, but they are a good reminder that one does not have to reinvent the wheel to make buildings or workplaces more accessible. I am encouraged that this legislation would establish proactive compliance measures. Making buildings and workplaces accessible should never be an afterthought; it should be at the forefront of any architect or engineer's plans. It is important that we have common accessibility standards across the board.

While I note that this legislation only impacts federally regulated workplaces, it is my sincere hope that it will lead to a much broader conversation within provinces and territories. I believe there is willingness across the country to get this done. There is such opportunity for businesses and organizations to encourage as many people as possible to either be employed, to volunteer, or to shop.

I have been inspired by my colleague, the member for Brantford—Brant, who passed a motion in the last Parliament that called on Canadian employers to take action on hiring persons with disabilities. He started a much-needed conversation about the benefits of hiring people with disabilities and improving their quality of life.

I also want to highlight my colleague, the member for Carleton, who led the charge earlier this year with his proposed opportunity for workers with disabilities act. I strongly support his efforts to reform government policies that financially punish people with disabilities when they get a job, earn a raise or work more hours, forcing them to remain jobless and impoverished. He had widespread support for his legislation and I know that he will continue to be a strong advocate for disabled Canadians.

To provide one more example, my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac championed his motion, Motion No. 157, which encouraged builders and contractors to adhere to visitability guidelines and to be proactive when constructing new buildings. I believe his motion helped inspire many of the elements contained in Bill C-81, and I applaud him for all he has done in this area.

As with any new regulation or law, we must always be mindful about the costs to be borne by those who will be impacted. The other element we have to look at is what it will cost taxpayers to implement, enforce and measure. It costs money to hire people and to perform the day-to-day operations of a new federal entity.

I think all members would agree that we should measure the success or deficiencies of a particular program or organization.

The question at the end of the day is this: Does the federal government need to set up completely new bodies, or can we find ways to harness existing resources? While the fine details will be worked out at a later date, I urge the government to focus squarely on tangible outcomes and projects that will improve accessibility. It would be disappointing if all of the dollars allocated to this legislation just created new full-time equivalents rather than going to bricks and mortar projects. These are the sorts of questions that must be asked up front, because once a government entity is created, it is normally quite difficult to make the necessary changes down the road.

Because this legislation will only impact federally regulated workplaces, most small businesses and community-led organizations will not be directly impacted. That said, the federal government must work hand in hand with federally regulated workplaces and the disabled community. For this legislation to have the impact that we all want it to have, it cannot be drafted in a silo or entirely by the civil service. The regulations and standards must be written in easy-to-comprehend language. There must be crystal clear expectations, coupled with appropriate enforcement measures. I also encourage everyone involved to look for best practices not only in the various provinces, but also around the world, and we must make sure that we do not just create another bureaucratic institution.

Building a new institution that would just create mounds of paperwork and have limited buy-in from workplaces would not be in anyone's best interest. I know that when this legislation goes to committee, there will be great interest in it. It would be prudent for the government to provide the committee with as much information as possible so there is meaningful dialogue. It is imperative that the minister spend the necessary time to get this right. I will definitely be voting in favour of this legislation so that it gets the proper study and engagement it so rightfully deserves.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a particularly discouraging situation for my fellow New Democrat member of Parliament for Windsor—Tecumseh when she introduced her Bill C-348. If the bill had been supported by the government, it would have provided persons living with disabilities a single point of entry to access federal programs.

As it is right now, a person living with a disability has to apply to six different programs in six different ways, whereas my fellow New Democrat's bill sought to have them prove just once that they had a disability and then that same proof and application could allow them to enter into the multitude of government programs available for people with disabilities. Her bill, unfortunately, was voted down by the government. The Liberals suggested that we should wait for Bill C-81.

Unfortunately, the remedy that was in Bill C-348 was not replicated in this legislation. It is a real disappointment, because the people who are the most vulnerable need the most help. My colleague might have to work harder.

I have honestly heard a number of people say they are going to give up, which means they are living in poverty and in terrible circumstances. In a country as rich as ours, that should not be so.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, more than 5.3 million Canadians, almost 16% of the population of this country, are living with some form of disability that affects their freedom, independence or quality of life. Of that number, over 200,000 are children and youth.

One in five Canadian women live with disabilities. Women with disabilities are poorer than their male counterparts. They are three times more likely to rely on government programs than women without disabilities and more likely than men with disabilities. They are also particularly susceptible to domestic violence. The rates of violence against women living with disabilities is particularly high. They disproportionately call on women's shelters, face homelessness and are victims of violence. The rate of head injuries associated with women who are victims of domestic violence or intimate partner violence is particularly high. I really commend DAWN Canada for doing groundbreaking work in this area. We were very reliant on its advice and testimony at the status of women committee.

Here we are today hearing about Bill C-81, which is intended to help and support persons living with disabilities. The need is tremendous. Persons living with disabilities within Canada have waited over two years for this bill to be tabled. In particular, I want to mention my constituent Jack Ferrero, who has been most insistent that this legislation be tabled and come as soon as possible to this House. It is regretful that we are three years into this term and are only debating it now.

Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities back in 2010. That convention elaborated a human rights framework for addressing the exclusion and the lack of access persons with disabilities have encountered in Canada. This is both physical access to buildings and access to services. It was intended to establish a society where “persons with disabilities are viewed as full citizens with exactly the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens of Canada.”

Only three provinces in Canada have accessibility laws, and federally, Canada does not. I have heard in great detail from constituents that the need is dire. The following is part of a letter from a man in my riding, Terry Wiens. I am pretty sure that he is a Nanaimo resident. This is a long and heartbreaking letter, which I will read in part. He had polio and is facing extraordinary costs associated with his disability. He writes:

“I recently had to buy a new RoHo Hybrid cushion for my wheelchair ($820) as well as a hospital bed ($1800 mattress not included) so decided to make a one-time withdrawal of $10,000 from my RIF. What I didn't realize was the ripple effect of that decision. That raised my annual income enough to eliminate me from the Guaranteed Income Supplement (all $18/month worth). I have no doubt that next year I will qualify again, but in the meantime, we are penalized for our independence. You can't really compare the income of an individual that is facing costs that the average person never sees. To add insult to injury, losing that GIS also cost me my Premium Medical Services subsidy, another $420 a year, my opportunity for a subsidized assisted living apartment, because GIS qualification is required for the subsidized program, and a cutback to my rental subsidy and doubling (from $450 to $900 yearly) of my Pharmacare deductible. It is not the $18/month payment but the status of qualifying for GIS that is important.”

It is a terrible example of government services not supporting the people who are working the hardest and have the most barriers in front of them.

I have another letter from a person in my riding, who asked to keep her name confidential. She writes:

“It is with great dismay that I write to you about a problem with the pension plans. I am 69 years old, I have some disabilities and my only income is from the government pensions and some money that was awarded to me from a divorce. My total income is under $20,000 per year. I have recently been informed that because I receive $250.00 per month from my divorce judgment that I am losing $1,000.00 per year on my pension. This is a clawback if I have ever seen one. How can the government do this to the very people that for 50 or more years of working and being the back bone of the country do this to their seniors? In B.C., the previous provincial government did this to welfare recipients until they complained, and now it can't claw back those monies.”

“I have personally seen local seniors going through garbage cans looking for cans and bottles just to make ends meet.”

“I take exception to the government saying that we have a class system in our country and they will do everything for the “middle” class and nothing for seniors. To be politically correct, we have low income, medium income and high income. Since when did Canada decide that we have a class system? I have worked all my life, served in the Armed Forces and this is how I get treated. I applied for the disability tax credit, and although I had three things that were on their list to qualify, I was refused and even told that if I went any further with my claim that I might be responsible for legal fees.”

I have a dozen letters like this that describe the people who the social safety net in Canada is meant to be supporting, the people who are meant to be getting help from these government programs and are thwarted again and again.

I am going to read a summary from my fantastic caseworker, Hilary Eastmure, who helps a lot of people out at our front desk. She says:

“Canadians accustomed to getting reliable service are becoming quickly disillusioned with our system, which is getting increasingly difficult to navigate. The shift to online platforms is also a major stumbling block for Canadians of all ages, including those who don't have regular access to a computer or printer or those who are not computer literate. Being told to access or submit a form online is a major source of frustration for people with disabilities, seniors and low-income Canadians, the very people who often require the most support from government agencies.”

We have in front of us Bill C-81, which is meant to remove those barriers. However, I have to emphasize the design of the civil service, the design of the interface between the people the system is meant to serve and their ability to access these programs.

Bill C-81 would empower the government to create accessibility standards or regulations, but it would not require the government to do that. We like the idea of an accessibility commissioner in charge of enforcement.

New Democrats are going to support this proposed legislation at first reading so we can get it to committee and make as many constructive amendments as we can to serve the people with disabilities who need this to work well, but we could not support it if it were to come back in this form.

The bill would not bring us into conformity with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The text on civil rights legislation for persons with disabilities is really the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is dated 1990. We have a good model out there. Canadians should be at least meeting the standard set by the Americans.

My New Democrat fellow MP for New Westminster—Burnaby in 2007 tabled proposed legislation in the House. My fellow MP in this Parliament, the MP for Windsor—Tecumseh, has been very strong as our critic for the NDP on this bill, saying that any accessibility bill tabled has to be seen as enabling legislation for Canada's commitments to the United Nations. Therefore, we will be pushing in committee for mandatory timelines for implementation. Without those, the implementation process, and even a start-up process, could drag on for years.

We will be pushing to require that all federal government laws, policies and programs be studied through a disability law lens. We will be asking that the bill not continue its error right now of giving several public agencies or officials much too much power to grant partial or blanket exemptions from important parts of the bill. The bill right now would separate enforcement and implementation in a confusing way over four different public agencies. In committee the NDP will argue instead that Bill C-81 should provide people with disabilities with a single service location or one-stop shopping so that they can access the services with dignity and the support they need.

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time, but I have no indication of who it is with. I have finished my speech, though.

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak on this piece of legislation, Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Since this Parliament began just under three years ago, there have been a number of private members' bills put forward to this House with the aim of improving the lives of Canadians living with disabilities. Unfortunately, not all of these have passed. Most of these bills have contained meaningful, tangible outcomes and results for disabled Canadians, which is something that all parties in this House should have been able to support. However, as we look at Bill C-81, it is unclear how it will actually benefit those it sets out to help.

According to this piece of legislation, the intent of this bill is to benefit all Canadians, especially Canadians with disabilities, through the progressive realization of a barrier-free Canada. This is a sentiment that I believe we can all get behind. Accessibility is an important issue that can drastically affect the quality of people's lives, including their day-to-day routines. Anything that can be done at a government level to address this should absolutely be done.

As someone who has had to live 44 years of his life with a hearing disability, I was expecting a lot more from this legislation. It becomes problematic when legislation that is introduced by the government has no obvious effective results. In my view, this has been the case for Bill C-81. While it seems that the intention behind this bill is good, its actual components and the effects it would have are unclear. Aside from making it easier to access federal services, I fail to see how this legislation would help Canadians living with disabilities in the way that this government champions it as being historic.

Furthermore, there is the issue of the length of time it has taken to get this bill introduced to the House of Commons. The Liberals have been in power for three years now and are almost at the end of their mandate. It is only recently that they have begun to fulfill the promises they made to Canadians living with a disability when they were elected in 2015. All three ministers who have held this portfolio were instructed, in their mandate letters from the Prime Minister, to get this legislation moving. However, for some reason, the bill was only introduced in June of this year, right as the House recessed and all members returned to work in their constituencies.

I would like to acknowledge the present minister responsible for accessibility, as I truly believe that she means well with this legislation. She initiated this legislation, and she is here at its completion.

There has been absolutely no sense of urgency on this. To me it feels as though the Liberals were just kicking the can down the road until they finally had to do something or risk being criticized for their inaction. Canadians, disabled or not, deserve better than that.

In contrast, during the 2008 election, the Conservative Party committed to introducing the registered disability savings plan, RDSP. That election took place in October. By December of the same year the RDSP was introduced and was available for Canadians to take advantage of. All of that took place in under three months, yet by the time Bill C-81 passes, it will have taken almost three years.

Let us also consider that Canadians may need to wait another six years before any new regulations take effect, as there are no regulations contained within this legislation. There are so many things the government can do to help Canadians living with a disability, yet it chooses to introduce this legislation that has zero immediate effects and will not change a thing once it becomes law.

The previous Conservative government understood and recognized the contributions that persons with disabilities can and do make to our society and our economy. As I mentioned, the RDSP was implemented quickly and gave Canadians with disabilities greater financial security. Since 2008, 1,005 of these accounts have been set up, and over $1 billion has been added to their savings.

The previous Conservative government also introduced the new home accessibility tax credit to facilitate healthy, happy homes for persons with disabilities, and invested hundreds of millions of dollars toward improving employment and employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. This is the type of action that the Canadian public is expecting. We know that this can be done in a timely and efficient manner if the will is there. The previous government proved it was possible. However, the Liberals seem to bungle this portfolio time and time again.

One of the main components of this bill is that it says it will create accessibility standards for regulated parties to achieve and maintain. This would happen through the creation of the Canadian accessibility standards development organization, or CASDO. The bill would also create the position of a chief accessibility officer who would oversee the implementation of the legislation, as well as the creation of an accessibility commissioner, whose role would be to ensure compliance.

The provision of the bill that creates CASDO leaves many questions unanswered and ultimately creates yet another level of study and consultation without any actual impact on those it is meant to help. We know the government loves to study and consult on an issue rather than taking meaningful, timely action on it. What it is essentially doing with Bill C-81 is creating yet another committee, CASDO, that would set standards. If that statement leaves members with some questions, they are not alone.

What are these new standards going to look like, how would they be implemented, what is the timeline for this creation, what is the timeline for the consultation, what is the timeline for the implementation, what is the timeline for these standards, who is considered to be qualified to establish these standards, and so on and so forth. There are so many unanswered questions. I would appreciate if the minister could provide the framework and mandate for this new accessibility standards organization, as well as the cost and other necessary facts and figures, as soon as possible.

Another component of Bill C-81 is a $290-million fund over six years, amounting to $48 million per year to upgrade federal workplaces and websites. Is this all administrative costs? Setting up an office is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. If 5,000 new employees are paid $40,000 a year, that amounts to $200 million. Establishing a new CEO and commissioner is going to cost well over $200,000. There is the money spent right there in one one year.

This is a wonderful idea in theory, but I am skeptical as to how many Canadians living with disabilities would actually benefit from this. We do not know how this envelope of money would be allocated, which is problematic in itself, but we can assume that it would be used, at least in part, for more consultation. I fail to see how constant and never-ending consultation helps people, not to mention the fact that taxpayer dollars are being spent on something with no tangible results and no actual timeline for when it would be implemented.

The minister says that the government would be hiring more public servants, 5,000 people with disabilities to be specific. Again this leaves many questions. Are these public servants all new hires, are they filling in places left open by attrition, what is the cost of hiring these 5,000 new public servants, would their work be wider in scope, would it be in different departments? These questions need to be answered, but it seems the Liberals have a hard time saying one single thing that this bill would actually do.

Canadians living with disabilities deserve meaningful and effective action from their government to help them improve their quality of life where possible. There are good things about this bill. It would hopefully make it easier for some Canadians with disabilities to deal with the federal government. However it is unclear as to how this helps with the rest of their lives.

Something I also support in this legislation, the clearest and most repeated point, is that it spells out the complaints process. This, however, is just a tiny aspect of a much greater piece of legislation that should provide common-sense regulations and standards, which I believe is what disabled Canadians were hoping for.

I cannot comprehend why the government would put out this legislation unless it was simply to say it was doing something. It had two and a half years to consult and this is what it came up with. I believe it does a disservice to those involved. To put it casually, there is no meat in this meal.

Before I can support this bill, I and all Canadians need to know these facts. In my view, this bill is putting the cart before the horse. I think that every person sitting in the House today would say that they support initiatives that benefit Canadians living with disabilities, but this piece of legislation fails to have any meaningful impact and sets out to spend a lot of money to do nothing.

I have a friend, a constituent, a young man who was born with spina bifida, a meningocele. All his life as a youth, he had surgery after surgery and he is wheelchair-bound, yet he is an amazing young man. He has managed to get a job, he works hard, he has moved, he is able to drive. In fact, he was involved in the Queen City Marathon just three or four weeks ago in Regina. This young man is going to sit there and ask those very same questions: What is this doing for him, and how is it going to help him?

In conclusion, I would like to say that politicians of all stripes recognize the challenges that face individuals with disabilities as well as their families. What these people are asking for is action from the current Liberal government rather than empty words, more consultations and endless platitudes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Foothills for highlighting some of the concerns of Bill C-81 and the fact that the Conservative Party supports it.

One of the issues the member mentioned was why it was such a low priority of the government. I was looking at old speeches and I asked the same question. We were debating Bill C-24 in December 2017, but the biggest thing out of that bill was to change the name of the minister of public works to the minister of public services and procurement. I remember asking why we were taking up all this time when there were so many other more important items that we were not addressing.

I would like to put that forward to my colleague. Why does the government always seem to be looking at things with zero consequence rather than things of much more importance, whether it is Bill C-71, the bill we were discussing Friday regarding justice and military, or this bill? Why does the government have such poorly laid out priorities for Canadians?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what are the standards? We can have all these aspirational points as part of the bill, saying that we want to do this and achieve that, but there are no clear standards in there that say this is what is going to happen step by step, and with timelines. If we speak to those stakeholders and, with all honesty, say that we will have these standards, we do not know what they are, but they will be sometime in the next six years or so, is that really what those stakeholders have asked for? Is that really what they are supporting? I would question whether that was the bill of goods they were sold.

Again, I think all of us support the essence of Bill C-81. This is the direction we want to go. We want to ensure we are removing barriers for Canadians with disabilities, but we want a clear path and clear rules on how we get there.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has given me some good direction on what my answer will be.

I would go a long way from describing the legislation as historic. What was historic was the registered disability savings plan that the previous Conservative government came up with, which the Liberal minister of procurement called a game changer. I do not think anybody would call Bill C-81 a game changer.

The potential absolutely is there, but it lacks any sort of clarity, no tangible regulations and no tangible results. It is merely another funding announcement of $290 million for yet another study and additional consultation.

In a mandate letter, three different times it was laid out by the Prime Minister to be a priority. However, more than two-thirds of the way through the Liberals' mandate, we finally get legislation that lacks any depth or lends any clarity.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, that is quite the opposite. There was an agreement between the previous Conservative government and the provinces where there was a sharing of funds to develop an accessibility plan with the provinces to address barriers and obstacles for people with disabilities to enter the workforce. That was already there. We had that discussion and an agreement with the provinces.

I appreciate my colleague's aspirational goals, which are certainly a part of Bill C-81. However, aspirational goals are not legislation. Legislation should outline rules and regulations and pass forward to reach those aspirational goals. The problem with Bill C-81 is that it does not include any of those things that we should want within legislation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act. This bill is, for lack of a better description, a horribly missed opportunity. I think all of us in the House would agree that any opportunity we have to enact legislation that would help Canadians with disabilities, or all Canadians, access employment opportunities so they could help their families and their communities would be a benefit and something we should all be focused on doing. Unfortunately, the Liberal bill, the accessible Canada act, does none of those things. It is very thin, it lacks any details, and it certainly lacks any tangible results or aspirational goals we are trying to meet. I think the four million Canadians who have disabilities would be extremely disappointed, because this is certainly not what they were promised by the Prime Minister in the 2015 campaign.

There are already three provinces in Canada that have implemented accessibility legislation. Ontario passed the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in 2005, Manitoba passed the Accessibility for Manitobans Act in 2013, and Nova Scotia passed the Accessibility Act in 2017. Additionally, British Columbia has, as recently as this past July, pledged to establish a provincial disabilities act later this fall. Therefore, there are lots of templates already in place the Liberal government could have used as a measuring stick when it tried to develop its own legislation.

In the 2015 Liberal platform, the Prime Minister promised he would “eliminate systemic barriers and deliver equality of opportunity to all Canadians living with disabilities”. He would introduce a national disabilities act. In fact, the first mandate letter in November 2015, and every mandate letter since, and I think there have been two or three, has called on the minister responsible for this file to continue the consultation process and introduce legislation. There have been three years of consultation, and the culmination of that consultation is a very weak piece of legislation that really does nothing other than put forward another $290 million for additional consultation and study. It is extremely disappointing that it has taken three years to develop this piece of legislation that really does not do anything that was promised in the 2015 election campaign. It must be extremely disappointing for those stakeholders who are looking for something with some breadth, content, tangibility and real results.

Bill C-81 is extremely weak. It does not outline any regulations or details. It only calls for more consultation and another regulatory process to begin, but the price tag is $290 million. I cannot go back to my constituents and explain to them what the $290 million is going to be used for and what the results are going to be. Certainly stakeholders in my riding who are looking for this type of legislation are going to be asking me what this would do. I cannot give them a definitive answer, because there really are no answers in the bill, which is extremely disappointing, considering the track record of the previous Conservative government in supporting Canadians with disabilities. It has been and always will be a priority for the Conservative Party.

I want to look back at the strong legacy left by the former Conservative finance minister, Jim Flaherty, and some of the tangible tools we were able to bring forward that had real results. They delivered real results for Canadians with disabilities. There was the home disability tax credit that allowed people with disabilities to renovate their homes to ensure that they had healthy living spaces that were accessible. They could stay in their homes, in their communities, close to friends, family and social networks, where they were most comfortable. We created a working group that was tasked with developing a national autism strategy. We completed the groundbreaking study “Rethinking DisAbility in the Private Sector”, which was completed in 2006. This was a template for the private sector to address accessibility and disability issues in private businesses across Canada. It was an industry standard and is still used today.

The previous Conservative government also invested $218 million a year, in partnership with the provinces, in labour market agreements, which ensured that we were improving employment opportunities for Canadians with disabilities across the country.

One of the hallmark pieces of legislation we were able to bring in was certainly the registered disability savings plan. This helped parents and grandparents of children with disabilities to contribute to their child's financial future and the financial security that every parent, and certainly every grandparent, feels is so important. Last week, during the debate on Bill C-81, I recall that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement said that the disability tax credit was a game changer for Canadians with disabilities. I credit her for pointing that out.

Those were tangible pieces of legislation that had tangible goals and tangible results. That is what Canadians are looking for from this House of Commons. That is what they elected their representatives to come here to do.

Unfortunately, I look at Bill C-81 as merely a rushed piece of legislation that is really all about meeting an election promise and not meeting the needs of Canadians with disabilities.

If we look at the Conservative record again, that record has continued even as we are opposition. As my colleague mentioned, the member for Calgary Shepard tabled the fairness for persons with disabilities act. My colleague, the member for Carleton, tabled Bill C-395, the opportunity bill, which would have imposed a simple rule on governments that they would have to respect that workers with disabilities would always be able to gain more from wages than they lost in clawbacks and taxes. It would have simply required governments to ensure that people with disabilities would always get ahead through their own hard work and would not be punished financially when they were successful. Like any working Canadian, that is what they want. When they are working hard, becoming successful, and earning a living, they do not want to be punished by different levels of government.

We heard from Canadians across the country that they want to work. That is their ultimate goal. They want to have financial stability, not just for themselves but for their families. However, we know that under the current rules, although some Canadians work hard, they come home with less. That was the situation the opportunity bill was trying to address. It would have addressed it successfully. Again, it was tangible legislation with tangible results that would have helped Canadians with disabilities.

However, rather than supporting common sense legislation, the Liberal government turned down the member for Carleton's Bill C-395. Instead of supporting definitive action that would have supported Canadians with disabilities, the Liberals voted down this bill and have instead tabled Bill C-81, which, in essence, does nothing to address the fundamental issues facing Canadians with disabilities.

In fact, not only did the Liberals turn down Bill C-395, they also went after Canadians with disabilities, specifically Canadians with type 1 diabetes. Liberals went after their health tax credit. While we are trying to find real solutions to real problems, the Liberals are chasing the opportunity for a tax grab on the backs of Canadians who are the most vulnerable. That is what makes this extremely disappointing.

On this side of the House, we recognize the strong contributions persons with different abilities can make to our country, our economy and certainly our workplaces. Disabilities come in all different sizes, shapes and forms. Unfortunately, one in seven Canadians aged 15 or older has reported some kind of disability, and three out of four adults with disabilities have reported more than one type of disability. These are not necessarily visible disabilities. They are not something we see on the street every single day. Many Canadians have disabilities that cannot necessarily be identified when seen, but they struggle each and every day to find a job and to make ends meet.

Almost 80% of Canadians 25 to 64 years old with a disability have at least a high school diploma, but compared to almost 90% of those without a disability, that is still a stark gap we need to try to address.

These Canadians represent a large and talented employment pool, yet too many are denied the opportunity to work and earn a living and their own self-esteem and self-respect. Persons with disabilities often face more challenges in the labour force than, obviously, persons without disabilities. Inequities for persons with disabilities that currently exist in the workplace must be properly addressed in this legislation. Unfortunately, Bill C-81 does not do that.

Half of working age adults with disabilities are employed, and two-thirds with mild disabilities are employed. We can definitely do better.

Unfortunately, as I said, this legislation is a poor attempt to keep an election promise. Throughout the debates, the Liberals have touted this legislation as a historic bill, but they are simply using flowery language to cover up legislation that does not have the teeth Canadians are expecting. This document is really nothing more than another funding announcement that the Liberals will have $290 million and will be doing yet another study on Canadians with disabilities.

All this bill would do is create another level of bureaucracy, but it has no details on what the cost would be to the Canadian taxpayer, what the impact would be on the private sector or what this program would entail. The cost-benefit analysis is not there. There is no specific data on what this bill would intend to do.

My colleague from the Liberal side said earlier that this bill would provide a framework. Canadians with disabilities are not looking for a framework. They are looking for results. They are looking for a clear path that is going to remove the barriers keeping them from accessing the workplace. This bill would not do that.

Also, it will frustrate a lot of Canadians that this bill would take more than six years to implement. My first question would be, “to implement what?” That information is not in there. It was a promise made in the 2015 campaign that there would be a national plan to address disabilities. It did not say that it would be nine years, and it certainly did not say that it would be six years. The Liberals have had more than three years to try to come up with a plan, and they have failed to do that. That is extremely disappointing. As I said, if there were a tangible piece of legislation, all of us in this House would be willing to support it. It is something we could all work on together.

We will support this getting to the next stage, but I am hoping that there is an opportunity to improve this bill, because it is certainly lacking. This is a hollow document that would not address any of the promises made by the Prime Minister in 2015. Canadians have had enough of Liberal broken promises. Canadians, certainly Canadians with disabilities, want a government that will deliver.

There are vital details missing from this piece of legislation. How would private sector businesses be impacted by this legislation? I am talking about community airports, postal workers and those types of private sector businesses under federal jurisdiction. How would Parliament or constituency offices be impacted by this legislation? How much would this legislation cost to finally implement? What would be the cost of the bureaucracy that would be constructed as part of this bill? Who would have the authority to make the decisions? That is also not in this bill. How would compliance be measured? The bill says that there would be 5,000 new public sector workers hired. How would they be employed? Where would they be employed? Would they be given tangible and meaningful work, or would they be simply token hires?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this bill had incredible potential, but the bill needs to establish clear and definitive lines of accountability and recommendations for the private sector and certainly for the public sector. This is not what the four million Canadians with disabilities asked for. They did not ask for more consultation or more studies. Those have been done before.

The Liberals had more than three years to update those studies and add to that information if they truly wanted to make this a priority. What is clear with Bill C-81 is that it was not a priority. This is something that has been rushed and thrown on the table to try to fit in by the end of this mandate.

As a society, the barrier we need to overcome is inclusion. We must remove the barriers, whatever they may be, to ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity to earn a living and be successful. We cannot judge people's abilities based on their disabilities. It is not about finding someone with a disability to suit our structure or our business model. It is about changing the workplace to suit the person with that disability. A disability is not a disability until that person is put in an environment or a context in which it disables them. For example, someone in a wheelchair can engage in debates and conversations, read and write, but it is not until that person is put in a situation without an accessible wheelchair ramp that it becomes a disability. The context of the situation has disabled them. It is this barrier that needs to be broken down.

Preventing and removing barriers means people with disabilities can participate in the workplace through inclusion and accommodation. People living with a disability can gain persistence and meet the challenges of any workplace, but someone has to give them that chance.

Bill C-81 needs to be more than a feel-good Liberal bill. We need concrete action to break down barriers and open up inclusivity to those living with disabilities. All of us in the House have an important role to play in achieving that goal. It is a chance to empower and mobilize. We are called upon to break down barriers and open doors for Canadians with disabilities. When we are an inclusive society, we all benefit.

I took a look at a couple of the organizations in my riding of Foothills, groups like Foothills SNAPS and the Foothills AIMS Society. They have done the heavy lifting. They are going to businesses across my riding to find work placement opportunities for Canadian adults and children with disabilities. They are breaking down those barriers on their own, working with the small business owners in southern Alberta.

I know they would embrace some help. If there were an opportunity to partner with the federal government to break down those barriers, providing additional opportunities to their clients, it would be welcomed. However, I know, when discussing Bill C-81 with them over the weekend, they were extremely disappointed by the lack of clarity and structure in the legislation.

I would like to finish off with a bit of a story about someone who I think many of us in the House know: Dr. Temple Grandin. She is an inspirational individual.

Dr. Grandin is a world renowned scientist, an American professor and one of the first individuals on the autism spectrum to share a personal experience. She did not speak until she was three and a half years old. When she was 15 years old, she visited her aunt's ranch, something that inspired her future career. She is world renowned in teaching techniques of animal handling in the agriculture sector and her methods are used on ranches and meat processing facilities across the world, including those in my riding of Foothills.

Dr. Grandin developed a centre track double rail conveyor restrainer system for holding cattle during stunning in beef plants. In addition, she developed an objective numerical scoring system for assessing animal welfare at slaughter plants. The use of her system has resulted in significant improvements in animal handling, which are now the industry standard.

She has lectured around the world about her experiences and the anxiety of feeling threatened by everything in her surroundings. She uses that fear and anxiety to motivate herself in her work with humane livestock practices. She has designed and adapted these corrals, which have reduced stress, panic and injury in animals. They have certainly been a game-changer in the agriculture sector. What some may have seen as a disability was certainly a workplace ability.

Recently in Vancouver, she spoke at the Pacific National Exhibition about developing individuals with different minds. She said, “There are different kinds of minds. Some people are visual thinkers. Another kid is going to be a pattern thinker and another one a word thinker. We have to start figuring out what a person can do. And this is true for all things involving disability.”

Under the previous Conservative government, we introduced the registered disabilities savings plan, which quickly gave Canadians with disabilities increased financial security. We introduced a new home accessibility tax credit and developed a working group tasked with developing a national autism strategy.

The best direction forward is toward workplace ability. Canadians with disabilities want tangible action and tangible and achievable goals. I will support getting the bill to committee in the hopes of improving it. However, this is a disappointing effort and is clearly another piece of rushed legislation trying to meet an election promise. This does not address the barriers Canadians with disabilities are facing when they are trying to enter the workforce, and that is where Bill C-81 falls disappointingly short.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised by how my colleague across the way seemed to exaggerate a few points that are not really related to Bill C-81. One of the interesting things he talked about was the deficits of this particular administration. I would be interested in hearing his most up-to-date thinking. When we think of deficits, the Conservative Party has been in control of the Prime Minister's Office for 38% of the time that Canada has been a federation, some 151 years. For 38% of that time, that office was under the Conservatives. During that time, the Conservatives incurred 74% of Canada's overall debt. That is an interesting comparison.

I am a little off base. I apologize. I was just following up on a comment that the member across the way made.

Here we have legislation that sets a framework and demonstrates strong national leadership on an important issue that many Canadians who are following the debate have an understanding of, because of the comprehensive consultations that were done by this particular minister.

We know that the Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation. They have made that very clear. However, they have been critical as to why it has taken us two and a half years to get it through this far. Let us forego the arguments about the consultations.

My question for the member is this. Why did Stephen Harper not bring forward any form of legislation like what we are debating here today?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a lot of great points. We want to see people living with disabilities have full access to everything that Canadians enjoy, whether with respect to work, access to public buildings, or access to anything that regular Canadians enjoy. We very much want to see a plan that helps the disabled get to work.

My colleague from Carleton has put forward a private member's bill to ensure that those returning to work are not penalized by having their benefits taken away. We would like to see the government act on that. I hope that the NDP and the Liberals will support that bill, and the private member's bill of my colleague from Calgary Shepard, both of whom have tangible, pragmatic options to help people living with disabilities.

The member has mentioned a lot of great items. However, Bill C-81 is so vague about what it is going to do that it has disappointed us. We want to get it to committee where we can study it and get some firm, outcome-based teeth to the legislation.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

We are talking about Bill C-81, which aims to improve accessibility for people with reduced mobility and people with other kinds of limitations.

When people are integrated into the workplace, they are occasionally subjected to discrimination. They are also often excluded from their communities. I would like to hear the member's thoughts. What could be done to improve Bill C-81? How could we intervene directly with people with disabilities to give them a better quality of life?

We know that having a job and actively participating in the workforce, whether in our own ridings or anywhere else, also promotes inclusion and well-being.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to everything my colleague said.

I found some of the topics he covered a little curious. Bill C-81 is about accessibility. Its purpose is to make sure that accessibility is possible in all areas under federal jurisdiction so that all Canadians, regardless of their level of ability or disability, can participate in our society.

I would like to ask my friend whether the Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-81.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-81, or as I call it, another Liberal feel good bill that is short on details, does not note how it will actually help the disabled, and yet somehow manages to detail how it will grow the bureaucracy, but that is just a working title.

This situation with the delay in getting to this bill kind of reminds me of an old Seinfeld episode where Newman and Elaine steal someone's dog. It takes the police a while to catch them. When Newman is confronted by the police, he asks, “What took you so long?” That is what I would like to ask the government.

We will support this bill in order to get it to committee, where hopefully we will get the Liberals to actually work on concrete measures to help improve the lives of the disabled. I have heard that the bill may go to the government operations committee, on which I sit. We would welcome that if it does come to us. We are going to suggest and support amendments to ensure that it actually helps the disabled, and is not just a make-work project for bureaucrats.

The establishment of this bill was in the first minister's mandate letter in 2015. Ironically, the current Minister of Public Services was the original Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, tasked with this legislation three years ago. Back then, her mandate read:

Lead an engagement process with provinces, territories, municipalities, and stakeholders that will lead to the passage of a Canadians with Disabilities Act. In this work, you will be supported by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

Work with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to deliver on our commitment to support the construction of recreational infrastructure that allows more children access to sport and recreation.

It is a bit ironic that the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities at the time was the MP for Edmonton Mill Woods. In West Edmonton, my riding, we have been looking to build a new recreation centre specifically as outlined in the mandate letter. Unfortunately, our minister, the senior minister for the Liberals in Edmonton, Alberta, has been completely absent on this issue. We have not received a single penny.

Recently, Huffington Post put out this big article and a map showing how the Liberals, in the summer, plastered most of eastern Canada with cheques: $43 billion. They showed how much was actually delivered to Edmonton: not one penny. Some $43 billion went to various Liberal ridings and not one penny was delivered by the Liberals to Edmonton. We will get to more on that issue later.

It has taken three years to get to introducing the bill that actually just punts the work down the road over the next six years. From the mandate letter to maybe actually achieving goals is going to be nine years.

The famed Liberal mandate tracker says on this issue that it is under way and on track. Regarding the development of a national disabilities act, it says the result anticipated is for federal accessibility legislation that promotes equality and opportunity, increases inclusion and participation of Canadians who have disabilities, with the outcome being that building on extensive nine-month in-person and online consultation with Canadians, the government has tabled the bill.

In three years since the mandate letter, the Liberals managed to consult for nine months. That makes me ask what they have done for the other two years and three months. It is funny that the current minister probably thought she could just transfer to another department and escape the mandate, yet here it is back with her at public services to fulfill.

Now, as for being under way and on track, it has taken three years to get to it being under way and on track. It has a bit of funding over six more years, and they say that it is on track.

I want to look at a few other things from the Liberal mandate tracker that are also under way and on track.

There is the review of Canada's environmental assessment project: under way and on track. Another refers to environmental assessment processes that are fair to all parties, rely on scientific evidence, respect the rights of indigenous people and protect the environment for generations to come. Here we have the Liberals failing on Trans Mountain. Their Bill C-68 is also known as the bill to ensure that a pipeline will never be built in Canada again. It says “rely on scientific evidence”, but this bill actually puts the final word and the political decision-making with the minister, not basing it on science. However, it is under way and on track.

Another is to establish new performance standards for government services, and measure and report on performance: under way and on track. The result is to be government services that better meet the needs of Canadians.

Every single government has to put out a departmental plan. In that plan, it lists all of its goals and expected results. Fully one-third of the entire departmental plan from every Liberal ministry does not actually have goals set. They all say what they are spending and what they hope to achieve in a roundabout way, but there are no actual goals set. Here we have that it is on track, but fully one-third of their programs do not have any results showing as a goal.

Here is another one that is under way and on track. Sure, committees can introduce effective opioid treatments and programs, but we have an opioid crisis across the country. The much reviled by the Liberals President Trump has actually declared it a national emergency in the United States, but the government cannot do that here, yet it is on track.

Another one under way and on track is to eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories in public systems on reserves. It is a great goal. The result anticipated is to continue progress in eliminating long-term drinking water advisories. Since this mandate came out, we have had 35 new communities that have been put on the boil water advisory. The Liberals sit there and say that they have done this, this and this, but they have actually added 35 new communities. However, it is under way and on track.

Another one is to help veterans by establishing lifelong pensions ensuring they will have access to financial advice and support. We have seen the current government fail miserably on that, but it is under way and on track.

It says that promoting economic development and creating jobs for indigenous people is under way and on track. The result anticipated is higher employment rates for indigenous people. In the government operations committee we recently studied small business procurement and how we have set-asides for indigenous businesses. We are required to set aside a certain amount of business through the government for indigenous-led businesses. The government had someone come up and say that they are fulfilling every role and succeeding massively. However, every single witness we have had from the indigenous community, Métis, Cree, it does not matter, from Alberta and Quebec, every single witness said that the government is not even following its own laws, yet here it says it is under way and on track.

It says that to implement an infrastructure strategy that improves public transport is under way and on track. The result anticipated is that Canadians spend less time in traffic. We have heard the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that he cannot even find the infrastructure money that has been established in the budget. He has begged the government to produce an infrastructure strategy, which the government has not done, yet somehow the Liberals say it is under way and on track. I will note that the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, when he was the infrastructure minister, managed to get some work done on public transport in Alberta. He got ashtrays for the bus stops in Edmonton and so I thank him.

It says that modernizing the National Energy Board is under way and on track. We have seen the government belittle, bad-mouth and discredit the NEB, yet it says it is on track to modernize it. Bad-mouthing and discrediting it is not modernizing it.

My favourite from the Liberal mandate checker has to be the budget: to balance the budget by 2019-20 is under way with challenges. Now, it is not going to be balanced, and the most recent update we heard from finance was 2050. Here is the funny thing: Every single finance minister from the provinces across Canada has set a date when they will balance their budget. In Alberta, where we have the financially challenged and mathematically challenged NDP spending us into bankruptcy, it has actually set a date for when it will balance the budget. Even with Kathleen Wynne's Liberals, the finance minister had set a date when they would balance the budget. Of course, it turns out it was all incorrect information, but they set a date to balance the budget. Who has not set a date to balance the budget? Well, it is the finance minister from this government. Every single other one but the finance minister has, but I digress.

Ensuring Canadians who are living with disabilities are allowed to live with equal opportunities by eliminating systematic barriers is a great cause. We all support it. My office works with a great many in Edmonton West on this issue. I want to read a letter from one of them. His name is Timothy Parnett. He is a gentleman who was hurt in a car accident years ago and is confined to a wheelchair with limited movement in his arms and legs.

He writes, “I run the advocacy group called Mightywheels.ca. This organization was created to address accessibility within the community. Our mission is simple: Mightywheels.ca wants to bring attention to poor infrastructure and problem areas in the community that you live in. Mightywheels is located in Edmonton, Alberta. Edmonton has grown at a rapid pace within the past few decades, so much so that the city struggles to keep up with the demand of reconstruction of aider communities, where the accessibility conditions are severely lacking, even deplorable to a certain extent. 1 am hoping to raise awareness for the struggles that people with wheels or mobility issues face every day.”

He goes on to say that he has a website that is “geared to help people who face social inequality, the main issue we currently address is accessibility for all people: we focus on the barriers that cause inaccessibility: these would be things like parents pushing baby strollers, people with mobility issues or impairments, or people who use walking aids or wheelchairs like myself.” He writes:

Here is one gentleman confined to a wheelchair with no resources who has put in a simple email better outcomes than what are in Bill C-81. He finished by saying, “My Mightywheels website is to give hope to everyone who has an issue with accessibility. l am very passionate with my website and l am hoping that people will be enlightened and educate. Most of all, l am hoping people will see and hear my advocacy. This is not just for me, but for all the people who have issues with mobility. l am a firm believer that together we can do it one step at time.”

I had a coffee with Tim at West Edmonton Mall. We chatted about his accident and his difficulties in life and what he wanted to achieve. He wants to inspire people to succeed. I am going to consider it a failure if the next time I see him I have to say it is a great idea but to hold on for the next six years because this legislation is going to take that long.

It reminds me of an interview when the Prime Minister told a desperate unemployed oil sands worker in Alberta to just hang in there. That was over two years ago. Since then the Liberals have killed energy east and northern gateway, and have botched Trans Mountain. I guess we are going to have to tell those workers to just hang in there a bit more.

It also reminds me of the injured veteran at the Edmonton town hall who had lost a leg. Pleading for help, he was told by the Prime Minister that veterans are asking for more than the government could give. Ten million dollars for an ice rink on Parliament Hill is not too much to ask for and $10 million for Omar Khadr is not too much to ask for, but it is for a veteran.

I want to go back to the mandate letters. The next minister for disabilities was the member for Calgary Centre. His mandate letter stated, “Develop and introduce new federal accessibility legislation. You will build on the significant consultations that have already taken place involving provinces, territories”, etc. By then, the consultations were going to have to be done.

Did the minister get it done? Of course he did not. Part of his mandate letter also read that he was expected to live up to the highest ethical standards. Instead, he is under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner for using House of Commons resources for a family member's election.

We are now over to our third minister for the file. She too will build on the significant consultations that have already taken place. Hers too should be an ambitious legislation. Six years is not ambitious unless it is the Minister of Finance balancing the budget when 20 years would be ambitious, but in his case apparently it is going to be 30.

What I am getting at is that we do not need six years of added bureaucracy. We need a truly ambitious plan to help the disabled. Provinces have plans. Ontario has the Ontarians With Disabilities Act. This is not new ground that we are breaking here. It has been done before.

The previous Conservative government took the disabilities file seriously. We did not pass off the issues from minister to minister. We actually got stuff done, like introducing the landmark registered disability savings plan, which helps parents and grandparents with children with severe disabilities to contribute to the children's financial security. From mandate letter to actually getting it done, it was three months, not three years to get to a program where six years down the road we might have something done, three years from mandate letter to actually getting to legislation and getting the program done.

We invested $30 million into the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities gain employment. We supported caregivers and recognized their enormous contribution through tax incentives. There was over $200 million for labour market agreements for persons with disabilities to assist provinces in approving the employment situation of Canadians with disabilities, and millions of dollars for the ready, willing and able initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living to connect persons with developmental disabilities with jobs, and millions to support the expansion of vocational training programs for persons with autism spectrum disorder, and on and on.

I want to swing back to the registered disability savings plan. Since we introduced the plan, it has helped 105,000 Canadians save for the future. This is the outcomes-based work that we need from the current government. Conservatives are not in power anymore, but the members on this side are continuing to work for the disabled.

My seatmate, the member for Calgary Shepard, has introduced Bill C-399, the fairness for persons with disabilities act. It aims to reduce the threshold for the number of hours needed for an activity to be eligible for a tax credit. Medical food and medical formula would also qualify under the disability tax credit.

Our member for Carleton has introduced Bill C-395, the opportunity for workers with disabilities act, which is an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

His legislation would amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to ensure that persons with disabilities do not lose more through taxation and the reduction in benefits than they would gain as a result of working. His bill would enforce Ottawa to measure the impact of every thousand dollars a disabled person earns in wages against the value of their lost benefits. It would force the federal government to adjust its tax and benefits program so a disabled person would always be financially better off working than not working.

What has the Liberal government done besides passing this file from minister to minister to minister? It sicced the CRA on disabled people. It targeted people living with type 1 diabetes. As a diabetes sufferer stated, “It's not like I can snap a finger and this disease turns off.” The government was quick to go after people who suffered from diabetes, but slow to work on its mandate.

Who else did the Liberals target in their tax grab? They targeted people suffering from autism and severe mental health disorders. Autism Canada says it is hearing too many stories of people who have had the disability tax credit, sometimes for decades, for their children with autism taken away.

It is funny to note that I did not see in any of the Liberal mandate letters ministers being told to harass people with disabilities and to do a tax grab on them. They seem to have acted quickly on it, though. It is too bad they did not have it in their mandate letters, because this would be one issue they could actually mark as completed instead of marking it as “under way with challenges”.

We have a lot of questions on this legislation. We do support it like our colleagues in the NDP and other parties. We want it to get to committee so that we can get some teeth into the measures currently in it and help disabled people.

We do have some questions for the minister, though. When will the new regulations come into effect? The six-year time frame would suggest that the entire process is going to take six years to get done between now and the time help will be given to the disabled. How much is it going to cost federal workplaces and private businesses? What will the new standard be? Why will we be voting on legislation when we do not know the regulations that will come out of it? Is it going to be properly defined to avoid a flood of human rights complaints?

I want to go back to the comment about voting on legislation when we do not even know what the regulations will be. We saw the government do this recently with the estimates, in what we called vote 40, the slush fund. The government asked us to give it $7.4 billion and that it would tell us later what it would be spent on. When we asked further, we were told that it was presumptuous to expect opposition members to understand what the money would be used for until it was given to it.

We have another situation here. What is the $290 million going to be used for? Can the Liberals give us a breakdown of how it is going to be spent? Is it going to be spent on changing our buildings and updating them, or is it all going to be spent on bureaucracy? Have estimates been done on the cost to the private sector across the country? If the bill were passed today, what would the changes be, asides from spending lots of money on bureaucrats? Is it going toward hiring more public servants to examine which regulations we should have?

I note that in the 10-page slide deck or briefing document the government sent out, it provided more information on the bureaucracy going after people and penalizing them, etc., than it did on how the bill would help the average disabled person. We are worried about that.

Is the government going to build a bureaucracy that will create paperwork and go after people? It has not put anything in the bill specifying how it is going to physically and pragmatically help the disabled. What will the outcome be? We do not know. We do know that there will be a lot more bureaucrats going after people.

The $290 million will not even scratch the surface of what it is going to cost the federal government and the federally regulated private sectors to catch up to the new standards.

We have a lot of issues with this legislation, but we do support it. We support the work that we have done in the past toward helping disabled individuals. We continue to do so with our private members' bills, such as the one put forward by the member for Calgary Shepard and the member for Carleton. Both have produced bills that would show tangible results for the disabled without the resources the government has, whether it be easier access to the disability credit for those who are suffering from autism, diabetes, or mental health disorders, or as my friend from Carleton has put in his bill, that would encourage the disabled to get back to work. His bill would not punish someone by taking away benefits because they had a job. Nothing is better for the dignity of Canadians than having a job.

We support getting the bill to committee. We want to improve the lives of those living with disabilities, but we are worried about the lack of government ambition toward getting it done.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate my friend from Cloverdale—Langley City on his election as chair of the environment committee. This is something I hope for, and maybe I am premature. In any case, there will be change in the chairmanship of that committee.

My own backyard is a spectacular backyard. I live in one of the most beautiful parts of Canada. The Gulf Islands National Park is a challenge for accessibility, even for those who are fully physically able, with all our abilities to walk, and yet much of the Gulf Islands National Park requires being on a boat. When we consider physical limitations, we want to make sure every Canadian has access to experiences, such as being able to watch whales from shore. One of the best places for watch whaling, as the hon. member knows, is on Saturna Island, where one does not have to be in a boat, at risk of harassing the whales. They more or less come to us and we can experience them very close up. Fortunately, BC Ferries has accessibility in mind. Many of the ferry routes are accessible. There are many ways in which Gulf Islands National Park and all national parks could improve accessibility, given the goals of Bill C-81.

I agree with him. There is tremendous potential here. I would love to see it realized with timelines.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House last week when the minister responsible for Bill C-81 introduced the legislation. As someone who has spent my career in the federal public service, I was really pleased to see that the legislation called for the federal workforce to become more representative of the Canadian population by including persons with disabilities, and different abilities, within the workforce.

I was also really pleased to hear about the funding that would be available to make improvements for accessibility across federal assets. I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has a place within her riding very near and dear to me, the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. Perhaps the member could speak to some of the great benefits we would see at Gulf Islands National Park Reserve arising from Bill C-81, because I think it would help workforce and visitors to that area to have inclusive experiences. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on how this legislation might benefit her own backyard.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have learned a lot today from members on all sides of the House. I want to concur with my hon. colleague's statement that there appears to be a lot of consensus that this bill is important, but also a lot of consensus that this bill needs to be open to amendments at committee.

There is one thing I want to put forward for my colleague, just to hear her thoughts. I do not pretend to know all the ins and outs of the legislation, but could we not, inside Bill C-81, include some type of timeline for Canada to actually bring in line our laws and policies with the declaration for the rights of persons with disabilities that we signed so many years ago? It has come to my attention that this could be one thing we could put in the bill to work toward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. There has been a strong degree of non-partisan concern from all members of this place in the debates on Bill C-81, whether Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat or Green. There is a hope that we will see the legislation improved in committee, and it is with that spirit that I will vote for the legislation at second reading and hope that we can see more precision.

As I said, I know the language "progressive realization" is found in some United Nations language, but I submit to this House that progressive realization of a goal is not a terminology that belongs in Canadian law. If they are serious about doing something, they give it timelines, they state goals, and they create accountability. Otherwise, it becomes a legislative effort in empty promises and dreamy hope but without the kind of rigour that brings change through legislation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-81.

I think this bill is a good first step, but we should do more to make Canada a truly barrier-free nation.

The bill is a good first step. I do not think there is any disability group across Canada or any people concerned with the rights of all Canadians to full access of all the benefits of citizenship that would disagree that no one should be denied access to benefits based on physical limitations. That is clear. Canada has long since signed and ratified in 2006, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but we still need to do much more.

As I said, I do not think any group has seen this legislation and condemned it. No group has said anything other than that this is welcome. Groups welcome the efforts of the current government to bring in legislation that would lead us to a country that is barrier-free.

I particularly want to commend the member for Haldimand—Norfolk for her observations on a situation that occurred to me as well, and that is what it is like to have physical limitations and how it opens our eyes. In both her case and mine, they were temporary.

I waited a long time for a hip replacement on two occasions. I became much more aware of the number of times I went into a building and realized there was no elevator. I did not think I could get myself up those stairs because it hurt too much. The awareness of what it was like to get over curbs, to get up staircases. These moments of awareness need to be carried through by us.

I feel blessed that the hip replacements worked, so my physical limitations were temporary. However, it really woke me up to how many barriers existed in our society that were invisible to those who had full sight, hearing and the physical ability to handle staircases and curbs. The limitations are severe and they need to be removed.

We know a number of provinces have passed legislation to ensure real accessibility, but only Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, so obviously not across the country. We know this federal legislation will apply to places within federal jurisdictions, federal buildings, federal sphere of activities. However, there are criticisms and I want to go over them briefly.

We have heard a number of them through debate since Bill C-81 came to the House. I should make it clear that I will vote for the bill at this stage. I want it to get to committee where I hope we can make significant changes.

This is the first thing that needs to be said, and I raised this already in questions. As I went through the legislation, I was surprised at the language of the goal in the purpose of the act, section 5. It states:

The purpose of this Act is to benefit all persons, especially persons with disabilities, through the progressive realization, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, of a Canada without barriers...

We find the same language in the mandate of the the Canadian accessibility standards organization, to contribute to the progressive realization of a Canada without barriers. We can go through and find the accessibility commissioners are also working toward progressive realization.

I was so interested in the language. As someone who studied legislative interpretation at law school, I have read every bill that has gone through this place since I became an MP seven years ago. I have never seen any bill where the goal is progressive realization of something. I double-checked by searching the legislative record, which we can now do much more easily than reading every bill. This is the first time any piece of legislation in Canada has set a goal of “progressive realization” of anything.

We usually, in legislation, set goals that are limited by timelines, within x number of years of the bill coming into force, that sort of thing. Progressive realization speaks to the underlying framework of this legislation, which is that it does not demand that Canada achieve a time without barriers by a specific time, even within the federal purview, and that is clearly a weakness.

It is discretionary at many other points. I mentioned earlier today in debate that the Governor in Council, which, for those watching who might not recognize the term, means cabinet, at section 4 of this act “may, by order, designate a member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada as the Minister for the purposes of this Act.” I cannot imagine, having created an act that is discretionary and says we are going to have a timeline into the future where we are working in progressive realization of our goal, why on earth it is not required that cabinet appoint a minister to be in charge. Other speakers have already noted that the minister who tabled this legislation is not the minister who worked on the legislation, and so on. We really should, in committee, be able to address some of the discretionary elements and ensure that cabinet must appoint a minister from within the existing cabinet to have responsibility for carriage of this legislation. It is nonsensical to leave that part discretionary.

A number of the groups dealing with this issue of accessibility and looking at this legislation have made note of some other things, and certainly the discretionary nature and the lack of timelines has been repeated by many. In looking at the legislation, I thought as well that it is much better, in looking at a goal for all of government, that there be accountability with one agency. In this legislation, for instance, the rights of accessibility to transport are handled through the Canadian Transportation Agency, whereas the rights to access to telecommunications, radio and TV is left with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

I want to read a quote into the record by disability advocate and lawyer David Lepofsky. I certainly leaned on his advice and will be doing so as I am preparing amendments for Bill C-81. He said, “That kind of splintered approach”, by which I just referred to different agencies having responsibility, “to implementation and enforcement is a formula for confusion, delay, duplication and ineffectiveness. We would rather have it all under one roof.” So would I. It would be much more effective if it were all under one roof, with one agency being accountable.

There is another element that has come up for discussion since the bill was tabled, and that is access to languages, particularly sign languages, the right to recognize that sign languages are languages and, in the national context, must be protected as official languages. Recently, there was a demonstration in Ottawa about the concerns that sign language in English and French as well as indigenous sign languages, be recognized as languages, as part of a national language. This is a concern that was expressed by a nationwide rally that occurred not that long ago and it is one that I share. I want to go on the record as supporting that American sign language, langue des signes du Québec and indigenous sign languages be understood to be official languages. One cannot have full accessibility if one cannot read, find and hear the information due to physical limitations.

Our embracing of the United Nations declaration on the rights of people with disabilities must be at least as strong. Of course, there are other United Nations declarations, such as on the rights of indigenous persons, on which we have the same concern. We can endorse these United Nations declarations, but when it comes home to implementation in Canada, we must be serious about ensuring that our goals are not in the far distance. Therefore, progressive realization is not language I want to see in this legislation at royal assent. What I hope we will all see, and we can negotiate it, is that within four years, five years, six years of royal assent given to this legislation a barrier-free Canada must exist and all peoples of Canada must be able to access, as citizens, all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizenship.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I was here when the minister introduced the legislation. A good amount of consultation was done before the bill was brought forward. Bill C-81 is fairly clear and straightforward in taking barriers away, which is really and truly what Canadians want. Canadians want a federal government that will lead by example.

If the member were to ask if the legislation is perfect, I would have to tell her that I do not think there is such a thing. I do not think Stephen Harper had perfect legislation. Our legislation is not perfect. There is always room for improvement and maybe we will see some improvements once the bill gets to committee.

I believe that all the stakeholders who have been listening to the debate and the discussions that have taken place would surely recognize that the legislation is a significant step forward in taking away barriers. Would the member agree with that?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, better known as the accessible Canada act. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. As we have heard from various members, we all want to ensure that those living with disabilities are treated as equals and remove the barriers they face every single day. I said this is near and dear to my heart, so I would like to start by providing some insight into some obstacles that I have encountered first-hand living with disabilities in Canada.

It was in 2006 that I had just been named minister of human resources and social development, with responsibility for the office for disabilities. Ironically, just a few weeks into the job, I was diagnosed with Grave's disease and Grave's eye disease. These are thyroid afflictions that, among other things, in me cause both extreme light sensitivity and extreme stabismus, resulting in my being legally blind for quite a period of time. More recently, I underwent complicated double hip replacement surgery, which unfortunately resulted in my need for mobility assistance tools around this place for many months.

It was during both of these periods that I learned just how inaccessible many things in my life were, including this particular workplace. They were simple things, such as moving between the Hill and my office, more than half a kilometre from the House, being unable to walk that distance, being unable to step up or down from the little white minibus. Challenges were also considerable in actually having to fight to get an accessible parking space here at Centre Block.

Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, even with the eventual direct intervention by the Speaker's office, it literally took months to fix what were supposed to be the accessibility doors at the rear of this building, doors which unfortunately malfunctioned more often than not. One of the main barriers to getting that particular job done was a clear lack of accountability for the issue. I will talk more about accountability later.

I also discovered how narrow certain parts of these buildings are for those who rely on wheelchairs or walkers, walkers that inhibit our ability to get around. With a disability, many of these seemingly small things all of a sudden can become very big obstacles, but it used to be a lot worse. In fact, under the previous Liberal government, the office for people with disabilities was actually two offices and neither one of them was accessible by those who were mobility challenged. That is right. People who use wheelchairs or walkers could not get into the building. They could not work there, could not consult, could not lobby, and they could not advocate for people with disabilities because they were not allowed in. I know this may sound a little farcical but unfortunately it is true.

Happily, the Conservative government fixed that scenario in short order and, in fact, combined the facilities. There was one office and it was billed as a showcase of how businesses and organizations could adapt to people with mobility, visibility, hearing or other challenges. In one place, businesses and other organizations could finally find the technologies, techniques, tips and tools that would help them accommodate people of all abilities so that these organizations could benefit from their skills to make those organizations even stronger. By the end, not only could people with disabilities enter this office to do business but they could actually work there. What a concept.

As the former minister for HRSD responsible for the disabilities file, I have to say that I was very proud to be part of a government that took leadership in removing many barriers for people with disabilities.

We created the registered disability savings plan in 2008, and we signed on to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The RDSP, as members have probably heard, was a breakthrough financial planning tool, the first of its kind anywhere in the world. To date, over 150,000 Canadians and their families have invested in this wonderful tool.

However, we did so much more for people with disabilities. We launched the opportunities fund that, so far, has helped over 20,000 people with disabilities develop the skills they need to actually get a job and, with that, the dignity and self-respect that come with having a job.

We partnered with the Canadian Association for Community Living on the ready, willing and able initiative to connect people with developmental disabilities with a job. We also invested in expanding vocational training programs for people with autism spectrum disorders.

Yes, we did more. We removed the GST-HST from eyewear that is specially designed to electronically enhance the vision of individuals with vision impairment, and also from special training to help individuals cope with the effects of a disorder or disability.

We invested hundreds of millions of dollars every year in the labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, to help the provinces and territories improve the employment of Canadians with disabilities.

We released a landmark third-party report, “Rethinking disability in the private sector.” This report spelled out, in very plain language, the many tangible benefits of hiring people with disabilities, including reduced absenteeism, reduced turnover, improved morale, and improved profitability.

I am, rightly, very proud that in 2007, our government created the enabling accessibility fund. This program was designed to provide direct funding to help community groups, municipalities and organizations improve accessibility for people with disabilities, where they work, live and play, such as community centres, town halls, churches, arenas, and so many more local spots.

Over 3,700 facilities were made more accessible through this program. In 2013, we recognized both the value and the success of this program, originally billed as a temporary one, by making the funding permanent. I have to say that when we launched that particular program over 10 years ago, I never expected that I would be so appreciative of the results of those investments 10 years later. I am surely glad they were there, as are thousands and thousands of Canadians who use them every day.

Among many other tax aids, we also created the home accessibility tax credit, for both seniors and those living with disabilities, to renovate and make their own homes more accessible, giving them not just a sense of independence but in fact real independence. We did this because we recognized the contributions that people with disabilities can and do make to our nation and our communities. We recognize the value that a person's independence brings to their dignity.

This is not to say that the accomplishments of our government solved every problem, but they were significant steps in the right direction. That said, I am sure that members would agree that we still have a lot of work to do.

Take for example the presentation of petitions right here in the House of Commons. Almost a year ago exactly, a petition from my constituents was rejected by the Clerk of the House because it was on 11 by 17 inch paper. It has been printed big enough to accommodate constituents who had visual challenges. The paper was deemed too big for the House of Commons, by this House of Commons.

Under the current Standing Orders, petitioners can only petition the House of Commons if the petition is printed on paper described as the “usual size”, meaning letter or legal size only. I had to seek unanimous consent from the House to table this particular petition. Thanks to my colleagues on all sides, unanimous consent was granted and I was allowed to table the petition. However, quite frankly, there is so much text required to be included on a petition now that the font used has to be pretty small if it is going to fit on 8 ½" by 11" piece of paper. That is not fair. It is not fair to our constituents. In fact, it is such a backward a policy to limit the size of paper if all of the required information is there. Personally, I believe that every Canadian should be able to submit a petition on larger paper if it means they can read what they are signing. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to require.

As someone who was once legally blind, and as the former minister responsible for the disabilities office, I regularly encouraged many institutions and organizations to adopt more accessible friendly policies. It is very disappointing to me that the House is not taking the same approach, at least not so far. Not only does this guideline fail to provide accessibility to Canadians who are visually impaired, but it is also a barrier to their being able to access and fully participate in their government with the same level of engagement as those without visibility challenges.

I am grateful to the House for granting me unanimous consent to table the petition. Frankly, I was hopeful that having this issue brought before the procedure and House affairs committee, or as we know it better, PROC, would lead to positive and permanent change. Sadly, I am now hearing that government members of PROC, the same people introducing Bill C-81, for some strange reason are now withholding their support for this change, a change they once seemed to support. Frankly, I do not understand it. If the government were truly serious about addressing the issues facing Canadians with disabilities, it would have addressed the Standing Order by now. Instead, here we are almost a year later, and Standing Order 36(1.1)(c) still has not been updated. Unfortunately, I wish I could say this was just an oversight. Sadly, it does not seem to be.

During the 2015 election, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to make life more accessible for Canadians with disabilities. For each cabinet shuffle, it has been part of the minister's mandate letter to consult and introduce legislation on this subject as quickly as possible. Here we are three years later and are getting a bill from a minister that is said to have been the result of extreme consultations across Canada. I have no doubt the minister and her staff did extensive consultations across the country on this matter. That is what they claim; it must be true. However, one would normally have expected something of deeper value and more tangible change to have been proposed as a result. Instead, all this piece of legislation does is propose the creation of yet another agency, at a cost of $290 million to taxpayers.

Here is the sad part. None of the money would actually be spent on helping Canadians who face accessibility issues on a day-to-day basis. Instead, it would go to hiring more bureaucrats and paying auditors to audit all government buildings and buildings that fall under federal jurisdiction, such as banks, and for more consultations on what the standard regulations for accessibility should be. In my humble opinion, this would be a waste of money. We do not need more consultations to develop regulations. We have those already. As a matter of fact, during our time in government, we spent many millions of dollars making hundreds of federal buildings more accessible. When we put that in the budget, the Liberals voted against it. We were able to do all of these updates and set regulations without the need for yet another multi-million dollar agency to develop another report.

The proposed legislation says that the regulations, after being developed over the next six years, would apply to the Parliament buildings, among other places.

I have a few questions for the minister. As members of Parliament, we all have at least two offices: one in Ottawa and one, although often more, in the riding. Would auditors be auditing our constituency offices to ensure that they comply with these new regulations? If our offices do not comply, who would be responsible for paying for the upgrades?

I know from my own experience that it was extremely difficult to find office space that was both accessible and affordable in many small towns. Our member office budgets would not cover the cost to make an office accessible because of the high dollar amount involved. Simply building a ramp and altering the front door of my office would have cost three years' rent. The landlord could not reasonably be expected to pay for that, and house management would not pay for it.

In addition to our constituency offices, our Parliament buildings were not designed to be disability-friendly. While we as a government have made great strides in fixing that, these buildings were not designed with accessibility issues in mind.

With Centre Block shutting down in a few months for a much-needed 10-plus years' renovation, has the minister made plans to ensure that when this building reopens it will be disability-friendly for not only Canadians when they visit the Parliament buildings, but also the MPs, senators and thousands of people who support this institution? For example, will rounded doorknobs be changed over to lever knobs? What about the bathroom sink faucets and the toilet flushers? What about the many ramps that need to be built? Will they be built to the appropriate 1-to-10 ratio? How about a distinguishable baseboard that would allow someone with a visual impairment to see where the wall and floor meet? Will there be visual and audible warnings for people in the event of emergencies? Right now in my Confederation Building office the fire alarm is an audio-only alarm. That works for me and my staff, but what if I have guests or what about cleaners who cannot hear? What is planned for wheelchair access to the hill? Perhaps more importantly, what plans exist for true emergency evacuation by wheelchair or walker?

I know that while I was the Minister of Public Works, I took all of these things into consideration and required that they be incorporated into the Parliament Hill renovation design plans. Are those features still included? I know that many of those plans have been changed.

Will the minister ensure that Centre Block and the other Parliament buildings will be accessibility-friendly after these once-in-a-century renovations?

As I mentioned earlier, I am also concerned about the jurisdiction under which this bill is being placed. As the bill currently stands, the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities will be responsible for implementing this bill, yet much of the work will require execution by Public Services and Procurement. I am concerned that as a result of this, the minister will be unable to adequately assess and address the issues as they arise.

While I do support sending this legislation to committee and I do support its intended goal, I have some serious concerns about the need to create a new agency, the amount of funding requested, and how the division of responsibility, authority, and accountability for its implementation will be addressed. I am also concerned that all that this legislation does is essentially reiterate the minister's mandate letter. She has already consulted with Canadians, so instead we should be discussing the regulations, not the creation of another agency.

I look forward to hearing what other members have to say, so that together we can develop legislation that will truly address the very real concerns facing very real Canadians with very real disabilities.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague, as a member of Parliament, could tell this House what she sees as the greatest benefit of Bill C-81 coming forward in the near future.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not on that committee. I am giving this speech because I am very pro accessibility and I approve of Bill C-81. I like the way that it is written. Of course, there is always room for improvement. Therefore, I am hoping that we can accept some input from other members as well. I am sure the government is open to hearing what improvements people seek to make.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in looking at Bill C-81, it is very clear there is an expectation and certainly a desire on the part of many members in this place, and I suspect not just opposition members but government members as well, that the bill be improved at committee. I wonder if the member has any insight as to the openness of the government to accept amendments at committee.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, accessibility is about inclusivity, whether it is a government, a business or any other organization, inclusion means facilitating and promoting the participation of people who may otherwise experience challenges as they seek to fully contribute to society. Of course, that includes the full contribution of people with disabilities.

It is clear we need to change how accessibility barriers have been addressed in this country. We now recognize that implementing a proactive approach to barrier removal would result in positive impacts on the daily lives of people with disabilities. No longer would they have to battle one barrier at a time to make changes, if obligated organizations were held to a recognized set of standards. This in turn would also have the effect of reducing complaints from individuals and organizations.

With the creation of accessibility organizations such as the Canadian accessibility standards development organization, Canada would establish itself as a national and global accessibility leader. The Canadian accessibility standards development organization would put Canadians with disabilities in control of setting the accessibility standards that affect their lives. The creation of this organization would signal the start of a new approach to accessibility by the Government of Canada, a new approach that is proactive and takes the needs of Canadians with disabilities into account from the start.

In 2016 and 2017, the Government of Canada undertook extensive consultations with Canadians, including Canadians with disabilities, and sought their input on the most important areas for improving accessibility. Canadians stated that legislation should lead to more consistent experiences of accessibility across Canada and that it should be built upon the existing standards that are already working well.

Our constituents want new legislation that could lead to the development of accessibility standards that other governments in Canada could adopt. Canadians were also clear on the area that should be considered for standards development including employment, the built environment, transportation, programs and service delivery, information and communications, and procurement of goods and services.

Canadians with disabilities expressed the need to be involved in many aspects of implementation including the standards development process. More precisely, to develop standards, the new Canadian accessibility standards development organization could form technical committees that include persons with disabilities and representatives from the federally regulated sector.

The government also engaged the federally regulated sector, which provided valuable advice on how the government could assist industry to meet its obligations under established standards. Industry representatives stated that standards under the new legislation should be clear and unambiguous. Industry partners also want the Government of Canada to strive to achieve as much as possible harmonization with similar models in effect across other Canadian jurisdictions such as Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, where members already operate and are familiar with existing requirements.

The federally regulated sector wants the government to provide supports to organizations during the implementation of the legislation. They are looking for the Government of Canada to support organizations through dedicated resources and developmental tools such as websites, background documentation, guidelines, tool kits and videos that can assist them with the implementation process.

Helping supporting organizations to meet their obligations would be one of the roles of the new Canadian accessibility standards development organization. Establishing clear and concise standards that apply to all obligated organizations equally would help them understand and comply with requirements and would ultimately be good for business, which could lead to economic benefits for those organizations.

One of the most important aspects of the proposed legislation is the development and use of standards. Standards are guidelines that establish accepted practices and provide technical requirements. A standards-based approach could articulate the manner in which goals of the legislation are to be achieved including penalties for failures to comply with standards and an enforcement strategy for non-compliance.

Standards can also be either voluntary or mandatory, with those standards that are mandatory being enforced by laws and regulations.

During our extensive engagement with Canadians, they overwhelmingly expressed a desire for mandatory standards. The new legislation proposes the creation of the Canadian accessibility standards development organization. This entity would be the first standards organization in Canada dedicated exclusively to developing accessibility standards. It would also be the first to be led by a board of directors with majority representation by people with disabilities.

The organization would have a board of directors to set its strategic direction, oversee its activities and give advice to the chief executive officer. Director positions would be part time and would be appointed by the Governor in Council for terms of up to four years. To the extent possible, the majority of the directors would be persons with disabilities, which would help fulfill our commitments to honour a key principle of the disability community: "nothing about us without us".

In addition, standards would be developed by technical committees comprised of persons with disabilities as well as industry experts. As a departmental corporation, the Canadian accessibility standards development organization would be considered part of the federal public service administration but would operate independently from the government department agencies and Crown corporations that eventually would be subject to these standards. This would allow the minister to provide general direction on priority areas and areas of concern for the development of accessibility standards while facilitating the organization's independence in day-to-day operations.

The Canadian accessibility standards development organization would be established following the coming into force of Bill C-81, and would be operational within one year of the date. A transition team would be put in place immediately afterward to operationalize the organization, with some of the early activities to include the appointment of the board of directors, the establishment of a leadership team, including the chief executive officer, the development of bylaws and determining the location of the head office within Canada. Once the Canadian accessibility standards development organization has a developed set of standards, the minister responsible would bring forward enforceable regulations to guide regulated entities.

Regulated entities include the federal government departments, agencies, Crown corporations and other points of the federal public administration, such as the RCMP and Canadian Forces, as well as the federally regulated sector and parliamentary entities. Once the Canadian accessibility standards development organization was established, the first standards would take approximately two years to develop. The length of the development process would depend on the complexity of the standard and the level of consensus on requirements of the particular areas. The priority areas for the standards development would mirror those set out in Bill C-81, which include employment, the built environment, transportation, information and communication technologies and delivery of programs and services and the procurement of goods and services.

Although the main role of this organization would be the development and revision of standards, it would have a very broad mandate. Indeed, the organization would also be responsible for providing information, products and services in relation to the accessibility standards that it has developed or revised. It would also be responsible for the promotion, support and conduct of research into the identification and removal of barriers and the prevention of new barriers. Also, it would be responsible for the dissemination of information, including information about best practices in relation to the identification, removal and prevention of new barriers.

This organization would be required to submit annual reports to the minister responsible for accessibility, who would then table the report in Parliament. Along with ensuring transparency, the annual reporting would communicate organizational priorities to Canadians and the success in achieving them. The report would also lay out future priorities.

Such an arm's-length organization dedicated to the creation of accessibility standards would be new in Canada. It would, however, function in a similar way to other standards development organizations, such as the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian General Standards Board. As a matter of fact, it is anticipated that the Canadian accessibility standards development organization would seek accreditation from the Standards Council of Canada. The proposed organization would be somewhat similar to the United States Access Board, which is an independent federal agency that develops and maintains accessible design criteria for the built environment, transit vehicles, telecommunications equipment, medical diagnostic equipment and information technology.

Provinces and territories would have opportunities to work with the Canadian accessibility standards development organization and the new organization could be asked to assist with standards making at the provincial and territorial levels.

Along with this organization, others will play a vital role in developing accessibility standards and regulations in the specific areas of responsibility, based on expertise and experience gained over many years.

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that is moving forward with Bill C-81, accessibility legislation. As someone who knows first-hand what it is like to face disabilities, I wonder if the hon. member could tell us what it would mean to others, especially younger Canadians, who may find themselves, like him, disabled overnight, where their lives were changed so much. How would this legislation impact those young Canadians and what would it tell them about what their federal government is doing?

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saint-Laurent.

It is an honour and a privilege to rise in this House to discuss the important issue of accessibility and how our government is addressing the systemic barriers in our society through the proposed accessible Canada act.

As a Liberal, I tend to view public policy through the lens of equality of opportunity. Government policy should level the playing field for individuals and groups in society. For instance, whether one is born of a rich family or one that struggles, one should have every opportunity to succeed. In order for this to happen, there needs to be a role for government. Public health care, public education, and student loans and grants all contribute to ensuring that this basic premise is achieved. However, if we look at the unique challenges faced by Canadians with disabilities, the promise of equality of opportunity has fallen short thus far.

I know first-hand of these challenges and barriers that hinder full inclusion for Canadians with disabilities. On October 3, 1991, my life changed forever. I was a victim of a random act of gun violence and became a C5 quadriplegic. Overnight, things I never thought twice about became significant challenges in my day-to-day life: finding a home that I could physically enter, accessing caregivers simply to get out of bed in the morning, navigating university, accessing technology or even just trying to find employment that would accommodate my unique needs. Clearly, and in no uncertain terms, things I took for granted became more difficult.

My case is not unique. Fourteen per cent of Canadians are living with a disability. That is one in seven. These Canadians face significant and unique challenges solely because they have a disability. A recent study conducted by Statistics Canada found that Canadians with disabilities are significantly less likely to be high school or university graduates and are two times more likely to be unemployed or not in the labour force. Canadians with disabilities also face income challenges. Among Canadians with a disability, one in four is low-income compared to one in 10 for the general population.

Our government knows that everyone has something important to contribute to one's community and to Canada, and this includes those in this country with disabilities. They just need the playing field to be levelled. Our government is following through on our mandate promise made by the Prime Minister to develop and introduce new accessibility legislation. We have developed legislation that is ambitious and that would lead to more consistent experiences of accessibility across Canada.

The proposed legislation is founded on six key principles: inherent dignity, equal opportunity, barrier-free government, economy, inclusive design and meaningful involvement. Let me be clear. We are taking a whole-of-government approach to the issue of furthering accessibility in this country. From our national housing strategy to the Elections Act to embracing visitability, we are enacting legislation that brings real change for Canadians with disabilities.

With the tabling of Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, we are showing Canadians that we are serious about creating an accessible Canada. To inform the development of this new bill, our government conducted the largest and most accessible consultation on disability issues our country has ever seen. The consultation ran from June 2016 to February 2017. I am proud that more than 6,000 Canadians and over 90 organizations participated across the country.

Over and over again, we heard from Canadians that this legislation would need strong measures, with teeth, to make sure that it gets the job done. We listened, and we have a plan to make sure that accessibility is a priority for all areas under federal jurisdiction. Our government has tabled legislation that will ensure co-operation between the Government of Canada, people with disabilities and other stakeholders to create new accessibility standards and requirements.

As my colleagues have described, these new requirements would apply to all organizations in federal jurisdiction. These new requirements would identify and remove existing barriers and prevent new ones in priority areas, such as the built environment, service delivery, employment, transportation, information and communication technologies, and the procurement of goods and services.

We heard in our accessible Canada consultations that Canadians want legislation with enforcement. That is why our bill proposes measures to ensure meaningful and lasting change when it comes to barriers to accessibility. We want to make sure accessibility is practical, convenient and second nature.

We know that Canadians expect a range of strong compliance and enforcement measures that would be applied progressively. Our bill ensures that these measures would be supported by technical knowledge and progressive enforcement. This includes inspections and audits to verify compliance and a progressive suite of tools, including orders and warnings, compliance audits and monetary penalties of up to $250,000.

Our government knows that it is impossible to address all barriers to accessibility at once. That is why we would also ensure that there are mechanisms for individuals to have their specific circumstances addressed and barriers to accessibility removed.

In addition to the existing Canadian human rights process that responds to discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, individuals would have the ability to bring forward cases of non-compliance with regulated standards under this new legislation. They could get redress for harm done to them, which could include reimbursement of expenses and lost wages or compensation for pain and suffering.

This bill represents a real transformation of the Government of Canada's approach to accessibility. Up until this point, the responsibility for fixing accessibility issues has rested on people with disabilities, who had to pursue action through the Canadian Human Right Commission and the courts.

I am happy to say that Bill C-81 is changing that. No longer would Canadians with disabilities be expected to fix the system by themselves. Instead, these new proactive compliance and enforcement measures would help ensure that organizations under federal jurisdiction are held accountable for removing barriers and improving accessibility.

I believe strongly that this initiative, with its combination of encouragement and enforcement, would increase inclusion and fairness in our country. It would set the bar and become a model for organizations all over Canada and across the globe. If passed, this law would also ensure uniformity and fairness in its application.

This is why this legislation is receiving such widespread support. With this legislation we are continuing the march of progress for people with disabilities. It would lead to a more inclusive Canada and a more fair Canada, a place where equality of opportunity exists for people with disabilities in this country, a Canada where people with disabilities can reach their individual potential and be recognized as valued citizens.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this will be the last speech I deliver in the House of Commons, in where it has been an honour to represent the people of York--Simcoe for a decade and a half.

Bill C-81 seeks to enhance accessibility in areas of federal jurisdiction. It is a worthy objective. Accessibility is an area where we have seen much change and progress in my lifetime. However, it is progress that has been largely driven not by politicians, but rather by Canadians who saw the need and pressed for changes to the rules.

The success of those changes has been largely due to an incremental approach that has not placed undue burdens on Canadians trying to make a living, allowing progress over time. It is an example of the importance of applying common sense when delivering change for the better. That goal, delivering change for the better, has been my purpose in my time here.

The rationale behind accessibility rules is to create opportunity for people to achieve their potential. The preamble to the bill focuses on that question of ensuring equal opportunity. In this speech I will focus largely on that word that motivates this legislation, that word being “opportunity”.

Canada is all about opportunity. Opportunity is the reason my family and so many others have come here.

My grandparents and mother grew up in Estonia. Their life experience is the reason I am in Canada and in the House of Commons.

My grandfather was an agronomist, an important role in a largely agricultural economy in the first half of the 20th century. My grandmother became a lawyer in the 1920s in Estonia at a time not too many women did that.

With the Second World War came waves of Soviet, Nazi and then again Soviet occupation. Much of my family died at the hands of the Soviets, executed, bludgeoned to death by axes in their beds or suffering the almost inevitable death that came as inmates of the communist concentration camps of the Siberian gulag.

The only alternative for my grandparents and mother was a high-risk escape across a treacherous Baltic sea, where the men kept bailing to keep the vessel from capsizing. They left all their possessions behind. Safety was found initially in a refugee camp in Sweden, but ultimately Canada was the destination chosen. Canada was a land of freedom, hope and opportunity to them.

The agronomist went to work in a paper factory in Riverdale. The lawyer went to work on the order desk at Sears. They found all that they were looking for in this country.

I grew up hearing stories of what happened to my family's homeland and their own many close brushes with fate. I learned as a child that freedom and democracy were valuable, could be easily lost and needed to be defended and nourished.

Inevitably I became highly politicized as a young child. In 1968, we had a Trudeau Liberal sign for Bob Caplan on our front lawn. Trudeau was the champion of freedom and rights we were told. However, soon after that, I saw that prime minister embracing communist leaders like Brezhnev, Kosygin and Castro. Those were the very people responsible for suppressing the freedoms of millions. It had a profound effect on me.

By 1972, as I like to say, I was nine years old and the wisdom of age was upon me. I had become a passionate Conservative. I would start working as a volunteer on campaigns when I was 12 and politics would become my life's passion.

As I was growing up, like all good Estonian emigres, we profoundly yearned for Estonia to regain its freedom, which ultimately did happen in 1991. I would ask my grandmother if Estonia ever achieved regaining its independence would she return. No, she would tell me “Canada is our home now”, and she would add “Canada is the best country in the world. It is a land of opportunity. Anybody can achieve their dreams in this country if you just work hard enough.” My grandmother believed in that word “opportunity” and she believed in Canada.

I often doubted this assurance that she gave me as I was growing up. I encountered all kinds of invisible social and economic barriers that immigrant families typically face, but time would prove she was right. What better proof that anybody could achieve their wildest dreams in Canada, however unlikely, than someone like me becoming Canada's minister of sport.

That opportunity that Canada offers, what this legislation seeks to ensure, is available to all has been very kind to me.

In politics, I had the opportunity to help rebuild the Ontario PC party in the early 1990s when I was party president, not a member of caucus, but we did help to get Mike Harris elected premier.

I had the opportunity to lead efforts to reunite the Conservative movement into a single party federally, including running the campaign on the PC party side to have our membership ratify the establishment of the Conservative Party of Canada, an event that restored competitive democracy to our politics.

As a member of the House, I have had the opportunity to serve as public safety minister, working to keep Canadians safe. My time as trade minister was dedicated to expanding our economic opportunities, making a free trade agreement with Europe our top priority, and initiating or advancing many other free trade negotiations.

I had the extraordinary opportunity to work with Prime Minister Harper closely, as Canada's longest-serving Conservative government House leader. For all of these opportunities, his guidance and leadership, I offer my gratitude.

In all these roles I was blessed to work with extraordinary staff in Ottawa and York—Simcoe, a team that was uniformly bright, hard-working, passionately committed to Canada, and fiercely loyal. That was reflected in what I believe was the lowest staff turnover of any minister's officer on the Hill. They made me look good.

Along the way, I was fortunate to acquire other great supporters, my wife Cheryl, and Caroline and John A. They were a constant reminder to me of why we serve, and they are also a reason to look forward to life away from this place.

When it comes to accessibility, I am proud of much of what we delivered for the residents of York—Simcoe, especially during the Harper government. High accessibility standards can be found in significant projects we delivered, like the new Bradford West Gwillimbury public library and new leisure centre, the expansion of the East Gwillimbury Sports Complex, and Georgina's outdoor recreation facility the ROC.

One of the last projects our Conservative government delivered on was accessibility improvements to Georgina's De La Salle Park Beach. It includes a revolutionary beach mat that allows accessibility for those in wheelchairs right into the waters of Lake Simcoe.

Of course, Lake Simcoe enjoys significantly improved water quality thanks to the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. It was cancelled by the current Liberal government. However, I am confident that the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund will return again in the future. For over 10 years this Conservative initiative saw almost $60 million from our government harnessed by community-based organizations, who added their financial and incoming contributions to real projects that helped physically remediate the lake environment. This was in addition to other initiatives, like mandatory rules to protect the lake ecosystem from invasive species, a ban on harmful phosphorus in dishwasher detergent, and a ban on dumping waste from water vessels.

Undoubtedly, what I will miss most leaving this job is the opportunity to serve the extraordinary people of York—Simcoe. I genuinely love them. They work hard and simply want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. They want the opportunity to share in the Canadian dream. We worked to help them by lowering their taxes, encouraging economic growth, and tackling crime to make their communities safer. It was easy to always do the right thing by simply asking myself one question: what is best for the people of York—Simcoe?

As members of the House are debating and reflecting on what to do on this bill, the accessibility bill, I encourage them to consider what a tremendous honour it is to serve in this place. We are privileged to be able to make a real difference for our country in a way that very few ever enjoyed. Our system of parliamentary democracy and the British North America Act, through which John A. Macdonald and the other Fathers of Confederation built our country, has been remarkably successful. We are among the youngest countries in the world, yet we enjoy one of the most enduring constitutions. It has guided our growth and provided the genius that brings people of diverse backgrounds together into a remarkably united country. John A. and the fathers truly built well. They built the best country in the world. Our Parliament is at the core of that constitution.

As I prepare to retire from this place, I want to reflect for a moment on one question that I believe needs more discussion in this country, that is, the relevance of this place. Academics and the media like to talk about the declining influence of the individual member of Parliament, pointing to a concentration of power in the offices of party leaders or party discipline as the culprits. However, there is another real factor rendering the work of MPs less relevant. Little has been said, at least until recent weeks, about the growing tendency of the courts to strike down the laws that the people's elected representatives enact, including many laws that were explicitly part of the platforms those MPs promised they would enact if elected. I can assure members that, from countless conversations with constituents over the years, many find this difficult to square with their idea of a how a democracy should work. I believe that if we want to give meaning to the work that we all do here, the time is overdue for a discussion of the appropriateness of a bit more deference to the decisions of the democratically elected legislature. A proper balance requires a restoration of reasonable deference to the decisions of Parliament.

Another favourite of the critics has been to deride partisanship as causing corrosion of Parliament. None of the members will be surprised to hear me rise to defend the unpopular notion that partisanship strengthens our system.

The bill we are debating today is what many would call “motherhood”. After all, who could oppose greater accessibility and the opportunity that comes with it. Colleagues would say we would be crazy to oppose this bill and to address its flaws in debate, but such a debate should be encouraged. It is through debate between competing perspectives, which our system encourages, that we constantly improve things and find a better way. Through contrasting choices and perspectives, we make democratic choice work.

Partisanship is the fuel that makes our system work. Clear partisan sides also improve accountability. Voters do not go out and research what their individual MP on every vote, on every bill, on every issue. It is enough to know where their party stands.

Now, some say Parliament would work better if only the parties worked together more instead of opposing each other so often. It is at exactly at such a time when there is no debate that citizens should become concerned. That is when the flaws in government become hidden. Therefore, let us celebrate the partisan divides that have made our system of parliamentary democracy so successful for centuries.

Now, returning to the bill, clause 51 addresses the role of the CRTC in the area of information and communication technologies. This provides me the opportunity to thank the media for their always fair treatment over the years. For example, members will recall countless critical articles, and radio and TV news pieces taking me to task for my approach to managing the House, for my using time allocation to schedule our business and votes. Now that my successors in the current Liberal government have shown a similar affection for Standing Order 78, I have been heartened to see them on the receiving end of a similar stream of criticisms, as well as a number of full-throated apologies to me for the fashion in which the media took me to task. Okay, that has not really happened. I am confident it will happen really soon because, after all, I remain hopeful that the media are always fair in this country.

In a more credible fashion, I want to thank the many volunteers on my riding association, executive, and campaigns. They give and have given so generously of their time, simply because they cared about their country and their community and believed in our efforts to make Canada and York—Simcoe a better place.

The bill before us talks about encouraging participation in Canadian society. Participating in our democratic processes is one of the most important types of participation. Everyone has the same kind of people who have helped them. They are true citizens, people who give back, genuinely care and who make our democracy work. They are largely unsung and underappreciated, but all of us and our communities are greatly in their debt.

As I leave elected politics, I will return once again to being one of those people, a dedicated volunteer working hard for his party. The decision to leave politics is one of the most difficult to make. It is easy to follow the path of least resistance and just keep on going, but I am confident that for me, now is the right time to take my leave from this place. I will miss much. My family, who have been full partners and enjoyed the extraordinary voyage we have travelled together, will miss it too. Already, people have witnessed the sad sight of me and my former colleagues sitting in a corner at the Albany Club sharing stories of the good old days, and we will no doubt go on doing that. They have not just been good old days; they have been great old days. We had the opportunity to serve, to make a difference, to make Canada an even better place.

It has been an honour.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Accessibility

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely recognize the importance of sign language to the deaf and hard of hearing communities here in Canada, both as a means of communication but also of cultural significance. Our government is very committed to ensuring greater accessibility and opportunities for all. That is why our government was proud to table Bill C-81, which will help ensure that all people, regardless of ability or disability, can fully participate in society.

I encourage all members of the House to support this bill and I invite them to join me this evening for a reception with members of the deaf community to celebrate International Day of Sign Languages.

Accessible Canada Act

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely delighted for the opportunity to speak to the accessible Canada act today.

Throughout the accessible Canada consultation, the broadest consultation on disability in our country's history, the Government of Canada heard from more than 6,000 people and over 90 organizations.

These stakeholders told us clearly and repeatedly that Canada needs disability legislation with teeth. We need legislation that would move us away from the current system of placing the onus on disabled Canadians to remove barriers. We need legislation that would help us build a more inclusive, accessible and tolerant society. We need legislation that would set in place a system to proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction.

To this end, Bill C-81 would create a dedicated accessibility commissioner within the Canadian Human Rights Commission who would be responsible for ensuring that organizations are in fact meeting their obligations under the proposed accessible Canada act.

The need is clear. Let me remind hon. members of a few of the most recent statistics published by Statistics Canada that elucidate this issue.

The employment rate of Canadians aged 25 to 64 with disabilities is a mere 49% compared with 79% for Canadians without a disability. The employment rate among persons aged 25 to 64 with a mild disability is 68% compared with 54% for those with moderate disability and 42% for persons with severe disability, and merely 26% among those with a very severe disability.

Approximately one in two university graduates with or without disability held a professional occupation. However, graduates with a disability were less likely to hold management positions and earned less than those without a disability, especially among men.

Among Canadians with a disability, 12% reported having been refused a job in the previous five years as result of their condition. The percentage was 33% among 25 to 34-year olds with a severe or very severe disability.

I am sure that members on all sides of the House would agree that the measures we are proposing today in Bill C-81 would help address this inequality and are long overdue.

This is how Bill C-81 would work.

With respect to compliance tools, the accessibility commissioner would have access to a variety of proactive enforcement tools to verify compliance and to prevent noncompliance with the act. Proactive inspections of regulated entities would be a large part of ensuring that the onus for removing barriers is not placed on individual Canadians. The accessibility commissioner would be empowered to conduct an inspection of any place that he or she considers necessary to verify compliance. In addition, the commissioner would have the authority to conduct paper-based inspections through production orders.

If, following an inspection, the accessibility commissioner found that an organization had contravened its obligations under the act, there would be a variety of different tools the commissioner could use to ensure compliance.

One of these tools is compliance orders. A compliance order would ensure that if an inspector sees a barrier that needs to be removed immediately, the inspector could order that this be done within a timeframe the commissioner considered appropriate. For instance, if an organization has placed garbage cans that block an accessible entrance, an inspector could order those garbage to be moved without delay.

The accessibility commissioner would also have the authority to issue notices of violation. These notices could be given with a warning or with a monetary penalty.

Under Bill C-81, the maximum penalty for a violation would be $250,000. The penalty issued for a given violation would depend on the nature and the severity of the issue, the criteria for which would be set out in regulations.

However, Bill C-81 also includes the idea of continuing violations, whereby a violation that continues more than one day would constitute a separate violation for each day and could result in separate $250,000 penalties each day the violation continues.

Additionally, if the possibility of an administrative monetary penalty is not enough to encourage an organization to comply with its obligations, Bill C-81 would also provide authority to publish the name of the organization or person who committed the violation, along with the amount of the penalty.

In terms of jurisdiction, compliance and enforcement under Bill C-81 would build on existing expertise within the Government of Canada and fill gaps where needed.

Bill C-81 expands on existing sector-based mandates, authorities, expertise and experience in relation to accessibility within the federal transportation network and broadcasting and telecommunications services.

Both the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission have existing accessibility mandates. Bill C-81 proposes to enhance these mandates and to expand the powers and responsibilities of the Canadian Transportation Agency as well as the CRTC in relation to accessibility. The Canadian Transportation Agency would continue to be responsible for the accessibility of passengers in the federal transportation network, with an enhanced mandate, responsibilities and powers. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission would continue to be responsible for accessibility in relation to broadcasting and telecommunication services with new responsibilities for overseeing accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports.

Through amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, the Canadian Transportation Agency would have new proactive compliance tools to ensure that those in the federal transportation network are meeting their accessibility obligations. These compliance tools would be very similar to those of the accessibility commissioner, including the ability to issue notices for violations, with fines again up to $250,000. Given the whole-of-government approach to ensuring the removal of barriers in federal jurisdiction, the bill requires that the various authorities put in place mechanisms for collaboration and coordination across organizations regarding their policies and practices in relation to accessibility.

In terms of remedies, although the focus of Bill C-81 is on proactive and systemic change, the bill also provides for complaints mechanisms for individuals who have been harmed by an organization's non-compliance with its accessibility obligations.

Bill C-81 provides individuals with a right to file complaints with the accessibility commissioner if they have been harmed or have suffered property damage or economic loss as a result of, or have otherwise been adversely affected by, the contravention by an entity of regulations made under the proposed accessibility act. If, after investigating a complaint, the accessibility commissioner finds that the complaint is substantiated, the commissioner could order a broad range of remedies, including that the entity that committed the contravention take appropriate corrective measures; make available to the complainant the rights, opportunities or privileges that they were denied; pay compensation to the complainant for wages they were deprived of, and for expenses incurred by them as a result of the contravention; pay compensation to the complainant for the additional costs of obtaining alternative goods, services, facilities or accommodation as a result of the contravention; pay compensation for any pain and suffering the complainant experienced; and pay the complainant an amount if the accessibility commissioner determines that the contravention is the result of a wilful or reckless practice.

The maximum amount that could be awarded for each of pain and suffering and wilful and reckless practice would initially be set at $20,000, but Bill C-81 includes a provision that would increase these amounts over time to account for inflation. If individuals and organizations think that the accessibility commissioner made an error in dismissing a complaint or in ordering a remedy, they would be able to make an appeal. For most complaints, these appeals would go to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. For complaints about parliamentary entities, appeals would go to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

The accessibility commissioner would not be responsible for dealing with all complaints, however. In recognition of, and to leverage, the existing expertise of the Canadian Transportation Agency and the CRTC, these organizations would be responsible for dealing with complaints in the federal passenger transportation network and in respect of the Broadcasting Act and Telecommunications Act, respectively.

Through the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act proposed in Bill C-81, the Canadian Transportation Agency would continue to deal with complaints in relation to undue barriers to the mobility of persons with disabilities in the federal transportation network, with enhanced remedies, such as compensation for pain and suffering, which would be better aligned with the remedies available under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Canadian Transportation Agency would also deal with a new type of complaint that addresses contraventions of regulations made under the Canada Transportation Act that result in harm, similar to complaints made to the accessibility commissioner under the proposed accessible canada act, with similar remedies for individuals.

For complaints about broadcasting and telecommunications services, Canadians would continue to file complaints with the CRTC, which would use its existing authorities under the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act to address the complaints.

In the case of grievances, many public service and parliamentary employees have existing grievance rights. Bill C-81 builds on these rights. Through amendments to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Employment Act, and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, these employees would be able to refer their complaints for adjudication.

I conclude by saying that I hope all members will support this bill at this reading so that it can go to committee, where it can be reviewed and sent back to the House for approval.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member from the NDP mentioned David Lepofsky. He has been a leading advocate for a barrier-free Canada and is probably one of the best examples of thoughtful advocacy I have seen in my time in public life. I recall him teaching, in my bar admission course in Ontario, through the Law Society of Upper Canada, issues related to people facing disabilities. I want to thank Mr. Lepofsky. He is also quite tenacious on social media in making sure that these issues are not forgotten.

The member highlighted a number of the areas where this falls short. All parties, I think, want to see fewer barriers, more engagement and more opportunities for people. The fact is, and this is what Mr. Lepofsky's group has also highlighted, the government provides the ability for itself to set standards or regulations but sets no timeline for the government to lead by example with respect to future plans for its infrastructure in future federal jurisdiction areas, such as ports, airports and these sorts of things. Is that lack of a timeline and a commitment to federal leadership something the member feels is a bit of a shortcoming in Bill C-81?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, Debbie Windsor is a Saskatoon resident who is tired of waiting for life to get better for people living with disabilities. Debbie has used a wheelchair most of her life. When she attended high school, she had to leave her home on the west side of Saskatoon at 5:00 a.m. to head to the east side of Saskatoon, where the only accessible high school was at the time.

Debbie would say that some things have changed since her high school days, but that change has been way too slow and too incremental. In a recent interview with the local paper, Debbie was asked what her biggest frustration was with respect to getting issues addressed for people living with disabilities. She said it was trying to find out where to go and who to speak to to find out who to hold to account so that change could happen.

Debbie is trying to get the message out that things must change for people living with disabilities so that they can be truly included in all aspects of life, from education to employment, so she launched her own radio show, on CFCR in Saskatoon, called Above and Beyond the Disability.

I had the opportunity to sit down with Debbie to discuss what governments must do if they are really serious about making life better for people with disabilities. One thing Debbie impressed upon me was how all too often those employed to provide services to people living with disabilities are non-disabled persons. She and I agree that this has to change.

During our interview, I heard loud and clear from Debbie about the difficulty of holding people to account for changes needed and the slow pace of change. Debbie was also adamant that those with disabilities be included not just as volunteers and consultation participants but as employees in the design and implementation of all services, policies and laws that impact their lives.

As always, it is an honour and a great responsibility to rise in the House to represent my constituents of Saskatoon West to do my best to give the people living in my community a voice in Parliament on issues and concerns that are important to them. Today I stand to speak in support of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. I rise to add my voice to the debate with the hope that the bill will be a game-changer for people in my community like Debbie and the 5.3 million Canadians living with disabilities, and indeed, for all Canadians.

As my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh stated, “these proceedings” the debate on Bill C-81, “have the potential for tremendous historic significance. We are debating a bill that, if done properly” could very well become “breakthrough legislation” that will be proudly studied and celebrated for many “generations to come.”

We have been anxiously waiting for this legislation since it was promised during the last election, and of course, those living with disabilities and those advocating for disability rights have been waiting much longer for this day to come. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians, with the input of citizens, to get it right, and that is what I hope we are all here to do today.

To get this legislation right, it needs improvements. The government must be open to allowing it to be thoroughly studied at committee and to ensuring the full participation of those living with disabilities so that their voices and expertise are heard loud and clear during the proceedings. Finally, the government must demonstrate that it is truly listening and will be open to accepting amendments at committee to this important bill.

How can this bill be better? What do we need to do to get it right? Here I will turn to the work and words of those in the know, the individual advocates and groups working to ensure that the human rights of those living with disabilities are respected and protected.

I want to acknowledge the work of Debbie Windsor, Barrier Free Saskatchewan, the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance for their work and expertise, which has been extremely helpful in informing my comments today.

How do we make this bill better so that it can really be historic in its impact on the lives of people with disabilities? When Debbie mentioned accountability for change, or the lack of accountability, I looked to see if this bill would deliver. It would not. The lack of timelines in the bill is a concern. Without clear timelines, many are concerned that there is no way to hold the government to account for timely implementation.

Splitting enforcement and implementation and spreading those functions over four different agencies seems confusing and overly bureaucratic. I do not see how this would be a preferred way to serve people. I am curious as to how anyone would see this set-up as effective or efficient. It sounds like a system built to serve government, not people.

My colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, said it well in her speech when she described the enforcement and administration of the bill as a snarl, with the result of very similar regulations being enacted by the different agencies involved rather than by one single agency. The duplication would not just risk inconsistencies, it would create them, causing even further delays. The bill should be streamlining systems, not creating more barriers and bureaucracy.

Exemptions should be the exception, not the rule, but I am afraid that the bill would allow too much latitude for officials to exempt organizations, with little to no oversight or public accountability for why these exemptions were being allowed. This needs to change. If the bill would truly put people first, exemptions would need to be exceptional and reviewed independently.

Both the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, and the Canadian Transportation Agency remain in the frame around enforcement. To my earlier point, most agree that a one-stop enforcement agency is preferred by just about everyone who has commented on the bill. Putting that aside for a moment, neither of these agencies have proven effective in enforcing their current obligations on accessibility. Both of them have broad powers to exempt organizations from complying with the proposed legislation. Hopefully, committee members will carefully review and improve this aspect of the bill.

As the minister mentioned in her speech, the definitions of “barrier” and “disability” put forth in Bill C-81 draw from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They are broad and inclusive, supporting the greatest number of Canadians.

Since ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010, Canada has not proceeded with enabling legislation to bring our laws in line with this international obligation. It is good to see this legislation using definitions found in the convention. It is a good start, but we must not stop there. Bill C-81 does not fulfill all of Canada's obligations under the treaty, so a reference in the legislation to a timeline for when Canada would fully meet its obligations would be an important addition to the bill. I encourage the committee to give this aspect of the bill its attention as well.

This past Saturday afternoon, on the grounds of nine legislative buildings in Canada, including on the grounds of the Saskatchewan legislature, people gathered to demand that American sign language and Quebec sign language be designated official languages in Canada. This call for the inclusion of ASL and QSL was also heard during the government's consultations for Bill C-81. This recognition is not included in the bill as tabled, so I strongly encourage committee members to rectify this oversight with amendments at committee.

David Lepofsky, a Canadian lawyer and disability advocate, in a recent interview, summed up very well where we find ourselves with the tabling of Bill C-81. He said:

It's a good starting point and certainly the most substantial piece of legislation introduced by any government in Canada. But it's going to need substantial additions and improvements to be effective, including a deadline to reach full accessibility.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to reiterate the importance of this legislation in changing millions of people's lives for the better. I also want to reiterate the NDP's support for the bill and the principles it espouses. This is an important piece of legislation. It deserves our time and attention to get it right. It is my hope that we are all on that path together.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made very thoughtful and moving comments, especially in illustrating the poignant point made by her son, as well as the lessons we can learn from people with disabilities.

To this end, Bill C-81 is before us. The government talks about how we must move forward, yet the bill itself does not require us to work with provincial or municipal governments or the communities to realize accessibility.

I wonder if the member could comment on that, and whether or not we should make that change at committee.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon West.

I am here to speak to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. This is an important bill and one which we should all be talking about. We should really be considering what it means to have a barrier-free Canada.

Bill C-81 would establish several new important official positions and agencies, for example, the accessibility commissioner in charge of enforcement, a Canadian accessibility standards development organization which would create model accessibility standards that the government could enact as regulations, and a chief accessibility officer to advise and report on progress and needed improvements. It would look at this in terms of what comes under federal jurisdiction. That is a start.

This bill is a positive step in the right direction, but I am concerned that there are some significant gaps. The majority of these gaps are around allowing these organizations to decide instead of enforce. Persons with disabilities are put in positions that often are uncomfortable. It is our job as Canadians, as it is the job of the government, to look at what those barriers are and make a difference.

Bill C-81 does not have any mandatory timelines for implementation, which concerns me, as action is required. The best way to measure action is through outcomes. The bill would not require all federal government laws, policies and programs to be studied through a disability law lens. I think that is important to do as we look into the future of this country. The bill would give several public agencies or officials far too much sweeping power to grant partial or blanket exemptions to specific organizations from important parts of the bill. This is very concerning. Also, the bill would separate enforcement and implementation in a confusing way over four different public agencies. Rather, it should be providing people with disabilities a single service location, a one-stop shop. They really require that to get the action they need.

Recently, I was having a discussion about the bill with a young man in university who has severe dyslexia. He also happens to be my son. As a parent of a child with a severe learning disability, I had a lot of learning to do. He was diagnosed when he was in elementary school. It was very weird for me walking around the world to realize how fast I recognized words and what I gather by seeing words around me every day. My son lives in a world where he is basically always surrounded by a foreign language. I think about when I travel internationally to communities where I cannot read the signs, or I do not understand what the ingredients are or I cannot read the menu. Those are challenges that my son faces every day. He did well in school, obviously, as he is now in university. One of the hardest things for him and his family were the many people who saw him as very intelligent and competent, which he absolutely is, but they did not understand the challenges that he faced because of his learning disability. Many educators thought that if they did something differently they would be able to fix him. I want to be clear. They are not bad people or bad educators. In fact, if it were not for many of them, he would not be in university today. I specifically think of Mr. Murphy, Dr. Morrow and Ms. Fonagy who really supported him. They understood fundamentally that he was not broken, that he is just dyslexic.

What my son said to me this past weekend was profound. He said, “People do not want people with disabilities to be successful. If we succeed, it means they will have to accommodate us.” I really hope that people in the House hear that, because it was really hard for me to hear that. This is a serious reality that accommodation is perceived as a burden, as something that is often seen as too much work.

One day in August I spent two hours in a wheelchair. I learned so much and recognized that I just touched the surface of understanding what it is to live in a wheelchair. The reality for me was that if I wanted to get out of that chair, I just had to stand up. I want to thank my constituent, Karen, for taking me out that day. She has been in a chair for quite a while and she was an amazing teacher. She does this with a lot of political figures. For me, it was an opportunity for a very brief time to experience the world through her eyes and experience.

I learned a lot of things that were really frustrating. I learned that my arms are not very strong. I learned that the Canada Post on Comox Avenue in Comox is very welcoming and accessible, but getting up that ramp sure gave me sore arms.

I learned about the placement of buttons when I wanted to open a door. I learned what it means when there is a small dip or hill and how much harder it is to get up it. I remember watching her coast around at an angle to push the button and then get in the door on an entranceway that was on a hill.

I learned about how challenging it can be to cross the street, because people often do not look for people at that height. She has to sit there and wait until people look her in the eye.

I went through numerous stores, and I am very grateful to all the local businesses that are used to her doing this route. It was amazing for me to see and feel how a small display on the floor would actually mean so much more work to manouevre and try to figure out how to get around it.

I came to the realization that there are a lot of parking spots which are not that accessible. When we see that symbol on the ground in a parking lot, we think it is good that there is accessible parking. However, I saw parking spots that had that symbol that were definitely not accessible.

What was most startling for me was when I posted about that experience. The response of one woman who has a severe disability was that it is simply easier to stay at home. We have to recognize that when we do not create an accessible environment and an accessible Canada, we are leaving people out.

I remember speaking with another gentleman in Campbell River who was also in a wheelchair. He spoke about showing the city the challenges he faces every day, and how the response was it wanted to be helpful but was very overwhelmed because it simply does not have the resources required to actually make it more accommodating for people. I feel for the municipalities that have so few resources and so much of the responsibility. If we want to build a barrier-free Canada, then working with communities must be a fundamental part of the process.

I want to make this clear, because my son always makes me accountable for this. I do not think we should be doing this out of pity. I think that if I felt sorry for my son he would definitely not appreciate it and would take me to task. We should do this because we want everyone to participate in our country. Consideration is about acknowledging that anything could happen to any one of us at any moment, and if it does, we have to rely on one another. Tomorrow if I could not walk, see or read, that would not make me any less of a person.

I want to come back to what my son said, which is, “People do not want people with disabilities to be successful. If we succeed, it means they will have to accommodate us.” We cannot hide from the reality that there is truth in that statement. I am not positive in any way that is the intention of our country or the intention of people. However, the impact is something that can be measured. It is something that is experienced by people who have different challenges. I really want to see a Canada that is accessible to everyone and that looks at opportunities to open the door.

I understand that this bill is focusing on what we can do federally, and I hope and challenge all of us to do so much more. I am happy to support this bill. I am very hopeful that when it goes to committee there is a lot of work done and that a lot of discussion happens with respect to how we can actually make this more fulsome. I want to take out a lot more of the options and have things in the bill that makes action happen. People who have different challenges are tired of hearing things and want to see concrete action on the ground.

We know that poverty rates are considerably higher for people with disabilities and we must be mindful of what the impact is for them with respect to going out and having the energy to be accessible. I remember Karen talking to me about the price differences for a wheelchair, or the tires for a wheelchair, and how she actually goes to a bike shop to get tires because it is significantly cheaper. We need to be looking at these issues. We need to do that because it is simply the best thing to do for our country.

As the seniors critic for the NDP, I would also mention that seniors with disabilities face a higher rate of poverty than people without disabilities. We really need to be comprehensive about this and have that discussion.

I will support the bill. I am happy this bill is here. I am happy that this is something we are discussing. I am always happy to talk about the disabilities that we see and the ones that are invisible. The committee has a lot of work to do, and I hope the bill comes back with a lot more action and a lot less meaningless promises.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as it happens, this is my first occasion to rise to discuss Bill C-81, a bill we have been studying all through the summer months.

I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for using the word “must” just now when she said we must move forward. My question actually relates to that. The word “must” is all too infrequently in the legislation and the word “may” is there a lot more. I do not mind the word “may” for obvious reasons, but in legislative terms, I would rather see “must”.

I will give the parliamentary secretary an example and hope for some encouragement. We need to amend the bill in committee. For instance, the all-important section states, “The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada”, otherwise known as the cabinet, “as the Minister for the purposes of this Act.” There is another section like it that says the accessibility commissioner “may” provide written reports to the minister, who of course may be appointed. It is pretty clear that we need a minister responsible and the intention and spirit of the act make it obvious.

Could the hon. parliamentary secretary reflect on why we would not make it mandatory that cabinet always appoint a minister responsible for purposes of this act?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-81, from what the member is describing, is rather redundant. For a number of years, Ontario has been implementing laws to make commercial buildings barrier-free. Even federal government agencies apply for the enabling accessibility funding. It is redundant in the sense that already the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, for example, has a catalogue of different appliances to help people with their vision. The Diabetes Foundation has different classes, information and helpful aids for people suffering with diabetes.

How exactly are we even to believe the Liberals? Speaking of diabetes, they took people suffering with diabetes off of the list of conditions that would be acceptable for the disability tax credit. The disability tax credit bill to restrict the fees that promoters of the disability tax credit could charge was voted for unanimously. Even though the Liberals voted in favour of it, they went against it as soon as they formed government.

How are we to believe that this bill is anything more than something to make it look like Liberals are doing something when all they are doing is building bureaucracy?

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to have this opportunity to speak about the measures our government is taking to make Canada a more inclusive and accessible society for all Canadians.

The word “inclusion” tends to be overused, but, for us, it has a specific meaning. It means making efforts to support people who face obstacles when they try to participate fully in society. Of course, this primarily affects people with disabilities.

I am very proud to see Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, being tabled in this House. It responds to real needs for many Canadians. The numbers are troubling. Only 49% of Canadians with disabilities, aged 25 to 64, have a job, and that is compared with 79% of Canadians without a disability. They earn 44% less than Canadians without a disability, and are more susceptible to poverty.

We can all agree, I am sure, that this is unacceptable, and that is why we are acting so resolutely. As we are preparing our plan to create accessibility legislation, we knew we would need to listen to Canadians who really have this topic at heart. We held the largest consultation on this topic in the history of Canada. We met with more than 6,000 people and over 90 organizations.

By listening to Canadians throughout this consultation, we learned about the real issues surrounding accessibility in our country. These consultations guided the preparation of the bill that is before the House today.

I would like to start by noting that if it is passed, the bill will apply to organizations under federal jurisdiction. This includes Parliament, the Government of Canada and Crown corporations, as well as the federally regulated private sector. This last group includes organizations in the transportation sector, the broadcasting and telecommunications sector, and the banking and financial sector.

One of the priority areas of the bill is the development and implementation of new accessibility standards. Bill C-81 proposes to create the Canadian accessibility standards development organization. This innovative organization, the first of its kind in Canada, would have a mandate to develop model accessibility standards that would guide the requirements that organizations under federal jurisdiction must respect to identify and eliminate obstacles, and to prevent the creation of any new obstacles.

The Canadian accessibility standards development organization would give people with disabilities a voice in the development of accessibility standards that affect them directly. As a result, the board of directors would be made up of a majority of people with disabilities.

We are fully aware that accessibility will not happen overnight when this bill is passed. Passing bills is not enough to change mentalities and implement solutions. That is why we are determined to collaborate with all Government of Canada organizations to produce results that will make the implementation of accessibility practical and possible for everyone.

Our approach is simple: we want to lead the way and be leaders in accessibility in this country. Everyone in this House has their own personal story about people with disabilities, whether it is a loved one, a friend or a colleague. We are all affected.

Accessibility issues affected me personally when my mother suffered a major stroke when she was 69 years old. We were told she would not survive the night, but doctors did not know my mother. She was a fighter and survived for 13 years, but not without major challenges. For the rest of her life, my mother navigated the world in a wheelchair. It was not easy, and my dad worked extremely hard, trying to make life a little easier for both of them.

That was in the early 1990s. I am concerned that barriers still exist, and we need to move forward as a government, and as a federal government we need to become leaders in this field.

Watching my parents was eye opening. My dad even designed his own contraption to help him load my mother's wheelchair in and out of their car trunk because it was far too heavy for him to lift.

He would map out the day, trying to determine if they could go to the mall and find a washroom on a moment's notice. This was 25 years ago, so accessible washrooms were not the norm, and even if they were, my dad was not always allowed into the ladies' room to help my mother get on and off the toilet. It robbed them both of their dignity.

These are very personal, very natural parts of everyone's life, but not if one is disabled. The simplest thing can become daunting and keep people with disabilities from feeling welcomed in society.

While my mom and dad were trying their best to stay active despite my mother's disabilities, my young daughter was struggling in school. As the early grades went by, we realized she was having great difficulty and finally was diagnosed with profound learning disabilities.

At that time, I was the news anchor for the television station in London. My job was reading the news every night to thousands of people. Ironically, my daughter was having an almost impossible time trying to learn to read.

I will never forget the day when Lauren was in grade 6 and the school called a meeting with me and her dad. They told us they did not know how Lauren learned but they could not teach her. They suggested we find another school for her to attend. We were devastated. How could a public school and her teachers give up on her?

We were told Lauren would never read for pleasure, something her dad and I enjoy doing so much. We worried about how these challenges would limit her future job prospects and what type of job she could do when she finished school.

Parents of children with learning disabilities need to constantly advocate for their own children to make sure they get the support they need. As a country, we need to support these young people early, so that they can become happy, healthy young people who have jobs to look forward to.

As for Lauren, getting her into a special needs class was the turning point and really helped her find her way. There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Today Lauren does read for pleasure. She turns 30 in a couple of days and she is now giving me suggestions for books that I should read.

We all have our personal stories of people in our lives who are in some way disabled or differently abled, as I like to say. Everyone needs support and we will all benefit from a more accessible Canada. When the most challenged in our society are given a chance to succeed, we all succeed.

The Government of Canada is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the country as well as the largest employer in Canada. Moreover, organizations under federal jurisdiction represent a large portion of public space in the country and employ nearly one million Canadians. These organizations can have a major impact on the culture change concerning accessibility.

In addition to Bill C-81, the Government of Canada will invest in a procurement accessibility resource centre. We will also adjust policies to ensure that the products and services purchased by the Government of Canada are accessible. We hope that our leadership will encourage organizations all across the country to join the movement and be proactive for accessibility.

People with disabilities who are successful in the workplace are in the minority, and that should not be the case. Many businesses are starting to come to the realization that hiring people with disabilities is not just the right thing to do, but it is good for business.

Fifteen years ago I was part of a group of London business people who started the Ability First Coalition to encourage employers to hire and retain people with disabilities. I put the emphasis on retain, because too often people with disabilities will start a job but find it for whatever reason too challenging, maybe because of a lack of appropriate training, or maybe they needed some type of accommodation that the employer was not willing to consider.

There can be many reasons, but businesses that have had success will tell us that their business is richer and more rewarding for all employees when there are people with disabilities working and getting paid just like everyone else.

Improving accessibility is good for business. Employment and Social Development Canada estimates that fully including and accommodating people with disabilities in the workplace could produce economic benefits reaching 1.3% to 1.9% of GDP or $26.4 billion to $38.5 billion annually. That is astonishing.

A similar recent study by The Conference Board of Canada, which looked only at physical accessibility, also showed that making workplaces accessible would have a significant impact on economic growth.

We have to remove barriers to success and this is exactly what this accessible Canada legislation does. Really, what we are looking for is a culture change. We will lead by example and become a global model for accessibility.

This bill represents a real transformation in the Government of Canada's approach to accessibility. Up to this point, any action for accessibility was up to those affected. It was up to them to take the initiative and file complaints with authorities about systematically inaccessible processes, with the hope that it would lead to results. This is now changing with this bill. It will no longer be up to Canadians with disabilities to fix the system.

We want to ensure that barriers are eliminated before they become problems. We are doing this through new measures for compliance with an application of the bill. As a result, organizations under federal jurisdiction will now be responsible for the implementation and equality of accessible practices.

In 2012, almost 3.8 million, or about 14%, of Canadians age 15 years and older, reported being limited in their daily activities due to a disability. This percentage is expected to increase with population aging since the prevalence of disability increases with age.

The barriers faced by Canadians with disabilities today are real and tangible. Every day, barriers prevent Canadians with disabilities from being able to access necessary services and buildings. Barriers continue to impact the participation of people with disabilities across all aspects of work, family and community life. If passed by Parliament, Bill C-81 would benefit all Canadians, especially Canadians with disabilities, by helping create a barrier-free Canada.

This bill proposes proactive compliance activities such as inspections, document audits and a series of tools, including compliance orders and warnings, compliance audits and fines. I should specify here that this does not take away people's right to file complaints and receive compensation if they are victims of prejudice because an organization does not respect its new obligations under the bill and regulations. It is the combination of all these measures that will lead to real change in accessibility in Canada.

The goal of this bill is to eliminate barriers and provide more access and possibilities for all people with disabilities. We still have a lot of work to do to create a Canada that is truly accessible and inclusive, but I am confident. Together, if we support Bill C-81 we will be taking another step in the right direction.

There is something else that is happening today on Parliament Hill that I wanted to make everyone aware of. The first ever United Nations International Day of Sign Languages was celebrated yesterday and it coincides with International Week of the Deaf. The theme for this year is “With Sign Language, Everyone is Included!” It emphasizes the importance of recognizing sign language as a principal means of communication in today's world

Later today we are going to have a reception and hear more from people. I am going to have a chance to have my first lesson in sign language, which I am looking forward to.

Our government is committed to ensuring greater accessibility and opportunities for all Canadians with disabilities, and that includes Canadians who are deaf. Tabling this legislation will remove and prevent barriers to accessibility.

Canada is at its best when everyone is included. I encourage all members in the House to join me today in recognizing and celebrating the contributions made to Canadian society by people who are deaf.

Some of the highlights that our government has committed to and has done over the past will show that we are on the right track, but it is only a beginning.

Our government has taken leadership on the access to alternative format materials for persons with a disability through the accession of the Marrakesh Treaty in 2016, and an investment to date of over $6 million for the alternative format materials.

We recognize the importance of supporting the removal of barriers in the built environment, and we announced in 2017 an increase of $77 million over 10 years to expand the activities of the enabling accessibility fund. This fund, with an annual budget of $22 million, supports the capital costs of construction and renovation related to improving physical accessibility and safety for people with disabilities.

In April 2018, our government made changes to immigration's medical inadmissibility policy to strike a balance between protecting publicly funded health and social services and bringing it in line with our current views on the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Through the historic new investment in the investing in Canada plan, all federally-funded public-facing infrastructure will be required to meet the highest published applicable accessibility standards in our respective jurisdictions.

Also, the national housing strategy will ensure that a minimum of 20% of new construction and repaired units must meet accessibility standards and all projects must be designed barrier-free. This strategy also includes a commitment of 2,400 affordable housing units built for persons with developmental disabilities.

One thing we take from this is that disabilities mean so very much to so many different people.

My grandsons we born very prematurely and weighed less than two pounds at birth. We were very concerned about what would happen to them as they grew up. I am so happy to say that the twin boys turn six-years-old in a couple of days. One would not know they were born prematurely. The only evidence is the fact that maybe their eyesight is not as good as it should be, so they both wear glasses.

We were worried that Harrison was going to be legally blind and we waited patiently to find out what his abilities would be. Through the years, every year, it seems to be getting better. However, it is going to be while before we know as parents, as grandparents, whether Harrison will need accommodations in his school life. I hope and I pray that with this accessible Canada legislation, we are moving in the right direction so people like Harrison my grandson, Lauren my daughter, and my mother, who is in heaven, will all realize that we are working in the right direction to make Canada a more accessible place for all.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-81, but this reminds me of an event that took place this summer in my riding, Jonquière. The Martin-Valin ZEC, a controlled harvesting zone, inaugurated a new lakeside wharf for use by people with reduced mobility who want to go fishing.

I had a chance to talk to some of them during the grand opening. Some had never seen the lake up close before, and others were holding a fishing rod for the first time. Wonderful projects like that are so great.

I would like to congratulate the Martin-Valin ZEC on this wonderful project, which enables people with reduced mobility to enjoy nature and fishing.

I would like my colleague to comment on Bill C-81. Does he think that all government laws and policies should be examined from the perspective of people with disabilities?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View.

He talked about the tornado that hit his riding 13 years ago. I myself lived through a microburst five years ago. It was utterly terrifying. My thoughts are with the people in both Hull and Ottawa who went through that experience last week. Of course, people with disabilities have an even tougher time, especially in severe storms like this one. Earlier, the member mentioned the barriers faced by people with disabilities.

How is this bill going to help people with disabilities? Most importantly, are you going to support Bill C-81?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, today's discussion is on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. When I first heard that the government might have an interest in helping the disabled, I immediately thought it would be formalizing some of the great work done by advocacy groups for the disabled, perhaps looking at special initiatives to enhance the disability tax credit program or considering ways to help caregivers cope with their everyday stresses. Truly it was disappointing to hear that its initiative was instead centred around the creation of a government bureaucracy. When the creation of a regulatory body to facilitate consultations is the main focus of the proposed legislation, it makes one wonder what has been happening on this file since the initial mandate letter was presented back in 2015.

It took two cabinet shuffles with two mandate letters to finally get this project to the House, and the notable outcomes are to continue consultations and to start considering actions for regulations. With this comes a price tag of $290 million. Therefore, after two and a half years of consultations, we have come up with a plan to formalize more consultations. Do members see a pattern here?

With the current government, talk is what it is does best. Positive, thoughtful action is a mysterious notion to it, and one that is only calculated once political expediency has been factored in. What could the Liberals have done to recognize and make meaningful the lives of those Canadians who face physical, psychological and emotional barriers?

I would like to start my remarks by addressing something that is very dear to me, the carnage here in the national capital region last Friday night when the horrific tornado destroyed people's homes, damaged public infrastructure and seriously hurt so many people. I witnessed the carnage of the black Friday tornado in Edmonton in 1987. Homes were destroyed, areas were levelled and, sadly, many lives were lost. Thirteen years later, I witnessed this again firsthand.

As a farmer, it is just natural to look at the sky, and I remember doing so on a hot and muggy Friday afternoon in 2000 as I was delivering grain to our local elevator. Someone was going to get hit. It was obvious that a storm was brewing, and it was so hot that afternoon we decided to go to our trailer at Pine Lake, where it was just a little cooler, to make supper.

Being on the lake below the hill, we never saw what was coming, but a guy on a catamaran racing to the shore to take cover under a neighbour's deck was our first clue. Then it started hailing, and then hailing into the wind. Trees were twisting and snapping onto our trailer and boat, and we were just a few feet away. The water rose two feet and then rose two feet again as we watched this giant green wall of water in front of us. Then, as quickly as it had come, it abated. It looked at though the ground was covered with lawn chairs. However, it was trailer walls and debris instead.

A boat that had been stored on a trailer half a mile away was stuck in the mud in front of us. There was carnage everywhere. Once we freed our boat from the tree that had landed on it, we tried to get to our neighbouring campground of Green Acres. Our friends owned the campground. My brother had his trailer there, and many of our friends considered it their summer home. Local fire and rescue crews were quickly on the scene and I, along with many others, made it to the site to do what we could. The 12 deaths and the utter destruction of the campground made national news. The path of the tornado also caused extreme hardship for our neighbours, as their homes, farms, and fields were also caught up in this devastation. This was part of the story that never made the news. The other part of the story that sadly gets so quickly forgotten is those who were injured during the disaster.

Whether it is injuries from a natural disaster, accidents at home or on the road, or disabilities from disease, members of our society need to know that we stand with them. That is what I want to quickly address today.

Besides the physical damage that many people must endure, there is also the reality of serious psychological damage that needs to be addressed. In the aftermath of the Pine Lake tornado, our community came together to deal with both. Leaders arose from this disaster. Champions of the disabled community became well-known spokespeople and got the attention of everyone. One such champion was Marlin Styner. Marlin was a quadriplegic. He helped bring all of us to a heightened state of awareness of the barriers that existed in our city of Red Deer.

Marlin later sat on the premier's provincial task force for the disabled. He, along with another advocate for the disabled, Dr. Gary McPherson, showed us how to create a city and community that understood what true barriers for the disabled were. Red Deer soon became, and continues to be, a community where not only physical barriers but other barriers as well are always top of mind, and we have solutions.

Our nation has had many other champions as well. Terry Fox taught us what can be done when we look beyond those things that others think would limit us. Another personal hero of mine is Rick Hansen. His Man in Motion tour took him through my hometown of Innisfail. My mother, who was wheelchair bound in her last few months of dealing with bone cancer, presented Rick with a cheque on behalf of the Pythian Sisters organization which she so proudly served.

Rick Hansen did more than just raise money for spinal cord research. He also showed us what a true advocate for the disabled he was when one of our local cowboy heroes, Duane Daines, was injured in a rodeo accident in B.C. Rick visited Duane shortly after his accident and assured Duane that he still possessed all the qualities that made him a champion saddle bronc rider, and that these qualities would make him successful in whatever he did in the future. He was right.

Local farmers and ranchers Bob Blair and Oliver Marshall are two other friends who have always impressed me with their determination and drive. This makes those of us in our community realize that all barriers can be overcome.

Sadly, Marlin Styner and Dr. Gary McPherson, who I mentioned earlier, are no longer with us.

Another champion, Trevor Paré, a young man I had the pleasure of teaching in Innisfail many years ago, recently passed away. Even though Trevor was afflicted with Pompe disease, he showed our nation, our community and especially his beloved Red Deer Rebels just how one should strive to live every day to the fullest.

The reason I have spoken of these champions is that they know, and knew, how to overcome barriers. This can and should be a lesson to all levels of government. Our community of Red Deer always considers the issues of the disabled. Our province championed their concerns and one would hope that our federal government would as well.

Too often forgotten are the other champions of the disabled: the caregivers. Whether it is the parent of a disabled child, the spouse of an Alzheimer's sufferer, the family of a terminally ill loved one or the professional caregivers who work to make their patients' lives better, they deal with barriers as well.

When this government looks at ensuring a barrier-free Canada, it is not just the management of a bureaucracy that needs to be considered. It is not about hiring thousands of people to ensure that government workers make sure government departments heed their directives. It is not about setting up an enforcement regime to ensure that all are following a government mandate. It should not be about just giving lip service to the real needs of the disabled. Rather than pushing for years and years of consultation, we should be looking at the many success stories that are part of Canada's efforts of inclusion. We are a nation of champions and we know how to accommodate those who need help. We are a nation that respects all of its citizens. We always have and we always will.

How can we reduce barriers and help integrate those with disabilities? How can we do this quickly so that logical solutions are implemented as soon as possible? It takes vision and commitment.

I submit that this was one of the hallmark aspects of our previous Conservative government. I remember very well the campaign in 2008, during which under Stephen Harper we advocated for a registered disability savings plan. That election was in October. By December, the registered disability savings plan was introduced and available for Canadians. That monumental change, which helped both the disabled and their caregivers, took place in under three months.

The Liberal government's plan is one of talk and more talk, bureaucracy and government red tape, and delay when one should be championing results. The legislation is what it is. The next stage is committee review. I believe it is necessary to get this bill to committee so that we and the public can give it its due consideration.

I hope that during this discussion the real needs of our disabled community can be highlighted, that the real champions of our disabled community can be given a voice and that the caregivers who put their lives on hold to devote to their loved ones will be recognized.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. With this bill, our government is fulfilling our commitment to guarantee the full and equal participation of all persons, especially persons with disabilities, in society.

The consultation previous to the tabling of this legislation was vast, an important part of our government's commitment to hear from Canadians on issues that affect them. More than 6,000 Canadians participated in various ways. We held 18 public engagement sessions, nine round tables, a national youth forum and an online questionnaire. The principle, “Nothing about us without us”, was embraced for these accessible Canada consultations, which asked all Canadians to think about what accessibility means to them and what it could mean to their communities.

The consultations were the most inclusive and accessible for persons with disabilities in Canada's history. These consultations informed the legislation that is before us today, the accessible Canada act, which would work to remove barriers for persons with disabilities in numerous ways. Among other things, it would create the role of a chief accessibility officer; it would reinstate the disability advisory committee, which had been dismantled by the previous government; and it would enhance the opportunities fund by adding $40 million per year, which would fund employers to hire persons with disabilities and provide the framework to create more accessible environments. In total, our government would pledge $290 million over the next six years to implement this important legislation.

I want to take a step back from the current legislation and focus locally on my riding of Parkdale—High Park. This summer, I hosted a town hall in my riding to hear from my constituents regarding the accessible Canada act. I was joined by eight panellists with various backgrounds and expertise, including David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and law professor at the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall; Renu Mandhane, the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission; and Jeff Adams, a Paralympian gold medallist and six-time champion in wheelchair sports. The town hall was to explain this new legislation and take questions on it from my constituents. It was an educational experience not only for the individuals in attendance at the town hall but also for me.

We set out to organize this town hall with the goal of ensuring that it was completely accessible for all persons with disabilities. My staff and I attempted to take into account the numerous and varied barriers that might affect the ability for a person with a disability to participate meaningfully in the meeting. However, many were brought to our attention that we did not anticipate. For instance, we sent out an email to constituents informing them of the upcoming town hall, with a poster enclosed as a PDF attachment, something I think many members in this House might have done. We quickly learned that the document we created was not accessible for those with a visual impairment. The poster needed to be in a format where a screen reader could interpret the text, such as text contained within the body of an email, not as an attachment poster, so that screen-reading technology could communicate that material to those who are visually impaired.

We also made sure to bring a sign language interpreter at the town hall so that those with a hearing impairment could understand and participate in the discussion. We found that some people are hearing impaired, but do not understand or know sign language. Therefore, to ensure that my town hall was as inclusive as possible, we had on-site live captioning for those who are hearing impaired, but do not understand sign language.

Finally, we resolved to host the town hall in a fully accessible building that was also large enough to accommodate all of the guests who wished to attend. This meant that there were fewer buildings to choose from in my riding, but in the end, we hosted the event at the Swansea Town Hall, a level and spacious venue that was fully accessible. Thanks to Swansea Town Hall for hosting this.

However, the experience of organizing the town hall cemented my view about how important it is to have this piece of legislation move actively forward. As a government, as a Parliament, we must ensure that we establish a framework for a truly inclusive Canada and that as many barriers to access are removed for individuals with disabilities as possible. I was fortunate to receive important feedback that evening from my constituents, from persons with disabilities and from relevant experts. They will contribute to this bill and make it even stronger.

This is the start of a very important conversation about accessibility in Canada, one which I would state is long overdue, but I am happy to report that this conversation is already bearing fruit. Not less than four weeks after holding my town hall, I was honoured to host the Prime Minister in my riding for the Bloor Street West Ukrainian festival and the Roncesvalles Polish Festival, both the largest of their kind in North America. Over 500,000 people visit these two festivals over the course of the weekend. At the opening ceremonies of both festivals, I brought a sign language interpreter up onto the stage to provide live simultaneous sign language interpretation for my remarks and the Prime Minister's remarks. He was a bit more excited about translating the Prime Minister's remarks, truth be told. This was a first for both festivals.

I would now like to talk specifically about the legislation itself. First, it represents the single biggest development in federal access health legislation in 30 years, since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself came into force. This new legislation is the cornerstone of our government's plan for the progressive realization of a barrier-free Canada. Second, Bill C-81 would provide accessibility standards for entities to achieve and maintain an ongoing monitoring system to ensure that Canadians see results, and to hold organizations accountable.

Third, approximately $53 million over six years will be invested in support of a new strategy for an accessible Government of Canada that will be developed and released to the public within one year of the passage of the legislation. This strategy will serve as a roadmap that enables our government to meet and exceed its new accessibility obligations under the legislation.

The Treasury Board Secretariat, in collaboration with people with disabilities and their organizations, will ensure a coordinated and cohesive approach to the design and implementation of the strategy across government.

This will be accomplished through the establishment of an accessibility hub that will provide leadership, coordination and oversight in making the Government of Canada accessible to its clients and employees.

Fourth, Bill C-81 would expand the existing opportunities fund for persons with disabilities to better support activities in two areas. The first area would improve matching services that connect employers and persons with disabilities. While the opportunities fund helps persons with disabilities develop the skills and knowledge they require to meet the needs of today's economy, more could be done to connect these individuals with employers with available jobs.

The second area would enhance businesses' efforts to develop effective recruitment and retention strategies. The opportunities fund would work with these employers by supporting their efforts to create inclusive workspaces and to develop and implement in-house strategies to effectively recruit, accommodate and retain persons with disabilities. The fund would have both a national stream and a regional stream, totalling nearly $40 million per year in funding. This would better support employers that have a demonstrated commitment to hiring persons with disabilities but who need support to find the right match and to create workplaces that allow employees with disabilities to reach their full potential.

Fifth, as I alluded to earlier, we are also reinstating the disability advisory committee, which is vital to ensuring that the Canada Revenue Agency connects with a wide range of stakeholders and takes their views into account as we administer tax measures for people with disabilities. The committee's mandate is to provide advice to the Minister of National Revenue and the commissioner of the Canada Revenue Agency on the administration and interpretation of the laws and programs related to disability tax measures administered by the CRA. The legislation would guarantee that the needs and expectations of the disability community are taken into consideration.

The committee would also advise the CRA on how it could better inform persons with disabilities and various stakeholders about tax measures and important administrative changes. Moreover, it would be tasked with reviewing the CRA's administrative practices and making recommendations on how we could enhance the quality of our services for persons with disabilities.

Those six components make for a comprehensive suite of items that would work collectively toward the progressive realization of a barrier-free Canada. Most importantly, our entire approach to the development of this legislation has been informed by one fundamental principle: nothing about us without us. The practice of paternalistic thinking, that the government knows what is best and what is appropriate for persons with disabilities, is gone. In its place is a new, modern 2018 approach to legislating, where the government listens and actively solicits the input, feedback, advice and ideas of persons with disabilities about how best to address their needs. This legislation is the first step in that process, and it is one that is long overdue. I urge everyone to take a non-partisan approach to this important legislation and to support it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this morning with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

For decades, we have seen concerted efforts made to try to remove barriers to accessibility across Canada, but pervasive barriers still exist all around us. These barriers exist in our physical environment. They exist in the way information and communications technologies are developed, in how employment practices are established, in the way procurement policies are created by the government, in how government serves Canadians and in how our federal transportation networks are structured. These barriers stop millions of Canadians from participating in everyday activities that many people take for granted.

There was a time in Canadian history when the needs of people living with disabilities were not even part of the conversation. That is still too often the case, but thanks to the advocacy of leaders in disability and accessibility issues in Canada, we are more aware of the issues of those living with disabilities. We are increasingly aware of the challenges and injustices faced every day. Legislation alone will not be enough to address the issue; we need a change in the way we as Canadians think.

In Ontario, legislation will ensure that a sports complex has accessible parking spots, wide doors and washrooms. However, if people in wheelchairs are relegated to the second floor because no accessible seating is provided, or where accessible seating is provided, people stand up and block their view for the most exciting part of the game, the goals, that is hardly inclusive.

This is an issue I have been deeply committed to throughout my tenure as a member of Parliament and before I was elected. In the spring of 2017, I held a round table on employment for people living with disabilities in my riding of Oakville North—Burlington. The round table brought together organizations such as Community Living, experts on accessible employment and people with lived experience.

I continue to advocate for this issue in the community, in the House and with my colleagues in Parliament. We need to recognize the contribution people living with disabilities make to employers. It is not about doing what is right, although it is. It also makes economic sense. Just ask employers such as Mark Wafer, former MPP Pete Kevin Flynn, and Phillipa Durbin, who talk about the benefits to their businesses because they have hired those living with disabilities. Ask employees such as my staffers, Steven Muir and Karina Scali, or people like Robin, Andrew or James, who are outstanding employees who make significant contributions to their work.

Madam Speaker, you are aware that our government is a strong proponent of promoting inclusion and fairness to grow the middle class. Our government has committed to measures to make Canada a more equitable place, such as improving income security for seniors and helping families through improvements to the Canada child benefit.

Accessibility is a right in this country, not a privilege. That is why we are putting accessibility at the heart of our actions for greater social justice. That is why our government has brought forward Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, to uphold that right in areas under federal jurisdiction. This involves Parliament and all that we do here. It involves the Government of Canada, crown corporations and the federally regulated private sector. It includes organizations in the federal transportation network, the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors and the banking and financial sectors.

Federally regulated sectors represent a large component of the Canadian economy. They employ about 900,000 people and are essential to economic, civil and social participation in society.

I believe that our government and our partners in the federally regulated sectors can be true leaders in accessibility. By changing the status quo in these areas, I am confident that a change in standards will follow in the private sector. However, our ambition is greater than that. Our ambition is that this legislation will lead to a more consistent experience of accessibility across Canada.

With this in mind, our government's actions on accessibility are focused on priority areas that Canadians living with disabilities have told us have an impact on their daily lives. They include public buildings and spaces, service delivery, employment, transportation, information and communications technologies and procurement of goods and services.

The core of Bill C-81 is the development and implementation of new accessibility standards in these priority areas. Through Bill C-81, our government is proposing the creation of a new organization called the Canadian accessibility standards development organization. This innovative organization would govern and oversee the process of creating new accessibility standards in partnership with key stakeholders.

I am proud that this organization will be led by a majority of persons living with disabilities on the board of directors. This is key to ensuring that those with lived experience are part of the decision-making process. This has been an issue in the past and continues to be an issue in our country, when those developing policies do not include those living with a disability.

This organization will be the first of its kind in Canada and one of the few in the world that is dedicated to developing only accessibility standards. The organization will work in partnership with persons living with disabilities, technical experts, industry leaders and representatives from organizations that are obligated to comply with the law and its regulations.

The standards created by the organization will then be considered by the government for application to the federal jurisdiction through regulation. Provinces and territories will also be invited to participate in the standards development process. By bringing together perspectives and knowledge about accessibility issues into one place, our government envisions that the Canadian accessibility standards organization will become a global centre of technical knowledge and expertise on accessibility.

We believe that this organization can serve as a national and international model for action on accessibility by putting the principle of “nothing about us without us” at the heart of its operation, letting people living with disabilities lead the way.

Over time, these standards will lead to measurable improvements to accessibility and have a real impact on the lives of Canadians living with disabilities and functional limitations.

In closing, I would like to reflect on the spirit of this legislation. Our government is committed to backing Bill C-81, with focused investment across the Government of Canada. This includes the development of the Canadians accessibility standards development organization.

As a government, we want to make accessibility a reality as we hire people, make our facilities easier to access and purchase goods from private sector suppliers. It is the sum of all these efforts, including new accessibility standards, that will allow people living with disabilities to be included in a way that many of us take for granted.

This legislation is the start of building not just an accessible Canada, but an inclusive Canada. We need to recognize that accessibility is a start, but it is not enough. We need to be leaders and effect real cultural change. This is how we will provide everyone in this country with the chance to realize their full potential. This is how we will make sure that everybody can contribute to the Canada of the future.

Our country will be stronger and all Canadians will benefit when we include everyone in the conversation, when we ensure that each and every Canadian can reach their full potential and when we build a truly inclusive country.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-81—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, though I believe we will be able to find a way forward, because it is important legislation, to ensure that we continue advancing legislation, I would like to inform you that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

I hope this notice does not need to be acted upon.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Have you looked at Bill C-81, which we're debating right now? It's the new persons with disability act.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue third reading debate of Bill C-71, the firearms legislation. Tomorrow, we will have second reading debate of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.

On Monday, we will return to the second reading of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. We also hope to start debating Bill C-78.

Accessible Canada Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. We as parliamentarians, and I think all Canadians, know someone, whether a family member, a neighbour, or a colleague who lives with a disability. Often these are visible disabilities, those we can see, but there are also the invisible disabilities, those we cannot see with the naked eye. When we are crafting and debating legislation and implementing standards, we have to recognize the variety of disabilities that Canadians live with on a daily basis.

For me personally, my mother-in-law is someone who lives with a disability. She lost a leg to amputation about 15 years ago and uses a wheelchair. I speak with her regularly, including earlier today about an issue related to accessibility. I hear the concerns she brings forward on a variety of issues on a daily basis that confront her as she goes about living her life. One example she gave me today was that she was out shopping with her mother and could not enter certain stores because of the lifts at the entrances. She told me she would like to spend money. She would like to buy stuff for her grandkids, my kids, although I do encourage her to stop doing that because our house is getting too full. However, she enjoys doing that and attending things. Certainly this does not fall under federal jurisdiction, but it is an example of how those living with disabilities are in some cases unable to enter certain establishments.

She tells a story of recently going to a local bank and using a lift to get into the bank because there were three steps she would have had to climb to get into the bank. Unfortunately, the lift malfunctioned and her wheelchair flipped over backward, causing her to fall to the ground and smack her head. Again, this is an example of how she was unable to access that facility, which would fall under federal jurisdiction as a federally regulated institution.

I think we all know these examples and stories of friends, family members and people living in our community who are capable of participating fully in society, yet there are challenges to their doing so because of certain barriers. Each of us in our ridings know of organizations that work hard with members of the community specifically on accessibility issues and with Canadians living with disabilities. In my riding, we have L'Arche Stratford, which is a great organization, working with those with disabilities. There are also a number of community living organizations in Stratford, in North Perth, and St. Marys.

In my constituency office, we have Emerson Kuepfer. Emerson works in my office one day a week. He does the shredding for us. He has been living with a disability his entire life. However, he is there every Wednesday morning. He has the biggest smile on his face when he is there because he is working and is contributing to society. The only time he does not have a smile on his face is when the Leafs lose, which happens from time to time. Beyond that, he is always as cheerful as can be, and really is a benefit to our office and to the community as a whole, contributing through those great organizations.

It is important as well to talk a bit about the unfortunate stigma that is still out there when we talk about Canadians living with disabilities. I have fallen victim to it as well. In the past I might have referred to someone as “being in a wheelchair”, but I have been corrected, and rightfully so, because the wheelchair does not define that person. That person uses a wheelchair as a tool. We need to encourage and speak with Canadians about the stigma that somehow someone with a disability may not be able to do all things quite as well as others without a disability, and ensure that they have full access to, and the ability to work and participate in, the community and attend businesses and events.

From my time on West Perth municipal council, I know that we often struggled with the challenges that faced us with the provincial AODA legislation in ensuring that our facilities were fully compliant with the AODA. It was a challenge, and it was not a cheap function either. As an example, our local arena did not have fully accessible washroom facilities, so fixing that was a project we undertook while I was serving on council. Now we have a beautiful facility with fully accessible washrooms so that all people within the community are able to use that facility.

However, it is not always easy. Most of the businesses on the main street in my hometown had a step or two to get in. One innovation done by the local council at the time the reconstruction was done on the main street is the sidewalks were adjusted to ensure a flat entrance to the different businesses. While it was not a panacea and did not fix every single business, it accommodated the vast majority of businesses on the main street. The sidewalks were adjusted to meet the entrances to each of the stores and each business became more accessible. It is not perfect and we cannot always make things perfect with buildings that are 100-plus years old, but it is a good step forward.

The Perth County courthouse in downtown Stratford is a beautiful building which is 150-plus years old. It has served as the seat of county government for 150-plus years. It is not accessible. The irony is that despite it being a provincial courthouse and the home of the county government, it is grandfathered from the provincial AODA legislation, but steps are being taken to make that building more accessible while also maintaining the building's important and historic significance, both as a community landmark and as a functioning part of the community as a courthouse and a seat of government in the community.

I want to talk about some of the experiences we have had in this Parliament with issues of accessibility. I am honoured to serve as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. One of the studies that was undertaken earlier this year, in the spring, was on a debates commissioner.

Leaving aside the debate over the debate, it was interesting to hear the testimony and information from different civil society groups on the issue of accessibility. We heard from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind how broadcasting a debate ought to be structured so that those with a visual impairment could have full access to the debate, to engage with the debate and know what is going on in the debate. We heard a similar message from other Canadians living with disabilities, including those with hearing impairments. Whether it is closed captioning or sign language, there are different ways in which, while relatively minor in the great scheme of things, we can make that specific institution just a little more accessible so that Canadians living with disabilities can have full access to debates.

I will conclude by talking about the RDSP. It has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues, but I do believe that among the many great things former finance minister Jim Flaherty did during his time in this place, the RDSP meant so much to him as a father and as a finance minister. Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to the late Jim Flaherty for all that he did. That is a good point on which to conclude.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

I want to say at the outset that I am pleased to see that the minister has brought forward this bill. I have absolutely no doubt about her sincerity in trying to improve the lives of people with disabilities. I too am aligned in that direction. I have listened carefully to the debate we have had so far talking about how to get people with disabilities the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens, how to make sure they are able to live independently and how to make sure they are free from violence. I am aligned in all those things. I think I have heard that all the parties in the House are aligned in how we improve the lives of people with disabilities, and what we can we do with this bill to make sure it is effective.

When it comes to deciding to tackle an issue, with my engineering perspective I will ask what it is we are trying to do. I think it is trying to get people to be able to live independently, to have the same rights and responsibilities as others and to be free from violence. What is the plan to make that happen? What mechanisms will we put in place in order to make sure the money or the incentives flow so the behaviours of people will take root?

In my speech, I am going to talk a bit about what has happened in the past and what the Conservatives did. Then I will talk a little about the Liberal record. Then I will talk about the situation in my own riding, some ideas about possible solutions and some concerns I have with the legislation as it is written today.

I know things were going on to help improve accessibility when the Conservatives were in power. Although I was not here myself, I saw all the announcements and improvements happening in my own riding of Sarnia—Lambton, where multiple millions of dollars were spent to upgrade different buildings to ensure they were accessible for people in wheelchairs and to put different aids in place to help people with disabilities. I note that was going on.

At the same time, we have heard other members in the House talk about the Conservative Party's introduction of the registered disability savings plan in 2008. This plan is quite a rich plan. I looked at the details of it when we were addressing an issue that I will talk about later. However, this is a plan where a disabled person can put in up to $5,000 a year and the government will match it threefold. That program has been going on for almost 10 years. Although it has not come to the point where people are collecting from the program, it is a very well thought out way of ensuring people with disabilities will have the wherewithal to retire in dignity.

I see that and see the efforts of the member for Carleton, who brought forward a very intelligent bill aimed at addressing the problem people with disabilities have when they want to go work and their benefits are clawed back. In some cases, the money they are getting from other disability programs is clawed back. I was really disappointed in the extreme that every Liberal in the place rejected that private member's bill. That bill would have been such a help to people with disabilities. We talked as well about the member for Calgary Shepard bringing forward a private member's bill on rare diseases, which was also rejected. I just heard a member from the NDP talking about her bill being rejected.

This is where one really has to question people's motives. When people say one thing and do another, they are likely to be called hypocrites. When I look at the Liberals, I see there is a lot of talking about helping people with disabilities, but then we look at the record of what has happened since the election in 2015. The first member who had the portfolio to do something here on accessibility, or helping the disabled, was the member for Calgary Centre. It was in the mandate letter, yet nothing was done. That member is also a person who has lived experience as a person with disabilities, but nothing was done. It was not a priority.

It was then passed along to the member for Etobicoke North. However, I do sympathize with her. She is the Minister of Science and has a lot of very important things to do which, of course, I, as a fellow science person, cannot criticize. Again, nothing really came forward.

Then when I looked at the bill to see what was in it, I thought that perhaps there would be a lot of infrastructure money. We know there are a lot of buildings that are not accessible and they need a lot of money in order to repair them so they will be accessible. In some cases, those could be incentives. There is a number of ways that could be done, but nothing in the bill talks about that.

In fact, the bill has sort of an element of what the minister's powers would be. It has an element of a standards organization that can talk about what the right thing to do would be. There are mechanisms in the bill to complain. There are mechanisms in it to inspect. However, there are no action words. There is really no doing of anything. It is going to be consulting and spending a few more years to try to figure out what we should do, when we already know some of the things we should do. Some of the things we should do involves investing the same kind of infrastructure money that was previously done under the Conservatives.

I have heard the government speak about the $180 billion of infrastructure money that it will invest over the next number of years. In fact, the Liberals got elected on a promise to spend very small deficits in order to put infrastructure in place. That was going to create jobs and drive the economy and repair our roads and bridges, etc. None of that ever happened. My point is that there was a lot of infrastructure money that was planned to be spent. Even though the government has had difficulty getting that accomplished, as I think it has only spent about 40% of what it planned, it has still racked up way more deficit but not on the intended things.

There is an opportunity for the government to do something immediately with respect to infrastructure to improve accessibility. Those are things where the building codes exist today. The specifications exist today. The standards exist today. No work needs to be done to consult anybody on that or have new standard organizations to do it. This already exists. All it really needs is political will to put that money in place.

Instead, the government has basically a different political will, if we look at where the billions of dollars that the government is spending is going: $4.2 billion on foreign aid; $2.65 billion on climate change support for foreign countries like China and India; $5 billion for the Syrian refugees; $1 billion for the asylum seekers; and multiple billions of other things that are spread around the world but not for Canadians and not for the disabled. When we look at where time, energy and money is put, that determines what our values are or what our priorities are.

It has been three years before seeing any kind of legislation and the legislation does not have any strong actions in it. It is more of “we'll put structures in place to consult”. I really question whether there is enough political will to achieve good outcomes here.

As I mentioned, I have some good examples from my riding that I can share. I know that the previous member of Parliament, Pat Davidson, was very active. She really cared about improving accessibility. Elevators were put in multiple buildings. We had accessibility all over the county of Lambton. As well, we have upgraded many of the schools to be accessible.

The Sarnia Arena is going under remediation. I was there for an event this past weekend and all of the entrances and front sidewalks, etc. have been improved for accessibility and all of the standards have been met.

Not everything is wonderful in my riding. We have a situation in Port Lambton where the post office, which is a Crown corporation and is under the legislation being proposed, is not accessible. It has been there for a long period of time and was grandfathered, but it is not accessible. We are having a municipal election and people are going to have to go to Canada Post to vote. In Port Lambton that is pretty much all there is. However, it is not accessible. People have known about it for a long time. My office has called and nagged and has been told that they will get to it. However, no one has got to it.

Here is an example where the solution is known. It just needs to get done and it needs to get done in a hurry. Again, where is the will to force these solutions to happen?

I have a tremendously great example of a fellow named Dan Edwards in my riding. Unfortunately, he had an accident which rendered him unable to walk and left him in a wheelchair. He has been super inspirational in the riding. He does fundraising for mental health efforts and different things.

This is one of the things he did. We have a fundraiser in Sarnia—Lambton called the Dream Home. It is a fundraiser for the hospital. He decided to get together with the architect who was going to build the latest Dream Home for a lottery to raise money for the hospital and decided to make it a visitable home. A visitable home is a home where any person in a wheelchair would be fully able to access everything, from cooking to the entrances. Everything is ground floor. It is very well done.

I had the opportunity to tour the home and see what he and architect had designed together. He shared with me a lot of information about the very many plans like this. It is quite possible. We have these solutions that we could put in place to allow people to live independently. That would be great. Again, money and political will is some of what is required here.

The other piece of advice I would give with respect to solutions and rolling out the infrastructure money is to ensure that it is well-distributed. Of the $180 billion that was announced over 10 years, only $2 billion of that was earmarked for rural communities. When we look at improving accessibility, I think we will find that there is even more need in the rural communities. In many cases, they have grandfathered their buildings. There are more older buildings, and they have not been made accessible. As well, there is less of a population base to bring in the revenue to do these things of their own volition. That needs to be considered.

With respect to some concerns about the legislation, $290 million has been proposed. I heard discussion earlier about 5,000 new public servants. I was not clear if that was 5,000 public servants with disabilities who would be hired while attrition happened, so over time, or whether that was 5,000 additional public service employees. Of course, I would be opposed to increasing the size of government.

Another concern I have with the bill has to do with leaving things for the regulations. As a parliamentarian, and a detailed-oriented one, I do not like to leave things to chance. I have seen before, under some of the legislation that the Liberals have brought forward, where it is all left to regulation.

With Bill S-5, for example, the Liberals decided, from the plain packaging and the vaping, they were going to leave a lot of it to the regulations. We were approving a bill, and as the point was made, that we really did not know what the final outcomes would be. We were going to leave it to the regulation.

In the example of Bill S-5, the Liberals want to go to a plain package. The dimensions of the plain package are produced by machines that are obsolete, that are no longer owned by anybody who is legitimately in the business. The Liberals have given businesses six months to convert.

They would have to redesign the old, obsolete machines and get them built somewhere, and that is certainly an 18-month deal, or they would have to be shut down altogether in order to achieve this plain packaging goal, or let them use the existing size. That is an example of where when things are left to regulations, they do not always get done the way that we might want. That is why parliamentary oversight is important.

Bill C-45, the cannabis legislation, is another example where the Liberals decided to leave a lot of the details to the regulation. The problem is that the regulations did not come out quickly enough to address all the unanswered questions that were still out there. Now we are left with a situation where we will legalize on October 17, and there is still a huge number of things that are not addressed in the regulations. Again, there is no parliamentary oversight to talk about them.

This point came up again on Bill S-228 with the regulation that we most recently talked about, which is the one that prohibits the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. Instead of defining what the healthy foods are, the comment was that it would be left to the regulations.

As parliamentarians, we have a right to know what that list will be and have some opportunity to object or give input if we do not agree. By leaving it to the regulations, we would be passing a blank bill that says we would be doing something. We have no idea what the something is and we have no input on the something, but we are expected to vote in favour of it. I have an issue with that.

When it comes to accessibility, we have been much too slow in moving forward and addressing these things. For example, there are a lot of the grandfathered buildings. My mother is 84 and walks with a rollator. There are a lot of places she cannot go because of staircases or it is too narrow to get through. Something needs to be done there and I look forward to seeing what solutions will be brought forward are.

I will talk a little about some of the things the government could do that would make people have more faith in its wanting to help disabled people.

Members may remember when I was here on a Friday, asking a question about the disability tax credit. Through that whole event, we found out that where 80% of people with type 2 diabetes were previously approved, all of a sudden 80% were disapproved. We raised the concern, and the Liberal government insisted that nothing had changed. Of course, as the scandal went on, it came out that indeed things had changed. There were instructions given to interpret the criteria differently, and it went very broad. It affected not just people with diabetes but people with other disabilities, such as autism and mental disorders like bipolar. It took months and months to get justice for those people. This is what undermines people's faith that the government is sincere in its efforts to improve things for people with disabilities.

I will give members another example. For people with multiple sclerosis, it can be very difficult, because people are not always be at the same degree of wellness. It is sort of intermittent where there may be periods where they cannot work and other times they may be fine.

However, the current EI rules are not flexible enough to allow a person who has MS to be on EI and work intermittently, the same total benefits as someone who takes it consecutively would get. I raised this issue with the Minister of Labour. There is an easy fix there. If 670 hours of eligibility are required and there is a certain amount of hours that people get in benefits, then allow the intermittency. Those are the kinds of things we can do for people who have disabilities to be able to live independently, to work and to engage. We need to do that.

I did take the point that was made earlier that no disability lens was used for the legislation. When we do legislation, we do it with a gender-based lens. Therefore, it is very appropriate here to take that recommendation from the member and put a disability lens in place.

I also do not like the powers to exempt in the bill. I find that when we allow exemptions and have cabinet decide, we get into trouble. We saw this with the carbon tax. The government had the power to exempt and it decided to exempt the largest emitters up to 90% of their emissions. There is an example where having the power to exempt is really not what we want.

In summary, I absolutely want to see persons with disabilities have the independence they need and have the help they need. However, it has to happen faster. I call on the government today to start putting money into infrastructure for accessibility and do the solutions that we already know about, while we craft improvements to the bill.

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her encouragement and support with respect to Bill C-81.

Like me, I know she has heard from so many Canadians, particularly those living with disabilities, about the need to be involved in the creation and implementation of accessibility standards. I would ask her if she agrees with the model of CASDO, the Canadian accessibility standards development organization, where the majority of the board members have lived experience, where they collaborate with industry to develop the standards so it works in real life, or if perhaps there is another model she likes better, because this is what we heard from the disability community was the best way forward.

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

Madam Speaker, these proceedings on Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, have the potential for tremendous historic significance. We are debating a bill that, if done properly, would create breakthrough legislation that would profoundly impact Canadian society for generations to come. I believe everyone in this chamber is cognizant of the importance of what we are doing here today. Therefore, I speak in support of this bill based on the premise the minister stated yesterday: to get it to committee as soon as possible so that we can make it as substantively great as we possibly can. I agree.

This bill is not all that it needs to be as it stands now. It will require substantial amendments. While we commend the government for tabling it, this bill will need to be altered dramatically in order to become good legislation. That is why New Democrats commit today to working with the government to provide good-faith amendments so that Bill C-81 can become the historic accessibility legislation that persons living with disabilities in Canada deserve.

New Democrats have long been committed to the rights of people with disabilities. It has been our long-standing position that all of government, every budget, every policy and regulation, every grant should be viewed through a disability lens. Our ultimate goal has always been to help foster a society in which all citizens are able to participate fully and equally. We believe that this cannot even begin to happen until all of our institutions are open and completely accessible to everyone.

In fact, New Democrats have supported the establishment of a Canadians with disabilities act for many years, and the call for a CDA can be found in our 2015 election platform. CDA uses the language of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It was an early warning when that language was switched out in favour of an accessibility act, but I was assured that was because an accessibility act would meet and reach beyond the UN convention, which Canada is a state party to. It makes sense that any accessibility bill tabled by the government should essentially be enabling legislation for Canada's obligation to fulfill the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Canada ratified this convention in 2010, but until now, has done nothing to bring our laws into conformity with it. Indeed, I tabled a motion in this very chamber, Motion No. 56, that calls on the government to implement these obligations. The convention sets out the legal obligations of states to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities. It does not create new rights. There are a number of principles and articles within the CRPD that are extremely important to people with disabilities. These principles address rights, such as the ability to live independently, freedom from exploitation and violence, the right to an adequate standard of living, social protections and more.

Rather than considering disability an issue of medicine, charity or dependency, the convention challenges people worldwide to understand disability as a human rights issue. It establishes that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability is a violation of the rights, inherent dignity and worth of the human person.

The convention covers many areas where obstacles can arise, such as physical access to buildings, roads and transportation, and access to information through written, electronic and alternative forms of communication. The convention also aims to reduce stigma and discrimination, which are often reasons people with disabilities are excluded from education, employment, health and other services. It is crucial that societies eliminate these forms of discrimination, not just because doing so is the right thing to do, but because it will enable a previously ignored and sizeable section of our population to contribute their talents and abilities to the betterment of us all. Everybody wins when everyone is able to contribute.

It is important here to note that the convention is our ideal. It is up to governments to bridge the distance between these ideals and the lived reality of people living with disabilities. We debate one such bridge here today.

While the NDP supports Bill C-81, we do so with the understanding that it will not fulfill our obligations to the CRPD. It is one step in the right direction and I celebrate that significant step. Why? Let me tell the House some of the reasons.

First of all, it is the most comprehensive federal bill addressing issues faced by Canadians living with disabilities to be tabled in this House in over 30 years. This alone is significant. The previous government had 10 years' worth of opportunities to bring forward a national act and it emphatically chose not to.

Bill C-81's very title trumpets a worthy ambition, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The stated purpose of Bill C-81 is to create a barrier-free Canada “through the proactive identification, removal, and prevention of barriers to accessibility wherever Canadians interact with areas under federal jurisdiction.”

Creating a barrier-free Canada is indeed my intent and why the NDP seeks amendments. We will work with the government to fine-tune this bill so that it truly realizes its own stated ambitions, until it becomes the kind of landmark legislation that people living with disabilities deserve.

Bill C-81 will establish several important new officials and agencies. These include a new accessibility commissioner for enforcement, a new Canadian accessibility standards development organization, which will elaborate model accessibility standards that the government can enact as regulations, and a new chief accessibility officer to advise and report on progress and needed improvements. It even creates a formal complaint process and a review process to gauge the bill's effectiveness over time. These two processes are especially crucial for a bill like this to have successful outcomes.

It is vital that a feedback loop be established between those who are to benefit from the bill and the bodies responsible for administering it. A complaint process allows for this, and the review process will allow for proper responses to the bill's shortcomings as they are discovered. Yes, these sections of the bill are both commendable and important. However, there are sections of Bill C-81 that I believe miss the mark and that undermine the bill's own stated goals. These are the provisions that I and my party will work in good faith with this government to fix, should our efforts be welcome.

Most obviously concerning is the bill's lack of mandatory timelines for implementation. It allows but does not require the government to adopt accessibility standards, and yet does not impose a time frame within which implementation is to happen. Without these, the implementation process, even its start-up initializing process, could drag on for years. Curiously, neither does the bill require all federal government laws, policies and programs to be vetted through a disability lens. This seems a strange omission indeed. I respect the current accessibility minister's commitment to this file and can only assume that this is an accidental oversight which she will correct immediately.

It might be helpful here to take a moment and explain to those listening just what is meant by the term “disability lens”. In this context, the disability lens is a way to examine public policy. It helps lawmakers such as myself make sure that when a new law, regulatory measure, course of action and funding priority is being debated or implemented, the needs of persons living with disabilities are taken into consideration. Just stopping to ask whether people with disabilities are even considered over the course of the policy's formulation can go a long way to making it better and more just.

I like the succinct way the Council for Canadians with Disabilities promotes using a disability lens. It encourages us to ask a series of questions.

Does the policy view disabled people as members of a minority group with special needs, or does it view disability as one of many variables in the population and thus aim to structure society so as to ensure universal access and coverage?

How would the policy relate to other policies, legislation, regulations and programs within the jurisdiction in question? How would it relate to others, or even within the same ministry?

This is another important consideration. Who will win and who will lose when this policy is implemented? How will the allocation of resources be affected by this policy? How will this impact other disability groups?

Of notable concern is that Bill C-81 would allow, but again would not require, the minister to work with provincial and territorial governments to improve accessibility. It would be absurd for a national accessibility act in a country such as ours with our unique brand of federalism not to include a requirement to work with provincial and territorial governments to improve accessibility.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities has been a great resource for me as well. Another non-partisan resource I appreciate is the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance for its analysis of this legislation. Its outstanding work allows government representatives, bureaucrats and members of Parliament to do our jobs better when it comes to developing policy and law that provides meaningful impact.

One issue of great concern regarding Bill C-81 is the way in which it would give various public bodies sweeping and unaccountable powers to exempt any or all obligated organizations from a number of important obligations under the bill. This is especially concerning because it has been my experience that where such exemptions exist, they will be used.

Section 46 of the bill, for example, empowers the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, to totally exempt any obligated organization it wishes within its mandate from any or all of the accessibility plan requirements. Worse still, the bill provides no means by which persons with disabilities can register their concerns before a decision is made to grant an exemption. This is deeply troubling.

Also problematic is that another section of Bill C-81 gives the federal cabinet the power to make regulations that can exempt any obligated organizations from a wide range of obligations under the act. The bill would allow cabinet to do this, and it need not provide any reasons when it does. Seriously, if cabinet is allowed to do this, why are we here today?

I also find it perplexing that while the bill requires obligated organizations to establish accessibility plans, it does not require these plans to be good plans. It does not require an obligated organization to implement its accessibility plan. This is curiouser and curiouser.

Potentially quite troubling is a situation created in section 172 whereby a regulation created by the Canadian Transportation Agency for example, without debate, could end up trumping obligations under the Canadian Human Rights Act. It should be a basic principle of Bill C-81 that no provisions therein supersede any human rights. This is a perfect example of some of the technical issues that need to be addressed, and I want our stakeholders who understand the impact of this troublesome section to know that we will seek to have it removed.

The bill likewise separates enforcement and implementation in a confusing way over a tangle of different public enforcement agencies rather than providing people with disabilities with the simple one-stop enforcement they need. The CRTC will provide enforcement for its obligated organizations and so too will the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The bill does this, despite the reality that both the CRTC and the CTA have an unsatisfactory track record when it comes to enforcing accessibility over many years. As this is not a new problem, it boggles the imagination as to why the important bill does not address the core problem. It is absolutely vital that persons with disabilities and stakeholder groups be able to navigate our federal system in order to effectively realize their rights and also that the various agencies and institutions are able to respond to criticisms.

Moreover, this snarl of enforcement and administration will result in very similar regulations being enacted by the very different agencies involved rather than by one single agency. The duplication will not just risk inconsistencies, it will create them, causing even further delays. The predictable result is the real possibility that some sectors of the economy will have these regulations ready for them before some other sectors.

The bill should be looking to eliminate the interdepartmental patchwork system that is already in place rather than making it more complex. We simply must fix it. Many of us who follow these issues were seriously expecting that Bill C-81 would include provisions to simplify these processes.

Earlier this year, a private member's bill of mine, Bill C-348, was debated in the House. It was designed to create a one-stop shop at the individual level to make it significantly easier for persons living with disabilities to navigate the programs available to them from the federal government. At present, persons with disabilities have to prove that they are disabled each time they apply for a federal benefit and with each separate application will typically have to pay a doctor for each time there is paperwork involved. This is an unnecessarily punitive system for so vulnerable a population.

My bill, of course, was voted down by the government. It was not a whipped vote, yet every Liberal member in the House that evening voted against it, every single one. I had hoped that such discipline on the part of the governing party meant that they perhaps knew something I did not know, that perhaps this upcoming accessibility bill would include provisions to streamline these processes, but no, this was not the case.

The complaint process will also be unnecessarily confusing. The splintering of the implementation and enforcement mandate will substantially weaken the bill. The likelihood of this creating confusion among many, including public servants, obligated organizations, and people with disabilities and their advocates who come to the federal government seeking justice is all but certain.

Stakeholder groups and disability advocates know from brute experience that this confusion will force them to run from enforcement agency to enforcement agency with their complaints, going around in circles. “Sorry, no, wrong agency” they will be told, they have to go to transportation. Persons living with disabilities have had enough of this particular brand of bureaucratic confusion. We know this is a problem. Let us fix this too.

I would also like to note that Canada's hearing impaired community has asked the government repeatedly that the Official Languages Act be amended to have American sign language and Quebec sign language designated as official languages so that accessible communication is taken seriously.

This sets the course for the direction of the NDP. This is where we are going in our support to bring the bill to committee. There are many provisions we will be looking to amend. Those that I mentioned here today are merely broad strokes of what we in the progressive opposition are committed to standing up for and remedying.

In closing, I would also urge the committee to hold its meetings in different places across this country. As the most significant piece of disability legislation since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we owe it to Canadians living with disabilities and the people who care about them to demonstrate our intention for meaningful legislation that fully includes every Canadian in the participation of our society.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-81.

I want to begin by telling a personal story in relation to this bill, and the effect that I think all parties are trying to have with regard to persons with disabilities and accessibility as a whole across this country.

When I was a young man, I was exposed to a person who was living with a disability, someone who was very close to me. My grandfather was blinded as a Royal Canadian engineer in World War II. He was an incredibly diligent and incredibly powerful person. He was able to cut his own lawn, chop wood and make wood fires. These are just memories I have from when I was a kid.

When I was 10 years old, the issue came even closer. My mother was hit by a car while crossing the road. She sustained a permanent head injury, as well as permanent injuries to her body which affected her ability to walk and to manoeuvre. She faced a couple of years on the couch.

Having grown up in those circumstances, I can say that I understand what the effects of disability are on those around the person, but I will never really understand the impact on the person himself or herself.

I clearly understand the cycle of poverty that exists in this country, which should not exist, in relation to persons who have disabilities and in many cases children who have parents with disabilities. It is a very important subject. It is incredibly important. It is one that, far too often, we leave to the side.

No matter what is being brought in relation to accessibility, in relation to persons with disabilities, everyone in this House is happy, content and joyous to see a move forward in the right direction. There is no question that all of us would want to see more movement on this subject, but I do have questions.

I was left with questions after speaking with ministerial staff, as well as the minister who was kind enough to reach out to me for a phone call this week. I have questions after the minister's speech, after the introduction of the bill, and after the tabling of the bill in June.

When will these new regulations actually come into effect? There is a six-year time frame on the funding, which would suggest that this entire process could take another six years, after the bill becomes law.

How much will this bill cost the federal coffers, as well as private businesses across this country?

What are the new standards? What will they actually look like? Will they reflect what is in Ontario, Nova Scotia, or British Columbia? Those three provinces, quite frankly, are leading the country. Why are we voting on this legislation without understanding what those new regulations and standards will be? How do we as parliamentarians effectively communicate what this bill actually means to Canadians if we do not know what those standards and regulations will be?

What is the $290 million for? Is there a breakdown of how that money will be spent? That is a question I asked last night at the briefing.

Do we have estimates or examples of the potential costs to the private sector? When asked last night, ministerial staff said that they do not. However, there are three provinces that have put incredible legislation in place, groundbreaking legislation, sometimes too quickly, sometimes too slowly, but there are examples we can learn from and that data has not been provided to members of this House.

What tangible effect will this have on day one? What does this change mean on day one, upon assent?

These are serious questions that we need answers to as we go through this process, as we go through the committee stage, and as we come back to the House, so that we, as members of this House, can provide correct, legitimate information, not just to the private sector companies that will be affected, not just to the government agencies that will be affected, but to Canadians who are living with disabilities, Canadians who worry about accessibility, and the family members of those individuals.

We need to be able to provide very current, structured information to ensure that this is not just another piece of legislation that may go somewhere some day.

I firmly believe, as a parliamentarian, that the opportunity to vote on this bill and to understand the standards would significantly improve my ability to do my job, but also improve the speed at which we affect Canadians with disabilities, we effect change in such a significant area.

In 2016-17, Global Affairs Canada spent $4.2 billion on foreign aid. I could run through all of it, and it ranges from Afghanistan at $232 million right down to Colombia at $66 million. However, when I asked the question to the Library of Parliament about how much money we spend each and every year on accessibility and Canadians with disabilities, across departments because there is the department but there is also money spent in other areas on this specific item, I could not be given an exact answer.

Bill C-81 proposes we spend $290 million. There would also be a bump-up in funding for the enabling accessibility fund, but the $290 million would not go directly to helping Canadians with disabilities. It would go to things like audits to figure out perhaps what changes need to be made in government buildings. Perhaps it would go to consultants to say which buildings we are going to look at on a go-forward basis versus those that we are going to retrofit. We still do not have a breakdown of where these dollars would actually end up. We know they would end up hiring more public servants, and specifically those who are living with disabilities. I do not think anybody in this House would ever say anything negative about hiring somebody with a disability and being able to bring that culture within the arms of government.

However, the $290 million does not even scratch the surface of what it will cost the government and the taxpayers and the federally regulated private sector to catch up to these new standards. I am not saying it is too expensive to do; I do not want to be misinterpreted here. I am saying that in order to effectively fulfill what we are trying to achieve, which is bettering life for persons with disabilities, we need to be able to eloquently, clearly and with clarity explain what these changes would mean to individuals, to businesses and to government. We know how much we spend on foreign aid, and I hope we can find out how much we are spending on Canadians with disabilities. We know how much we are willing to spend abroad on non-Canadian citizens. I hope we can find out how much we spend on some of Canada's most at risk.

As many of us know, this legislation was introduced in June 2018, two and a half years after the government took power. It is only after three cabinet shuffles that we finally get to the place where we are now. I do not blame the minister for that. Certainly some of those circumstances were challenging for the government. Why has it taken so long for legislation to finally be introduced? The first mandate letter called for this work to begin in November 2015. In fact, the Liberal platform called for this work to happen. Each mandate letter since has called on the minister to be responsible to continue the consultation process and to produce legislation. Now we have this bill in front of us, and we can know and see that all it does is actually call for more consultation and for the regulatory process changes to begin being looked at. It would not actually bring those changes to Canadians.

Therefore, after three years, after a price tag of $290 million, after saying we are going to hire 5,000 new public servants, we still do not know what the tangible effect on Canadians living with disabilities would be, what effect it would have when they are in a Service Canada building, what effect it would have when they are dealing with perhaps transportation at a local airport. It is still not here three years on. How could this be considered sufficient? When the minister said it has been slow, she is correct. It has actually been non-existent. There is $290 million more, and we still do not have those tangible results.

I will give an example of how quickly things get done when the will exists within the government. This is not a challenge to the minister but rather to the government as a whole.

During the 2008 election, the Conservative Party, under then Prime Minister Stephen Harper, promised it would introduce the registered disability savings plan, RDSP. That election was in October. By December of that exact same year, the RDSP was introduced and available for Canadians to take advantage of, so 60 days or two months later. Here we are three years later without a single, standard or regulatory change to actually be able to point to. That monumental change under then Prime Minister Stephen Harper took under three months. By the time this bill passes, it will have taken three years. An important thing to remember is that this legislation will not change anything once it becomes law in terms of regulation and standards; rather, it asks that the government find out what regulations and standards it would like to produce. On top of the three years it took to get to this point, Canadians might have to wait another six years before these new regulations take effect, this with a $290-million consultation taking place.

When you take a wider look over the past three years at what the government has done on this file, so far it is more harm than good: the clawback of the DTC and RDSP; the ability for Canadians to access those tax savings vehicles; the challenges that lay ahead for Canadians living with disabilities to be able to save, to be able to have a secure financial future; and, for those who no longer qualified for the disability tax credit, to have their RDSP perhaps clawed back. This is the legacy that we have seen from the government since 2015, yet in every single mandate letter the Prime Minister has called for continued consultation toward crafting this legislation. What we did not realize is the crafting of the legislation would be more consultation. We now have this legislation and $290 million and it is more consultation. How does evermore consultation help Canadians with disabilities today? I do not think we should ever stop consulting. However, at some point there needs to be a tangible standard change, there needs to be a tangible regulatory change that we can hang our hat on, that we can say, “This is what we are doing to improve the lives of Canadians who are living with disabilities to improve accessibility across this country.”

This legislation was touted by the government as the most historic piece of legislation for Canadians with disabilities since Confederation. However, I have not been told one single tangible change that this bill brings into effect. We all around this House, from every party, want to help Canadians living with disabilities. There is support from every corner of this institution for legislation that helps Canadians with disabilities. However, all this legislation represents is going away and creating a plan. What has the government been doing on this file for the last three years if it has to spend $290 million to create a plan?

The previous government introduced the RDSP, which quickly gave Canadians with disabilities better financial security. It was established in 2008, and 105,000 of these accounts were set up. Over $1 billion has been added to the savings of Canadians with disabilities.

In the last year alone, we have had two Conservative members of Parliament and a New Democrat introduce private members' bills aimed at easing the lives of Canadians living with disabilities, and accessibility to government programs.

We have seen the member for Carleton introduce legislation, trying to secure the financial future. Not just the financial future in terms of savings through government programs, but also the financial future of Canadians living with disabilities to be able to grow into the private sector without being hurt or pushed aside by the existing boxes in government programming. We have seen a member from Calgary bring forward a bill with regard to Canadians living with rare diseases. We have seen a bill come forward in terms of accessibility to Canadian websites for those living with disabilities.

We have seen these pieces come forward from all around the House, and this goes to show that we all want to see movement. The problem is that this bill is not movement. This bill is a plan to one day, potentially, maybe, hopefully get to movement.

The government could not build an ice rink on time and on budget. How can we expect it to properly manage this file? Why is it that we as parliamentarians, after we pass this bill, and the regulations and standards have then gone out, sought after, drafted, taking three, five or six years, do not have the ability to see them again?

The request through this bill is that we give a blank cheque in terms of the standards and regulations. I know that all around this House we want to do everything that we can to make lives easier, to break some of the cycles that affect persons with disabilities in regard to poverty and accessibility.

However, we must do this responsibly. We must do this working with private sector. We must do this working with government institutions. We must do this working with persons with disabilities, setting a timeline, setting measurables in place so they understand what effect this is going to have on their lives. We must ensure, going forward, that each and every interaction, especially with a federal government institution or at a federal government building, is one that is with respect and dignity.

That is what everybody expects in the House of Commons of our government. It is what everybody in the House of Commons expects of our private sector. We must be responsible with our conduct and how we move forward at this point.

I still have major concerns with how we end up in a process where we say “Yes” as a Parliament but have no idea what the effects of the bill will be. It is incredible.

As we look forward to the next election, I would like nothing more than to go to Canadians and say, “This is what we are spending your money on, and these are the tangible effects it is going to have on persons with disabilities.” I would like nothing more than to call my own mother and say, “These are the things we are doing to make life easier for people like you.” I would like nothing more than that. However, I do not know what we are doing, because it is not in the bill.

I want to end today, perhaps being a bit negative at times in this speech. However, at the same time, it is important that we hold our government to account, and it is important to this process that we actually get the best piece of legislation we can, moving forward.

To the minister, I want to say, “Thank you. I look forward to working with you. I certainly appreciate you reaching out to me earlier this week.”

[Carla Qualtrough]

Madam Speaker, for some time the disability community has been calling on Canada to more actively implement the UN convention. We have taken some steps, but I absolutely agree with the member that we have not moved far enough ahead.

I see this particular bill as a big step forward toward the full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We are working on the UN optional protocol. A particularly exciting part of Bill C-81 for me is designating the Canadian Human Rights Commission as the organization responsible for monitoring our implementation of the UN convention.

I think these steps go a long way. I look forward to working with the member in committee and at other opportunities to make this bill the best we can for Canadians with disabilities.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the minister, for tabling this historic legislation today. I look forward to working in a collegial fashion so that all of us here can strengthen the bill, because it is something that all Canadians deserve.

I was intrigued and inspired when the minister suggested in her presentation on Bill C-81 that she was inspired by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As we know, that was ratified in 2010, and we have had no movement since for its implementation.

Especially because we do not get a lot of media coverage for the issues affecting this vulnerable population and the people who care about them, I want to reiterate that there are aspects of the proposed accessibility act that would allow for partial or blanket exemptions for some important agencies. Also, there are no timelines and there are no requirements.

Do we see the accessibility act here as implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

[Carla Qualtrough]

Madam Speaker, what I said was we were going to start down the path of creating these standards. We have deliberately created an independent organization through Bill C-81 that will be comprised of industry leaders and disability experts to create standards that will work for both industry and the disability community. We can use existing standards. We can build upon these standards. We can create new ones. We are leaving the flexibility in the regulation stage in order to make sure that we do not create a situation where people are not ready. However, we know and industry has known for some time that this was coming. We have these standards provincially in Ontario.

What we know is this is good for business and business knows that this is good for business.

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

moved that Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day for disability rights in Canada. It is truly an honour to stand up in the House of Commons and open debate on the second reading of Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

This bill enhances the legal framework for addressing the barriers to inclusion faced by millions of Canadians on a daily basis. From a substantive point of view, it requires the Government of Canada and entities within federal jurisdiction to address not only the barriers themselves but also the systems that perpetuate these barriers. In and of itself, this will promote a quality of opportunity. However, it does more than just this. This bill sends a clear message to Canadians with disabilities that no more will they be treated as an afterthought, no more will they be systematically denied opportunity for inclusion. Today we are sending a message that Canadians with disabilities are valued civic, social and economic contributors to Canadian society, with full rights of citizenship.

The history of how we have treated Canadians with disabilities is not a proud one. It is a history of institutionalization, of sterilization, of social isolation. We addressed our fears of what we did not understand and of difference by creating systems that, by design, took children away from their families, that took power away from our citizens, that perpetuated a medical model of disability that saw persons with disabilities as objects of charity and passive recipients of welfare. We treated our citizens as if they were broken, when in fact it was our systems and policies that were broken.

In my own experience, my parents were told that I should be sent to a school for the blind, that public school was not for me, and that I should be shipped provinces away, far away from my family and friends. I cannot imagine how different my life would have been if my parents had not insisted that I had a right to be publicly educated in my own community and if I had been separated from my loved ones and sent away at age five. It is important to acknowledge this history. It is important not to forget.

Thankfully, Canada's history is also replete with individuals, families and organizations who fought these systems. As we all know, Canada has a robust human rights system, with strong anti-discrimination laws. Disability is a protected ground under these laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, anti-discrimination laws, while important, are by design reactive. We have to wait until individuals are denied a service, a job, a program, and then the system kicks in to determine if that denial was discriminatory. We literally have to wait until people are discriminated against before we can help them. These laws place the burden of advancing human rights on individuals. The opportunity for system change can be limited and costly. It is incredible to think that currently close to 60% of the complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission are on the basis of disability. Again, thankfully we have these laws, for it is my belief that the most important advances in disability rights in our country have been achieved through individuals using these laws to demand equality. There has been change. However, it has been slow.

As our understanding of disability has evolved, the medical model is giving way to a human rights-based social model. We no longer see the individual's disability or impairment as a barrier to inclusion; rather, it is the barriers created by society that prevent people with disabilities from enjoying their human rights on an equal basis with others. That is where Bill C-81 comes in. Today, I stand before members to support a bill that will significantly transform how Canada addresses discrimination and ensures a quality for all. As the first-ever minister responsible for accessibility, I take my responsibilities seriously. I want to set a standard worthy of Canadians and of Canada's place in the world.

Bill C-81 is meant to promote broad organizational and cultural change across the nation. It will benefit all Canadians, especially Canadians with disabilities, by taking the steps to realize a truly accessible and inclusive Canada. It will proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers in a number of areas. Accessibility standards will be established by regulation in the areas of employment, the built environment, information and communication technologies, procurement, program and service delivery, and transportation.

Bill C-81 applies to Parliament, the Government of Canada, Crown corporations, and other federally regulated sectors and entities, including organizations in the transportation, telecommunications, broadcasting and banking sectors.

These entities would be required to comply with the accessibility standards. In this way, Bill C-81 builds upon the existing rights of persons with disabilities under the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act. It also represents a significant step in Canada's ongoing implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

At this point, I will pause to put on the record the incredible collaboration that led to the bill. In June of 2016, we launched an ambitious public consultation process in Canada that took us across the country, meeting with Canadians and stakeholders to talk about what accessible Canada means to them. We did it in the most accessible way possible, to ensure that everyone was able to participate and have their say on what accessibility legislation could look like. We held 18 public consultations and 8 thematic round tables. We had a significant online component. We held a national youth forum with the Prime Minister. We worked with indigenous groups. It truly signalled a new era of leadership and collaboration on disability issues.

We heard from 6,000 citizens from across the country. We heard about physical and architectural barriers that impede people's ability to move freely in built environments, use public transportation, access information, or use common technology. We heard about attitudes, beliefs and misconceptions that some people have about people with disabilities and what we can and cannot do. We heard about outdated policies and practices that simply do not take into account the barriers that are being faced on a daily basis.

Time and again, Canadians with disabilities told us the same thing: “We are not an afterthought. We are citizens deserving of the same rights and having the same responsibilities as other citizens. We are capable and valuable members of society. We do not want to be looked at as people who need accommodation, and we do not want to be treated like some sort of burden.” By bringing a unique knowledge and extensive network to he table, the Government of Canada was able to get an even better understanding of what the disability community wants its Canada to look like.

With its clear message as the backdrop, there are five principles recognized in Bill C-81. It is upon these principles that the bill is based, and it is these principles that would serve to guide future interpretations. First, all persons must be treated with dignity, regardless of their abilities or disabilities. Second, all persons must have the same opportunity to make for themselves the lives they are able and wish to have. Third, all persons must have barrier-free access to full and equal participation in society. Fourth, all persons must have meaningful options and be free to make their own choices, with support if they desire. Finally, laws, policies, programs, services and structures must take into account the abilities and disabilities of persons and the different ways that persons interact with the environment. Persons with disabilities must be involved in the development and the design.

Ultimately, Bill C-81 recognizes that barriers to accessibility are at the heart of the inequity between Canadians with and without disabilities. These principles will guide Parliament, the Government of Canada and the federally regulated private sector in offering accessible services to Canadians.

These principles are reflected in the definitions in the bill. It was important to be as inclusive as possible in the scope of Bill C-81, and an important step was to look at the language we used. We wanted to put the emphasis on the barriers, not on the specific cause of the impairment or diagnosis of disability. It is the barrier that gets in the way of the full and meaningful participation of our citizens, not our disabilities.

The definitions of “barrier” and ”disability” put forth in Bill C-81 draw upon the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They are broad and inclusive, supporting the greatest number of Canadians. The bill is meant to inspire and drive a deep cultural transformation. Part of that transformation is changing the way we talk about accessibility and disability. It is also about changing existing government structures and systems and creating new ones. It is about putting these aspirations into actions.

The bill would create several new entities with significant compliance and enforcement functions. A new accessibility commissioner, a member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, would be responsible for compliance and enforcement in the areas not covered by the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Individuals could file complaints with the accessibility commissioner if they have been harmed or suffered property damage or economic loss as a result of the contravention of regulation made under Bill C-81, in other words, if the accessibility standards have not been complied with.

A chief accessibility officer will report to the minister and advise on accessibility issues. A particular focus will be on systemic and emerging issues. The Canadian accessibility standards development organization, CASDO, will be responsible for overseeing the development of accessibility standards. CASDO would also provide technical expertise in relation to standards, and support research and best practices with respect to the identification, removal and prevention of accessibility barriers. The CASDO board will be comprised of a majority of members with lived disability experience.

Among other initiatives, this last element enshrines into law the long-standing demand of the disability community that people with disabilities need to be involved in the creation and implementation of the policies and programs that affect their lives: In short, “nothing about us without us”.

The bill would also require that regulated entities create and publish accessibility plans and report on their progress, and that persons with disabilities be consulted as these plans and reports are developed. The bill also provides real teeth to ensure meaningful and lasting change in our institutions. This includes measures such as proactive inspections, monetary penalties, and individual complaints.

A number of bodies will be responsible for dealing with these cases and administering compliance and enforcement measures. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will be responsible for compliance and enforcement with respect to broadcasting and telecommunications using their existing powers. The Canadian Transportation Agency will be responsible for compliance and enforcement within the transportation sector with enhanced powers. The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board will address complaints by eligible federal public servants and parliamentary employees. All of their complaints will proceed through the accessibility commissioner.

There are two final points on the substance of Bill C-81. First, the bill will designate the week commencing on the last Sunday in May as national accessibility week. This will be a time to recognize the efforts of individuals, communities and workplaces that are actively removing barriers to give Canadians of all abilities a better chance to succeed. It will also contribute to the awareness raising and culture shift that we are all trying to achieve.

Second, the bill gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission responsibility for monitoring the Government of Canada's implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Both Canadian stakeholders and the international community have been calling for such a designation for some time.

When our Prime Minister and government speak of inclusion and diversity, we speak of the importance of having many voices at the table, and this includes persons with disabilities. This has steered my work on this file. The accessible Canada act is foundational and builds upon our government's ongoing commitment to accessibility and disability issues. We have achieved a lot over the past three years for Canadians with disabilities. I think of our ascension to the Marrakesh Treaty and our work on the UN optional protocol. I think of the disability supplement within the Canada child benefit and the increase to CPP disability. I think of our work on the excessive demand provision in our immigration law. I think of our government's recent appointment of a deputy minister responsible for an accessible public service, and our commitment to hiring 5,000 persons with disabilities into the federal public service over the next five years.

We have also made significant investments in accessibility, such as the recent announcement of approximately $290 million to advance the accessible Canada agenda, as well as our government's addition of $77 million, for a total fund of $227 million over 10 years dedicated to the removal of barriers in the built environment through the enabling accessibility fund. These are all important steps.

With the accessible Canada act, the Government of Canada is transforming how we as a country think about accessibility and the value we place on the increased inclusion of Canadians with disabilities. It also demonstrates our government's commitment to the advancement of disability rights in a concrete way.

Bill C-81 sends a strong message: Canada is a leader in accessibility.

It is important to remember that although Bill C-81 will be one of the tools that the government can use to address accessibility on a systemic basis, the work does not stop there. There is a need for the Government of Canada, both as an employer and as a provider of service to Canadians, to show leadership and model accessibility. There is a need to support businesses and institutions. There is a need to promote the culture change required such that accessibility is seen as a universal priority.

I hope that our government's actions will inspire other governments and industries to get on board with forward-looking policies and practices.

Today, as we lay the groundwork for an accessible future, I urge the provinces and territories, businesses, and all other partners to consider the role they have to play. After all, this goes to the very heart of our Canadian values.

I truly believe that we are making lives better for Canadians with disabilities. This is just the beginning. There is still a lot of work to do to create a Canada without barriers. I look forward to continuing the discussion with Canadians and parliamentarians throughout our review of Bill C-81. I look forward to building an accessible Canada together.

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud that tomorrow we are commencing debate on second reading of Bill C-81, the accessibility act.

I can tell members that, in my opinion, this will be the most significant piece for disability rights legislation since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am excited to be working with the member opposite on this bill. I am excited that we can get it to committee tomorrow as soon as possible so that we can make it as substantively great as we possibly can to include the full participation and inclusion of every Canadian in our society.

Accessible Canada Act

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table, in both official languages, a charter statement with respect to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Minister of Science and Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)