Human Resources Committee on Oct. 1st, 2024

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to congratulate Kevin Mills on his incredible journey and the amount of work and effort that he's put into not just creating awareness in our community, but broadly.

My question is this: What are the primary challenges with the disability community in promoting accessibility, and how can the government better support your efforts?

[Kevin Mills]

Again, thanks for having me.

I think what you're doing here, having people with disabilities involved in committees like this and just that perspective.... My perspective is going to be vastly different from people without disabilities. I think I can help identify issues.

In terms of promotion, I think what I was doing there, in terms of demonstration and going out in public, was starting a discussion. Even if people weren't even following me online, they may have been driving by and seen me in a wheelchair biking along the highway, and it would make them think.

Also, when we went into campsites, we'd ask if they had an accessible shower, and they wouldn't, but then they'd say they should, and then they'd ask me what they could do. What would the shower need to be like?

I think the biggest thing is having more people with disabilities travelling to show the issues.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I appreciate your efforts. I'm sure that my colleagues are eager to learn more, based on your lived experience.

I'll turn it over to my colleague Mr. Coteau.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses today. Your perspective was very interesting.

I will join my colleague to congratulate you, Mr. Mills, on your accomplishment. Thank you for being with us today.

My question is to Mr. Lepofsky.

You talked about some of the recommendations that you made, and I think there were 10 recommendations. One of them was looking for ways to bring about a more coherent enforcement approach. You talked about the CRTC, the CTA and, I believe, the commissioner.

Can you talk a little bit more about how that would work in regard to your vision of enforcement?

[David Lepofsky]

I really appreciate the question.

Essentially, right now the law splinters implementation and enforcement among the three. They each have to make their own enforcement regulations and forms and stuff. They each set up their own procedures. They each have separate procedures for how they process complaints in their other work, and they're very different, so we essentially have to navigate three worlds.

Not only that: The same obligated organization can have some of its obligations under the Accessible Canada Act enforced by the accessibility commissioners and others by the CRTC or the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is impossible to figure this out.

In fact, the minister responsible for the bill, in speaking to the Senate, gave an illustration of this, which I recall related to airplanes. She actually got it wrong. I don't say that to be critical of her; it's to be sympathetic to her because it's so bloody hard to figure out.

Instead, how about we have one agency with a mandate to do all of this work, so it's one-stop shopping for obligated organizations and for individuals? It's one set of regulations instead of three. It will cost us less.

It also has an added advantage, which is that the CRTC and the Canadian Transportation Agency have very sorry records of implementing accessibility. They've had a mandate not for five years, but for decades, and they have done it really poorly.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Can I ask another follow-up question?

I know that a lot of responsibility lies at the municipal and provincial levels. I know you spend a lot of time working on that.

How do those relationships among the three levels of government work? Are there efficiencies there in regard to how the levels of government work together?

[David Lepofsky]

No, and I wouldn't expect there to be. We should all live long enough for it to happen. As a practical coalition trying to win results for people with disabilities who need action now, our best bet is to advocate to the provinces to handle the barriers they're facing and advocate to the federal government to address theirs.

However, the federal government has an incredible constitutionally valid power to influence at the provincial and municipal level, which is when it's giving out federal money. When it gave federal money to Toronto to build a subway extension up to York University and beyond, which opened before 2018, they used that money to design subway stations that are replete with disability barriers. We put out a video. It's widely viewed online. People can google “David Lepofsky public transit Toronto” and they'll see these barriers that we filmed and documented.

The federal government should be attaching strings that simply say that if you want their money, there can be no new barriers.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I think my time is up. Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

Ms. Chabot, you have six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My sincere thanks to all the witnesses for their excellent remarks.

My questions are for the COPHAN representatives.

Thank you for your participation today and your commitment to over one million French-speaking people with disabilities. That is a great deal of work.

COPHAN is a disability rights organization. We're talking about the Accessible Canada Act, which applies to services under federal jurisdiction.

What are the main barriers that the people you represent experience when accessing services that fall under federal jurisdiction?

[Paul Lupien]

I'll let Mr. Salgado answer that question.

[Dominique Salgado]

Good morning Mr. Chair.

Good morning everyone.

Thank you for that important question, Ms. Chabot.

Every single day, people with disabilities encounter difficulties and barriers. That may have to do with the fact that the principle of universal accessibility is not adhered to in various places across the country, Quebec, in our case. People with disabilities also face barriers when it comes to transportation, particularly air travel. Canadian border services aren't always accessible to people with functional limitations. Accessibility barriers exist in workplaces and businesses. It's a very long list.

COPHAN opted for an approach based on co-operation. Yes, the federal government's goal of making Canada barrier-free by 2040 has moved the needle in terms of improvements and ideas—and we are, of course, thankful for that—but support across the board is really what's necessary.

We also applaud the efforts and progress other provinces have made. For example, spaces in Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and British Columbia are much more accessible to people with disabilities than spaces in Quebec.

I want to draw something else to your attention, Ms. Chabot. As you know, the rate of disability in Canada is 27%, which is equivalent to eight million people. The rate of disability in Quebec is 21%. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Quebec is expected to see one of the biggest increases in the population of people 65 and older by 2031. That means the number of seniors will double, even triple, in some parts of Quebec.

We obviously would like to see coercive measures to remedy that lack of leadership in Quebec. There are laws, but they aren't respected. Here's a simple example. The national building code, which falls under federal jurisdiction, is not respected in Quebec, or at least very little. A contractor who fails to comply with Quebec's building code will get a slap on the wrist from their professional association and a $500 to $1,200 fine. That's it. In Ontario, the penalties are much harsher.

We'd like to see the work being done elsewhere serve as a model. To achieve a fair Canada, accessibility standards must be adhered to all over the country.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I have a follow-up question. As I think about what we heard from witnesses last week, I'd like to look at the broader context.

By the way, you're right about the aging population. That's actually why we are calling on the government to better support seniors, including seniors with disabilities.

Would you still say there's been a cultural change in attitude towards people with disabilities over time? I'm talking about society overall. We know that these people have fought for their rights. On the whole, has there been considerable progress in your view?

[Paul Lupien]

Ms. Chabot, what I would say is that it's really a problem in Quebec. I've said this a lot, including in radio interviews I've done all over the country, from the east coast to the west coast. I often commend provinces on the progress they've made. Quebec, unfortunately, has gotten rid of a number of services for people with disabilities, but they have access to medical assistance in dying—euthanasia, rather. That's our reality in Quebec.

We want the Accessible Canada Act to apply across the country. After all, the legislation is based on a UN convention to which Canada is a signatory. Nevertheless, we were forced to threaten the government with a complaint to the UN. Quebec has a responsibility and is required to adhere to the UN convention Canada signed. All too often, it isn't respected, so we have to use threats. It is only thanks to a complaint we submitted to the UN that the government did away with the retirement pension penalty in Quebec.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Certainly, there is room for improvement.

Nevertheless, what we're talking about here is the fact that the Accessible Canada Act isn't meeting its own objectives or doing its job at the federal level.

Besides the provincial disparities that may exist, does the Accessible Canada Act need more teeth? Should the act make it mandatory for companies that provide transportation or services to ensure accessibility, instead of just establishing standards those companies can choose to comply with or not? In other words, should the act be strengthened and include obligations around results, and perhaps even penalties?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

The time has gone.

Next is Mr. Cannings for six minutes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

It's good to have all of you here before us.

I'm Richard Cannings. I'm with the NDP, but I'm not the usual NDP person on this committee. I'm substituting today. It's been very interesting to hear this testimony.

I'm going to start with Ms. Hewitt in Kelowna. I happen to live over the hill in Penticton. I'm not over the hill myself, I hope.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

It's good to have someone from the Okanagan here before us, even virtually.

Ms. Hewitt, you made some very compelling statements, I think, particularly about the Canada disability benefit, when you suggested that one and a half million people should be receiving this benefit but only maybe a third of that number qualify. I've read elsewhere that only a few thousand people will actually be raised out of poverty because of this benefit.

Part of that problem, as you said, is the requirement around the disability tax credit, which is a very difficult credit to apply for. I know that probably all the MPs here, and certainly all my colleagues in the NDP caucus, have regular workshops to try to explain how to navigate that process of getting the disability tax credit. It's a very convoluted process.

I'm wondering if you could explain how you see this disability benefit and how people would qualify for it. What would be the simplest and most straightforward way for the government to make sure that we're actually raising people out of poverty?

[Michelle Hewitt]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here from the Okanagan as well.

As David mentioned—and I'm sorry, but my service dog has decided that our time is up, and you may hear a little bit from him in the background—the co-operation between federal and provincial levels just doesn't exist, but we have excellent systems, by and large, in the provincial systems, in comparison to the federal government, for getting people to jump through the hoops to be awarded provincial disability assistance payments.

We believe, as do many other disability organizations, as do some provincial governments, that once you've jumped through that hoop, that's enough, and you should be automatically eligible for the Canada disability benefit. Because the government is adamant that the only list they have of disabled people is the disability tax credit, that may mean that those people are made automatically eligible for the disability tax credit. It sounds so simple that it just floors me that it can't happen.

Again, it comes to this lack of ability for different levels of government to talk to each other. These responsibilities to stay siloed, and there's also the lack of imagination and the lack of drive to want to make this happen. You know, everybody working on this at the CRA in the government should be so embarrassed and working desperately hard to work out how those extra million people get this benefit, and that simply isn't happening.

I spend my days working on this as a volunteer for my organization, and we spend our time trying to come up with every method that we can. Can we do rolling workshops? Somebody suggested to me that we can use the army medical corps to roll through and get people signed up for the disability tax credit.

It's like filling Okanagan Lake with a teaspoon instead of a firehose. The firehose is getting people automatically signed up once they've already jumped through significant hoops at the provincial, territorial and federal levels, including, as I understand it, the people who already get CPPD—the Canada pension plan disability—who are not automatically eligible for the Canada disability benefit. You're receiving a federal disability benefit, and you still do not become automatically eligible.

You can hear my passion for this. We are desperately letting down severely and very severely disabled people who live in poverty.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hewitt.

Mr. Lepofsky, you said in your statement that you wouldn't have time to go over everything. I can give you the one minute I have left here to add anything that you haven't had the opportunity to outline so far.

[David Lepofsky]

In the 2019 election, the federal government commendably promised that they would apply a disability lens to all federal policies. Require that in the act.

In the Senate, the government made an amendment to the bill that actually hurts people with disabilities. It provides that even if you win a case against one of the huge airlines and you prove that they have a barrier, if the barrier was actually one that the government's own regulations allowed, which no federal regulation ever should, the CTA can't order one penny in damages. They can say to fix the barrier that the regulation should never have permitted, but they can't compensate the victims.

That should be out of this act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

Ms. Falk, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

My name is Rosemarie Falk. I'm from Saskatchewan. I'm a member of Parliament. I am a female with brown hair and I'm wearing a floral dress today.

I'd like to thank everybody for their testimony today and for taking the time to come here.

Mr. Lepofsky, I'll start with you just quickly, if that's all right. Thank you for your return to this committee and for your continued advocacy for persons with disabilities.

When you appeared at this committee during its considerations on Bill C-81, you raised concerns that the bill was “strong on intention but weak on enforcement and implementation ”.

Five years after the passage of this bill, and from your opening remarks, would you say that those concerns still stand?

[David Lepofsky]

Absolutely. In other words, the core frailties with the bill are exactly the ones we identified six years ago and sought to get corrected, as did a number of other disability organizations.