Evidence of meeting #116 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was accessibility.
A video is available from Parliament.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
I have a really quick question for Scott Streiner.
You were talking about countries that have best practices. Can you spell out precisely a few of these countries that might be better than we are in certain areas, and specify?
October 22nd, 2018 / 6:50 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
This question has actually arisen several times. I think it might be better, Mr. Chair, to actually send a letter with a couple of examples of that, because the committee has asked.
I'll simply note one example. There are a number of airports both in Europe and in Asia where the guiding services and the services for persons with disabilities to get through the airport—the wayfinding services—are first class.
If it's helpful to the committee, we'll send a letter with a few additional examples.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
That is an excellent suggestion. Thank you.
MP Morrissey is next, please.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The language I heard from the witness today—and you represent major organizations in the country—is that you're confident you can meet the objectives. You're not afraid of the bill. It's ambitious.
Are there challenges in your day-to-day activities that the bill does not address?
I will first ask Mr. Streiner, with CTA.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Of course we're in a different position from that of my colleagues today, because we're the regulator and the tribunal.
I would say that the bill is offering us a number of new tools. Since 1988, we've had the responsibility of making the national transportation system more accessible. I think we've made terrific progress, but there is still a significant distance to be covered. The bill provides us with some additional tools to advance those objectives.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
How do you see this legislation complementing the pending regulatory changes that you referenced quite a bit that you're currently undergoing? Within this framework, from my perspective, it should give you a clearer understanding of where you should be.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Cognizant of time, I'll give a couple of quick examples.
First of all, we're going take the lens that the bill presents, particularly the definitions of “disability” and “barrier”, and integrate those into everything we do that's related to accessibility. The bill does provide a bit of an overarching framework—a way of thinking about accessibility—that the CTA agrees with and will integrate into its work.
More concretely, the additional powers that our enforcement officers will have to go and inspect and impose administrative monetary penalties, if necessary, and to negotiate compliance plans with regulated entities will help our folks in the field working with service providers—like the two represented here today, and hundreds of others—to actually advance accessibility on a day-to-day basis and in a very concrete way. Our folks who are out there every day working with service providers will have new tools to make sure the goals of the legislation and our regulations move forward.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Given that environment and your mandate, will it be easier to achieve that with Bill C-81?
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Certainly the additional tools that Bill C-81 will give us to advance the mandate will be helpful.
Liberal
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?
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
I'll briefly explain for the member and other members that we really do, at the CTA, have two roles: We're the regulator and we set the rules, but we also hear complaints from individual Canadians or from advocacy organizations about concerns they might have, including those around accessibility.
When somebody comes forward to us with a complaint, the first thing that we try to do is see if we can arrive at a resolution between the complainant and the service provider in an informal way through a mediation or a facilitation process. In many respects, it's better for all concerned if we don't have to go all the way to adjudication, which is more court-like. If we're not able to achieve a resolution through an informal process or if the two parties aren't interested in engaging in those discussions, then we convene like a court of law. We have all the powers of a superior court. We hear evidence and arguments and we issue binding decisions.
I will tell you that the trend line on accessibility complaints is upward. We received about 25 accessibility complaints in 2014-2015; I think that's the right year. That number doubled the next year, tripled the next year, and last year, there were about 100 accessibility-related complaints.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
I think there are a number of drivers. As an organization we've made efforts to ensure that persons with disabilities are aware that they can turn to us for assistance if they have an issue.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
We've undertaken public information efforts, but I think generally—and this committee's work is is an example of this—there is more attention paid today than there was several years ago to accessibility issues and to the fundamental right of people with disabilities to equal access to transportation services.
We've contributed as an organization, but I think it's part of a broader societal trend.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
You didn't get to the part about what will change under Bill C-81.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you very much.
We will have to stop there. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank everybody for being here today and coming to the committee via video conference.
We are going to suspend for just a few moments so that we can switch panels. We will be right back.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
The meeting will come to order. We're going to get started.
Welcome back, everybody. This is our second panel this evening, and for those who are joining us, I'm not going through the preamble again. I will just remind you that we do have both French and English sign language, and there are no photos at this time.
In opening and closing remarks and in answering any questions, please keep your speech to a fairly even pace. We want to make sure everything is captured appropriately.
Joining us via video conference from Surrey, B.C., is Jewelles Smith, Chairperson of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, and Steven Estey, Government and Community Relations Officer.
We have, in person, from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, Robert Ghiz, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Ursula Grant, Senior Director, Industry Affairs.
Finally, from Communication Disabilities Access Canada, we have Barbara Collier, Executive Director.
Welcome to all of you.
We will start with Jewelles Smith and Steven Estey, from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. The next five minutes are all yours.
Jewelles Smith Chairperson, Council of Canadians with Disabilities
I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak with everyone.
We have a number of items that we've come to agreement upon through consultations across the country, and I know you'll hear from many of my colleagues over the next few days.
We are very much hoping that the bill will address the timelines of implementation. We would very much like to see challenging timelines established, such as five years. Canada is not the first country to put accessibility legislation in place, and there are many examples to draw from. We've been consulted extensively, and I believe the government could easily meet a five-year timeline for establishing a barrier-free Canada.
We would also like the act to better address effective management in complaints. We think that the fractured current status of the act would make it very difficult for individuals with disabilities to be able to make complaints, and to also have their needs met and their accessibility addressed.
We would also very much like to see ASL and LSQ acknowledged as official languages for deaf individuals. About 45 countries have acknowledged deaf languages to date, and we think that Canada is falling behind in not doing so. This is different from an official status language; this is acknowledging that for deaf people, ASL, LSQ and indigenous signed languages are critical for their ability to have an accessible experience with services and their rights.
We would also like to see the CASDO board composed of a minimum of two-thirds of persons with disabilities. We have seen many examples in the past of boards consisting of 50% plus one, and in those cases, too often our true needs were not met. We would ultimately love to see 100%, but realizing that this may not be possible, we're asking for two-thirds.
We would also like to see the federal accessibility agencies that are set up to be at arm's length from government. This would allow them to go about doing their business and better serve the needs of persons with disabilities.
Finally, it's very important that indigenous people with disabilities be consulted, as currently they are not mentioned in the act. Although indigenous nation-to-nation work is being done, the particular needs of indigenous individuals with disabilities need to be addressed for a fully accessible Canada.
Thank you, and I'll pass it on to Steve Estey.
Steven Estey Government and Community Relations Officer, Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Thanks very much. I wasn't actually aware we were splitting our five minutes, so I'll try and make good use of my two and a half.
We heard over the course of the last few weeks the discussion about the idea of introducing a “no wrong door policy with regard to a complaints mechanism and so on. I just wanted to share with you that within our community, there have been some concerns raised about that. Particularly in the mental health community in Canada, this approach has been used for a number of years, and it's led to some concerns and problems.
We talked to people with the organization, and they said there were better ways of doing things. The concern with the no wrong door approach is that decisions are made on the inside. There's no transparency, so there's a real concern about it. We just wanted to flag that.
The second thing, a little bit more positive, is that we are excited to realize that the act will recognize the Canadian Human Rights Commission as a domestic monitoring mechanism for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That's a tremendously important provision. I'm really pleased to see it.
Clause 149 of the bill talks about this specifically, and we wanted to make a suggestion that along with the recognition of the Canadian Human Rights Commission—which is a very important thing—and in tune with the convention itself, consideration be given to language to also flag the participation of individuals with disabilities and our organizations specifically, so that it would be made explicit in a sentence at the end of clause 149 to talk not just about the Human Rights Commission but about organizations of people with disabilities in the same way that the convention makes a distinction between national institutions and organizations of people with disabilities. We felt it was really important to get that in the bill itself so that we can revisit that when the time comes.
Thanks very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you both.
From the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, we have Mr. Ghiz and Ms. Grant. The next five minutes are yours.
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.