Human Resources Committee on Oct. 25th, 2018

[Frank Folino]

[Interpretation] Certainly. Thank you for your question.

We face many barriers and challenges on a day-to-day basis. Often sign language interpreting services, for example, are not readily available for job interviews or various other services that we're trying to access. Often businesses or government departments are denying services or are unaware that they are to provide sign language interpreters and that it is our right to get sign language interpreters.

For example, a deaf person may want to go to a concert. They've requested an ASL or an LSQ interpreter and they've been denied. We're often fighting to remove those barriers. That's frustrating for deaf people.

In another example, a deaf person may go to the CRTC proceedings. Sometimes they don't provide interpreters for a public hearing. I may want to attend as a citizen of Canada and access what is being said, just like my other colleagues, friends or peers who are not deaf and who can attend these public hearings for the entire week. I, on the other hand, have been told that I have to rely on transcripts. We're not equal participants in terms of accessing that information.

Another example is when I'm travelling. I may not be aware that a gate has changed or there's a delay in a flight. There's no LED system, so I may miss my flight. That causes more stress on a deaf individual. I can share many other examples.

Jim, do you have any?

[James Roots, Executive Director, Canadian Association of the Deaf]

[Interpretation] Yes. For example, I went to vote on Monday. Four people were talking to me and blocking my way. I said, “I'm sorry; I'm deaf. I don't understand.” They continued to talk to me, and I said again, “I'm sorry; I'm deaf.” I gave them my card and showed them my name. They again spoke to me and pointed to the left. I still didn't know what they were saying.

I went to the area with the ballot, but I wasn't sure where to get my ballot. They pointed to one table, and I said that there was no one sitting there. They said, “Oh, yes.” Again their mouths moved, but I couldn't understand.

I had to stand in front of a table. There was no person there. I was waiting and I thought, “Am I in the right place? I have no idea. Is this where I get my ballot?” Finally, somebody appeared and I asked for my ballot. Again, they were moving their mouth, talking. I said, “I don't understand; I'm deaf.”

That whole experience was quite frustrating for me. I looked like a fool.

[Frank Folino]

[Interpretation] If you don't mind, I would like to add one more.

If there's an emergency alert, an attack, a tornado or a hurricane, we have to be prepared to evacuate and we need emergency preparedness mechanisms that are accessible to us.

When you're providing announcements at the federal level, you should have sign language interpreters available. This is common practice in the U.K., France, Australia and the United States. We are so behind. If you have an interpreter for any public announcement, then you're reaching our audience in ASL and LSQ, and they know that they need to be prepared in order to evacuate or avoid a certain catastrophe.

If ASL and LSQ are recognized as a language for deaf people, that will enable accessibility to communication and will meet our needs across Canada.

[Kerry Diotte]

Those are great examples. I think that's really useful. I thank you both for providing those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have about 20 seconds.

[Kerry Diotte]

Mr. Folino, you talked about how everyone who receives federal funding must comply with accessibility legislation. Can you elaborate briefly on that concept?

[Frank Folino]

[Interpretation] Certainly. I can start, and then Mr. Roots can add.

In any funding that's provided, if they stay stagnant and they don't follow the accessibility act.... If they want to remove barriers, for instance, and you allot any funding within that procurement process, they need to prove that they're ensuring that things are being made accessible. You need to follow up and ensure that it's regulated so there is that change.

There should be an annual report from the commissioner measuring those changes and seeing where there are gaps. Then fill in those gaps and invest in those areas to ensure that everything is accessible to meet those needs. That's the reason we need those timelines in place.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Long is next, please.

[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.

[David Arnot]

Focusing on the role of the accessibility commissioner, I believe that person could interpret their role in a very significant way, which would continue to educate all Canadians.

The mechanism of reporting to Parliament could be accelerated if that person were an independent officer of Parliament. That's something that we suggested. It's currently not going to be part of this bill.

I believe that role and those timelines will be adequate. We can learn from them. It's really about the uptake and the support from the community, the stakeholders, that is taken once those reports are made, and making sure that all Canadians have access to the reports, whether it's through social media or other means.

In my opinion, the timelines may be a good start. We'll be informed on whether they're adequate or not by the success of the role of the accessibility commissioner.

Fundamentally, the focus should be on that commissioner making all Canadians aware of these issues. The majority of Canadians, I believe, would like to support the inclusiveness for all persons with disability, but there are many unintended consequences. We see that in the built environment and the to-be-built environment. There are big issues on transportation, provincially and municipally, that need to be addressed, because transportation is a barrier for a person whether they need to seek employment or get to employment or get to health care, education, etc.

I want to reiterate a point that was made earlier on voting. Voting municipally and provincially is a huge issue. The barriers are significant, and they haven't been cured. Again, we need a systemic response to those—

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

I want to jump in on the voting, Mr. Arnot.

[David Arnot]

Yes.

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

Mr. Roots' testimony was compelling. You could feel the frustration. I witnessed something very similar in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay a few weeks back. What can we do to improve that?

[David Arnot]

I think that can be accommodated in many ways for people with visual or hearing disabilities. There's no undue hardship. There's no argument that works for the discrimination that occurs against Canadians with disabilities trying to exercise such a fundamental right.

It's a big issue in Saskatchewan, municipally and provincially. It continues to be so. We have some litigation in Saskatchewan dealing with those very issues, but having spoken to the disability community, I would say it's very clear that those impediments still exist. The excuses that are put forward are not adequate, because fundamentally the resources are available to accommodate those who have disabilities and who are impaired in their ability to vote, in my opinion.

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

Agreed. Thank you for that.

Mr. Arnot, a number of our witnesses on both this panel and previous panels talked about the language in the bill and thought it ought to be and could be more prescriptive, rather than simply enabling. Can you point to some examples of where and how we can amend the bill to address those concerns?

[David Arnot]

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be able to do that now. I'd have to address that in writing to you later.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Folino, it was great to meet you in my office. I think it was two weeks ago. We had a great conversation.

One of the topics we talked about was the composition of the board, CASDO, and how many people with disabilities should be on that board. We talked about 50% plus one, and then you proposed two-thirds, or 70%. I know Jewelles Smith was in earlier and talked about how she wanted 100%, but we said 70%.

Can you and Mr. Roots elaborate on how important it is, and in particular how subclause 23(2) could maybe be reworded to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You're way over, I'm afraid. Maybe we can come back to that question. I apologize.

We're going to have to move on to MP Hardcastle, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Arnot, I'd like to hear you expand a little bit on your thoughts with regard to the accessibility commissioner. You stated earlier that this commissioner should have statutory rights to intervene in other bodies and in decision-making.

We've also heard concerns about the splintering of enforcement by different entities, and perhaps the accessibility commissioner should have the mandate for all enforcement. I just wonder if you can expand on your mindset about the intervention rate that you think is important. Is that based on observations and past experience?

[David Arnot]

It is. In the Saskatchewan context, there are a number of organizations that can rule or have input into human rights issues, which leads to inconsistency and non-uniformity.

I was suggesting that the accessibility commissioner should have a statutory base to make representations not only to the human rights tribunal but also, more importantly, to the CRTC, the Canadian Transportation Agency and any other agency that's dealing with accommodation issues. Why? It's because if they're allowed to intervene, call evidence and then make legal arguments, there's a greater opportunity or chance to have a certainty, a consistency and a uniformity at very early stages, rather than to rely on appeal mechanisms to try to cure problems in those areas, which are inherently costly and time-consuming.

The best way to do it is at the initial hearing. That hearing occurs in various administrative tribunals in the federal regime, but certainly the CRTC and the Canadian Transportation Agency come foremost. The way to do that is to allow the accessibility commissioner to intervene. Intervention would mean the ability to call evidence and the ability to make legal argument.

It's really about providing uniformity without having splintering and competing administrative tribunals with different views. The fastest way to get to consistency is to let someone like the accessibility commissioner intervene at the earliest instance to provide that uniformity.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, do I have a minute or two?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have two, almost three.

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

Maybe I can ask this of Mr. Folino and Mr. Roots.

We're talking about this idea of being able to make complaints, and you heard Mr. Arnot talking about uniformity. Can you talk about how you think we should be improving this bill and about how it is fragmented right now? As it appears right now, there are different departments—different entities, let's say—for making complaints. There are even exemptions that can be made with no appeal process.

Do you have some observations for us?

[Frank Folino]

[Interpretation] Certainly. We need to resolve issues efficiently and quickly. We don't want any delays. We don't want deaf persons or people with disabilities unsure of where they should go. There should be one door, one entry point and one person to collect all complaints. The commissioner officer should be responsible for ensuring that complaints are dealt with in a timely manner and are given to the right area.

The bill isn't currently clear about the complaint process. There may be a complaint about an accessibility standard, but what about a complaint against a group—for example, the CRTC? They haven't provided ASL or LSQ interpreters, for instance, in their hearings. Do we enter that same entry point? Do we complain to the accessibility officer and then they ensure that it's dealt with in a timely way?

Also, we need to make sure that these complaints can be received in our native language, in ASL and LSQ. I need to be able to express my complaint in sign language and send it by video in my language instead of in written English or French. In Europe they are already advanced. They have set up that system. It would be nice if we could follow suit.