Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2017

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Van Dusen]

Thank you for that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

You've done riding profiles, I think, all four times in my riding.

[Peter Van Dusen]

It's always been an important riding. It's a contested riding.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

It has been.

The other thing that's important about that is that it's sometimes difficult in British Columbia to get a sense of what's happening in the rest of the country. I think those riding profiles are very, very useful to voters in my riding who want to see what's happening elsewhere in the country. I am just encouraging CPAC to keep that up, because I think it's an important service that sometimes people don't think about.

I guess I'd give you a warning on local debates. Sometimes local debates are a little less than high standard in their organization and their journalism. In my riding we usually have about eight, and we have long debates about who can participate, who can't participate, which candidates are in, and which candidates are out. We even had one incident in which a registered party removed their candidate from the set just before the broadcast was to begin. I think you should exercise a lot of caution about local debates.

To get back to the main topic here, I appreciate the openness you've expressed to doing whatever makes things more accessible to Canadians. I think that's the reputation you have, and you're upholding that today. My question really is about how we maximize the ability to view. I don't favour a fine or disqualification for not doing leaders' debates, but how do we really make them accessible? It's one thing to say they're broadcast, but how do we make them more accessible in terms of format and those kinds of things? I'm not saying you should set it, but do you have ideas on how the debates could be more accessible to the public? I know a lot of people may tune in for a couple of minutes and then feel that they're not for them.

[Peter Van Dusen]

We're into new territory. With the last election and the collapse of the consortium model, we're into new territory. It's a blank canvas.

The idea of how to make them more accessible I think comes back to the third “p” that we talked about, the partnership idea. I'll be really interested to see what comes forward from the committee and then the minister's consultations.

Backtracking slightly on Mr. Waugh's question and the idea of “lead it”, I'm back to what is “it”? Until we have a better idea of what “it” is, it's hard to know what role we can play in leading or participating in anything, but we're open to it.

Specifically to your question, you open up partnerships. If you start from a default position that the rules have changed, and the primary concern of office-holders across the country and of organizations such as ours is broader access to democracy, then if that's the default position, we need as many people as possible to be able to see these debates.

Then the question becomes how we do it. If we open up the partnership idea—that nobody owns the debate, nobody owns the night that the debate is on, nobody owns access to the debate, and that these debates are to be made available to all Canadians on any platforms—then the question begins to answer itself. If everybody in these particular spaces now knows that there are no restrictions on getting access to the debate, they will find a way to get it to their particular market of people, and everybody will be better served.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

We did see—and I guess I'm thinking back to 2011 and the consortium debates—some ideas of asking voters to submit questions and trying to involve and engage voters more in the actual process of the debate.

I wonder if you as a journalist have any opinions on whether engaging the public is helpful or not.

[Peter Van Dusen]

I would go back to what I said. If the debate is available to everybody, people can do what they want with it. “Watch our debate because we're featuring this kind of input. Watch this debate because we're featuring that kind of input. We're providing this accessibility, this kind of approach to how we cover it.” I mean, there are lots of options as to where this can go.

Some people may say, “If it's carried on one channel, we're not really interested in the viewer question thing.” However, we're doing this other model, but we're taking the feed of the debate and treating it differently. We maybe have a debate—we've talked about this a bit—in which we don't challenge the answers for veracity during the debate, but we provide a 90-minute post-debate show that's going to fact-check everything that was said.

Those are different models that people can bring. If everybody has access to a debate, then they can decide how they want to treat it in their own coverage.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I guess in essence what you're saying is that more debates than one, and more models than one will—

[Peter Van Dusen]

It could be numbers of debates, but available to any outlet that wants them. As long as they take the substance of the debate, they can treat it differently in terms of their audience and how they want to encourage participation.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

In terms of who would actually make these decisions, do you have any opinions about a commission versus a commissioner? Do you think that one person can be expected to manage this process and be seen as neutral, or would it be better to have a committee of people—CPAC—deliver an opinion on that?

[Catherine Cano]

Not really. I think we will let the committee come up with the—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

You're not going to help us out on that.

[Catherine Cano]

Well, it's difficult to know. It's complex. You have a difficult task in figuring this out, and who this person or this group would report to. There are a lot of questions you have to ask and get answers for.

You know, I think experts on democracy, the people who have been there.... I'm sure you're looking at other countries as well. Other places in the world and how they do that might be some inspiration.

[Peter Van Dusen]

We're not here to weigh in on what model you come down on.

The idea is that if you can find predictability and determine participation and figure out a way to encourage partnership—I don't know whether that requires an office-holder or a different kind of approach—and you can answer those kinds of concerns for us and others, that will serve the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you for coming.

As you can see, we all enjoy CPAC very much. We respect the way you do business, so we appreciate your being here today.

[Peter Van Dusen]

Thank you.

[Catherine Cano]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're going to suspend while we get the next panel up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll reconvene meeting number 83 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

If you remember, at the last meeting I asked you for any final input on witnesses for the rest of the study. We'll do any changes to the proposed schedule at the end of this meeting.

This afternoon's witnesses are Diane Bergeron, vice-president, engagement and international affairs, and Thomas Simpson, manager, operations and government affairs at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. They have passed out a handout.

As well, we have Frank Folino, president of the Canadian Association for the Deaf, so you can see sign language here. You can tell us if we're going too fast at any time for the sign language.

We also have James Hicks, national coordinator for the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

You'll each have a chance to give an opening statement, and then there will be questions from each party. There will be a seven-minute round of questions for the person, and that includes both your answer and the question, so just keep that in mind when you're providing your answers.

We'll start with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Perhaps you would like to make some opening comments.

[Diane Bergeron, Vice-President, Engagement and International Affairs, Canadian National Institute for the Blind]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to first thank the committee for inviting us to come today. I'm Diane Bergeron, and with me is Thomas Simpson.

CNIB has been around for almost a hundred years. We were founded in 1918 to serve veterans coming back from World War I who came back war-blinded and also to serve people who were blinded through the Halifax explosion. We provide services and skills training to individuals who are blind and partially sighted to help them navigate in their environment and be safe in their external and internal environments, and we provide charitable programs, such as peer supports and camps for kids and so on.

We do some advocacy work and we help to educate the public on the needs of people who are blind or partially sighted. The 2012 StatsCan report indicated that almost three-quarters of a million people in Canada identify as having sight loss. That's a lot of people who will be voting in the next election.

I'd like you to imagine that the handout we provided you just before the session started is all the information that you're going to need to determine who the next prime minister of Canada is. This is your document. You can read it, you can learn, and that is the only form of information that you will have to ensure that you make an informed decision when you are choosing who you will vote for in your next election. Understandably, unless anybody here has learned Braille in the past little while, you probably are looking at that document and wondering how in God's name you are going to do that. That is what people who are blind or partially sighted in Canada deal with in every election.

We are often invited to go to debates or to listen to debates on TV, and things are shown—images, documents. We get people coming to our door, doing door knocking, and they hand us documentation that is not accessible to us. We go to websites to look at party platforms. They're not accessible to screen readers and other devices for people who are blind or partially sighted.

It is impossible for me to do what I have a right to do in this country, which is vote for the people who I want to represent me in the political arena. It is also an obligation, but it's impossible for me to do that as a person who's totally blind, and to do it as an informed decision, if all I have to access is a minor amount of information. I have the right as a Canadian to access the electoral process the same as everybody else. Unfortunately, that access is not always provided.

In order to ensure we do have the ability to make an informed choice, we have some recommendations. I'm going to ask Thomas to go through them with you.

[Thomas Simpson, Manager, Operations and Government Affairs, Canadian National Institute for the Blind]

Thank you, Diane.

CNIB supports the creation of an independent commission or commissioner for the leadership debates during an election as long as the following points are included to ensure that accessibility is provided for Canadians who are blind or partially sighted.

If a leadership debate is broadcast on television, it must include descriptive audio. If visual aids are used, either by a party leader or moderators, it must be described to those who are watching. This includes names put onto a screen or a PowerPoint presentation if one is used. It's recommended by CNIB that the committee should connect with Accessible Media Incorporated, or AMI, a not-for-profit company that entertains, informs, and empowers Canadians who are blind or partially sighted or have hearing impairments. It runs three broadcast services: AMI-tv and AMI-audio, both in English, and AMI-télé in French. AMI-tv broadcasts a selection of general entertainment programming with accommodations for those who are visually or hearing impaired, with audio descriptions and closed captioning available. AMI is an expert in incorporating accessibility on television and should be consulted to make leadership debates accessible for Canadians to the greatest possible extent.

Similarly, the use of ASL and LSQ—American Sign Language andlangue des signes québécoise—is necessary for Canadians who are deaf and deaf-blind. In order to get the greatest number of people to tune in to leadership debates, it should be marketed and advertised in an effective manner. This means not only in conventional print: it should be spread through as many means as possible, such as TV, radio, or ads before YouTube videos.

This brings me to leadership debates online. If future leadership debates can be streamed online, websites to view those debates should be accessible. This means they can be accessed with an assistive device and will be easily navigable. Any website that hosts future leadership debates must be tested by people with various sight disabilities to ensure the best accessibility. For example, any videos or question submission boxes must be tested for use by a screen reader or a screen magnifier. Any website should also have good colour contrast.

We thank the procedure and house affairs committee for inviting CNIB to testify, and we welcome any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

Maintenant we have Frank Folino, president of the Canadian Association of the Deaf.

[Frank Folino, President, Canadian Association of the Deaf]

[Interpretation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before this committee as part of your study of a proposal to create an independent commission or commissioners to organize political party leaders' debates during the federal election campaigns.

My name is Frank Folino, and I'm president of the Canadian Association of the Deaf-Association des Sourds du Canada. The CAD-ASC is a national information research and community action organization of deaf people in Canada. Founded in 1940, CAD-ASC provides consultation and information on deaf issues to the public, business, media, educators, governments, and others. We also conduct research and collect data.

CAD-ASC promotes and protects the rights, needs, and concerns of deaf people who use American sign language, ASL, and langue des signes québécoise, LSQ.

CAD-ASC is affiliated with the World Federation of the Deaf and is a United Nations-accredited non-governmental organization on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Sign language is recognized seven times within five different articles through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Canada ratified in March 2010. It refers to our rights, outlined in the convention, to address the articles that relate directly to signed languages.

In Canada, deaf people use ASL and LSQ to reflect that we embrace diversity, inclusiveness, and core values, and that we are committed to maintaining an inclusive environment in Canadian society. Many countries have legally recognized signed languages. Such recognition in Canada would ensure the removal of barriers and provide equal access, which is an important step towards becoming an inclusive and accessible Canada as we integrate into both English and French societies.

Too often accessibility issues have been an afterthought in federal political party leaders' debates. It is clear that there are accessibility issues that are barriers for deaf and hard of hearing people. They could not participate in the process of a national debate, whether televised or on social media platforms. In previous federal political party leaders' debates, there was lack of sign language interpretation and closed captioning in social media platforms throughout the televised debates.

To make future political party leaders' debates accessible for deaf people who require access to information, we would like to see sign language interpretation in ASL for English debates and in LSQ for French debates. This would include picture-in-picture onscreen, and closed captioning in English and French. We as deaf people can participate and be privy to what's happening during the debate to have a good understanding of the different platforms that candidates have. If interpreting services are not provided throughout, we don't fully understand what people are talking about.

Obviously the language during the debate is elevated and sophisticated, and without having access to ASL or LSQ during those debates, we don't know for whom we are voting, so when we get to the polls on election day, we're not making a truly informed choice. That's another good example of how we are not really included in society as deaf people in the way that other Canadians and other citizens are.

We don't have true access in our own language. We do have it in French and English, but of course those are the languages that are predominant among other people. We're looking to gain not only access to interpreters, but access to information. Oftentimes we're faced with information that is in English or French, so we would like to ensure that the federal leaders' debates during future election campaigns provide services to make the information accessible not only in English and French but in signed languages as well, so that we can truly access the information in our language.

This demonstrates how an independent commission or commissioners can take a positive approach to include deaf people by way of making their information accessible when it comes to organizing the leaders' debates during future election campaigns. The creation of an independent commission or commissioner will provide the opportunity to address these accessibility issues to ensure an inclusive and accessible Canada. It's important that an accessibility lens is being implemented, which is described in the quote below:

An Accessibility Lens is a tool for identifying and clarifying issues affecting persons with disabilities used by policy and program developers and analysts to access and address the impact of all initiatives (policies, programs or decisions) on persons with disabilities. It is also a resource in creating policies and programs reflective of the rights and needs of persons with disabilities.

We would like to see the establishment of an accessibility advisory committee, with lists of experts to advise the independent commission or commissioners to ensure that the implementation of access services is being planned well in advance.

The accessibility lens in organizing political party leaders' debates during federal election campaigns will have to ensure that accessibility will be a forethought, not an afterthought. This will address the barriers we face, because they are significant for us. Sign language interpretation during the political leaders' debates allows us to participate through sign language, which is important to our community.

An inclusive and accessible Canada will impact over a million deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing Canadians who want to be involved in the decision-making process during the elections, which they have every right to fully participate in, through access to information in sign language so they are able to make their own choice to elect political candidates democratically.

I would be pleased to answer your questions regarding accessibility issues and organizing future leaders' debates during future election campaigns. I trust the committee will be able to address these important accessibility issues for our democracy.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. James Hicks, national coordinator of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.