[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.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

Go ahead, MP Long, please.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Thank you, Chair.

Again, thank you, Mr. Folino and Mr. Roots, for your passion, leadership and advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities. It's truly impressive and obviously much needed.

Mr. Folino and Mr. Roots, I want to go back to you with respect to the composition of the board. We talked in my office about 70%. As I said, Ms. Jewelles Smith was talking about maybe 100%. Can you give us your thoughts as to how that board should be composed?

Second, if there are amendments to subclause 23(2), potentially with different wording to make sure that people with disabilities are represented and potentially so that people with disabilities in every disability group have representation in some way, can you elaborate, Mr. Folino and Mr. Roots, on your thoughts?

9:50 a.m.

President, Canadian Association of the Deaf

Frank Folino

[Interpretation] Sure. We strongly recommend that there be a minimum of two-thirds representation of people with disabilities and deaf persons in the group, because they have lived experience and they are the experts. They know what the barriers are and can help consult in terms of developing the standards to ensure that we have a barrier-free Canada.

We need that diversity on the board, and we need a minimum of two-thirds. Jewelles said 100%, yes, and would maybe go down to 70%.

That's how we can meet the needs and ensure that we have a barrier-free Canada.

9:50 a.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Association of the Deaf

James Roots

[Interpretation] Jewelles and I both strongly believe that the board should be 100% representative of the experts, but other organizations have convinced us to negotiate and agree to two-thirds.

It is important. Other organizations start with a request for 50% plus one. We strongly oppose that suggestion. We have lots of experience with various other boards and organizations and committees and staff that decided that 50% plus one was good enough, but what happens is that the disabled people then get further marginalized and pushed away. The non-disabled people take over control and then change the regulations or the rules to fifty-fifty. This means the disabled can be outvoted and they've lost their power and their authority.

We've seen that time and again. I've seen it happen within the disabled organizations themselves. They have a mixed board of 48% non-disabled and 52% disabled. They never advance their issues, and then eventually they get voted out.

If it's 70%, it won't be so easy to beat us.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Thank you.

Mr. Arnot, do you have anything you want to contribute with respect to the composition of the CASDO board?

9:55 a.m.

Chief Commissioner, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission

David Arnot

The default position would be to make sure you're hearing and ensuring the lived experience is understood. As pointed out by one of the committee members earlier, persons without disabilities don't fully understand the impediments and barriers put before them. I would certainly have no hesitation saying that two-thirds would make reasonable sense, as we've heard earlier.

It's ensuring that the board studying those standards or overseeing them would fully understand the lived experience. The best way you could do that is for your committee to make that recommendation. Working with people with disabilities, I know the frustration they feel on a daily basis because of the non-understanding, the sea of ignorance that exists in Canada about these issues. It needs to be addressed in the most effective way possible. “The maximum” would be my short answer.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Thank you for that.

Mr. Folino, sometimes I get concerned when I hear from businesses and stakeholders in my riding, sometimes from some of my Conservative friends, that there's too high a cost of doing this, of moving forward.

I'd like to argue that there's a cost of not doing this. I can speak at length about a shopping mall that opened better access to people with disabilities. Their businesses thrived because there's a major market there.

Mr. Folino, can you talk to me and discuss how there shouldn't be a cost to breaking down barriers and opening up access?

9:55 a.m.

President, Canadian Association of the Deaf

Frank Folino

[Interpretation] I understand there's a cost to access. There are strategies or ways to address that. For example, if you want to support removing barriers in Canada, there are tax credit incentives for businesses if they are fully accessible. If you promote it in that vein, then we are investing in our Canadians and in Canada.

If you invest to ensure that change happens, everyone will benefit. Europe has a great tax incentive for accessibility to support that economy to address those changes and move those changes forward. Cost should not be a concern. There are ways to address it.

Another example is public and private organizations and government sectors working together as P3s, investing together to remove these barriers. There are lots of ways. We should not be afraid.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

As I stated earlier, we have a very hard deadline today, so I'm afraid we have to wrap up. Thank you very much, everybody, for being here, and thank you to the committee.

The meeting is adjourned.