Human Resources Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Committee members, attention, please, as we are going to begin today's meeting. The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum and that the witnesses appearing virtually have been tested, and all have been approved.

This is meeting number 127 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, meaning members, as well as witnesses, are appearing virtually.

I would like to make a few comments before we begin.

Please direct all questions through me, the chair. Wait until I recognize you by name before you speak.

To get my attention, for those in the room, please raise your hand. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon at the bottom of your screen.

You have the option to participate in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation services are available, using your headset. For those appearing virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and select the language of your choice.

If there is an interruption in interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

As well, here is a reminder for all those participating in the room—and I'll be the first—to please turn off any alarms on your devices before the meeting begins, and refrain from tapping the mic. It does cause popping, which can be harmful to the interpreters.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 8, 2024, the committee resumes its study of Canada without barriers by 2040.

Before I introduce the witnesses, we have some new members joining us today. We have Mrs. Stubbs, Mr. Majumdar, and Madame Bérubé. Welcome. Bienvenue.

From Level Playing Field Incorporated, we have Thea Kurdi, accessibility educator and policy strategist, by video conference.

From March of Dimes Canada, we have Amanda MacKenzie, national director, external affairs, by video conference.

From the Wavefront Centre for Communication Accessibility, we have Christopher Sutton, chief executive officer, also by video conference.

Each of you will have five minutes for opening comments.

We'll begin the five-minute opening comments with Mr. Sutton.

[Christopher T. Sutton, Chief Executive Officer, Wavefront Centre for Communication Accessibility]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today on behalf of Wavefront Centre for Communication Accessibility.

As a national leader in communication accessibility, we represent the interests and needs of people who are deaf, deaf-blind and hard of hearing. It is critical that any vision of Canada without barriers by 2040 consider the specific challenges and unique accessibility needs of this community.

My name is Christopher Sutton. I'm wearing a dark suit with a baby blue shirt and navy tie. I have a short beard, dark hair and am wearing glasses. I serve as the CEO for Wavefront Centre, and it's been an honour to address this committee in the past as an expert on accessibility.

Throughout my career, I've had the privilege of working to advance the rights and opportunities for people with disabilities across corporate, non-profit and government sectors. This work is deeply personal to me as it comes from my own experience growing up with barriers and my desire to ensure that others do not face the same challenges.

Despite my education and my professional success, I continue to navigate daily challenges as someone living with an invisible disability. This ongoing reality drives my commitment to creating a more inclusive and accessible society for everyone.

I previously appeared before this committee during its review of Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. At that time, along with many others in the disability community, I expressed strong support for the bill's passage. Although recommendations were made to strengthen it, the act was seen largely as a significant step forward in creating a barrier-free and accessible Canada.

Now, over five years after the passage of the Accessible Canada Act, we are seeing this impact take shape through the development and adoption of standards. A key outcome has been the introduction of accessibility legislation in other jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, which is modelled after the federal act. These jurisdictions sought leadership and support from the federal government and the bodies established under the act as they created their own standards and regulations.

In my community, we've also seen an increase in the demand for sign language interpretation, captioning and other communication access. I believe this was due to the visibility of these services during the pandemic, which has made it a common practice for emergency and other situations. This demand has been positive, but at the same time has created bottlenecks in providing the level of services to meet the overall needs and demands of the community.

While progress is evident, much work remains to be done to fully realize a vision of an accessible Canada. Last week was International Week of Deaf Persons, a global celebration observed to show the significance of the deaf community. It was really exciting that the deaf flag was raised in Ottawa and many other cities across Canada. It is a powerful symbol of growing visibility and national recognition.

Still, we all know that my appearance before this committee was cancelled due to accessibility barriers. This highlights the complexity to access but also reflects the necessary cultural challenges of being aware of potential issues and finding solutions to ensure that everyone can have equitable access.

Despite the advances made, particularly since the implementation of the Accessible Canada Act, we still have a long journey to achieve a barrier-free society by 2040. Our communities continue to encounter challenges that require substantial attention, resources and action. The unfortunate events of last week serve as a reminder that accessibility is not just an aspiration but a fundamental right, demanding a collective commitment to dismantling barriers that remain.

In the following, I'll highlight some key areas that we believe are necessary for people who are deaf, deaf-blind and hard of hearing so they can fully participate in all aspects of Canada without barriers.

Communication is a fundamental right in order to participate in society. For individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing, everyday interactions, whether accessing services, attending school, going to the doctor or participating in the workforce, can be negatively impacted by communication barriers. While Canada has made great steps, accessibility to employment, education and public services continues to be a challenge each day.

At Wavefront, we recognize and see these barriers that individuals face daily and their inability to participate in their communities or advance their careers due to lack of appropriate accommodations.

To address this, we've advocated increased investment in technologies such as captioning, sign language interpretation services and audio accessibility technologies. Beyond technologies, we must ensure that service providers, employers and institutions understand how to support communication access and make it a priority.

For people who are deaf-blind, the barriers are even more complex. A colleague of mine who will be presenting today will go into the challenges of this community in more detail. You'll learn how these individuals face isolation, which can lead to significant challenges in addressing essential services like health care and social support. The pathway to Canada without barriers must include targeted strategies for supporting the deaf-blind community through programs that provide specialized training, tactile communication methods, intervenor services and other personalized support services.

I'm just going to highlight a few more items that we believe are necessary to achieve a barrier-free Canada around 2040. I've submitted my notes in advance, so you'll be able to read about these items in more detail.

We are advocating and encourage expanded funding for sign language interpretation and intervenor services.

We also want to see the funding expanded for specialized training and professional development for sign language interpreters and intervenors. This is not only to allow them to enhance their skills to interpret in these specialized areas but also to allow deaf individuals who use sign language to gain meaningful employment in these areas of work; they may be unable to do so because they don't have the specialized interpreting services provided for them.

We also believe it's important to expand funding for technology and infrastructure development. This is to allow broadband Internet and other services to support video relay services and remote interpreting platforms in remote communities or in areas where Internet connectivity remains a challenge.

We also, as with interpreting services, require advanced funding for captioning and interpreting training programs, because there are very few programs in this country at this time.

We believe in the stronger enforcement of accessibility standards across private and public sectors.

We want to see inclusive design in education and employment to ensure that people who are deaf, deaf-blind and hard of hearing have equitable access to opportunities.

Finally, the Hearing Health Alliance of Canada proposed a road map. We urge the Government of Canada to develop and adopt a comprehensive national hearing health care strategy. This strategy will ensure that hearing health is prioritized across the country and addresses the gaps in service delivery, awareness and accessibility.

Finally, we ask the committee to ensure that this work is not done in silos and that you continue to use the philosophy of “nothing about us without us”. We encourage you to consider the changes needed and to recognize the importance of ongoing consultation with the communities impacted by the decisions you make. It is essential that voices of the community and people with disabilities are heard throughout this process, ensuring the needs are reflected in policy development and implementation.

Thank you for the time today and for including the perspectives of organizations like Wavefront Centre for Communication Accessibility in this important conversation. Together, we can work toward a Canada where no one is left behind due to communication barriers.

I thank you again and look forward to addressing any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Sutton.

We'll now move to Ms. Kurdi for five minutes. You have the floor.

[Thea Kurdi, Accessibility Educator and Policy Strategist, Level Playing Field Incorporated]

Thank you so much.

I know I'm not in the room today, but if you would please put your phones down, that would be appreciated.

My name is Thea Kurdi—pronouns she/her—and I'm a late middle-aged woman with short white hair. I'm also a first-generation settler of European and South Asian descent, and like over eight million, or 27%, of Canadians I am disabled, with several invisible disabilities, including hearing loss, which means you can't tell just by looking at me. I identify using identity-first language as my disabilities are integral to who I am.

Thank you to MP Bonita Zarrillo for inviting me back to speak to this committee, this time to share my 24 years of career experience as a built environment accessibility specialist and as a board member of the Universal Design Network of Canada.

Throughout my career I have seen and heard it all. I have completed accessibility drawing reviews on projects of all sizes and types, including the West Block; conducted countless building audits, including Parliament Hill; and contributed to accessibility design guidelines for large corporations in all levels of government, including the UA standards for the parliamentary precinct.

I've also developed courses like the Introduction to Successful Accessible Design for the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, and authored articles on accessibility in urban planning, and because I'm obviously lazy, I also worked part-time as a post-secondary instructor for 17 years in the architectural program at Sheridan College, and since then for seven years as a guest lecturer at many universities and colleges, all the while presenting at conferences across Canada and around the world about accessibility in universal design.

First, please note that I agree and endorse the recommendations you received from the AODA Alliance.

Accessibility is a lot more than just buildings and outdoor spaces, but our buildings, cities and outdoor spaces are the physical infrastructure that either supports or sabotages all of the other accessibility policies and goals.

Unfortunately, we're already off track. With only 15 years and three months left until the 2040 deadline, we need decisive, motivated action to avoid failing as badly as Ontario will have done by the end of this year.

For 40 years, since we changed the Canadian charter and human rights code, it's not that there's design or accessible design; legally, it's a choice between good design for everyone or discrimination. The failure to adequately address accessibility is a failure to uphold the principles of equity and justice.

Our failure and reluctance to quickly adopt specific, modern, evidence-based disability inclusion requirements for more than manual wheelchair users into our building legislation not only perpetuates inequity but also stifles economic growth.

Accessibility is what in part the Conference Board of Canada has projected will unlock $16.8 billion in GDP by increasing our economy's productivity capacity. Accessibility in design opens markets like tourism and attracts and keeps a diverse, skilled workforce, and of course customers.

However, we are each worth more than our economy can measure. Inaccessibility is hurting people, families and communities every day that we allow barriers to persist and new barriers to be created. Inclusivity not only enriches our communities; it strengthens our social fabric.

The current piecemeal, out-of-date and deficient requirements for accessibility in building codes and procurement speak volumes. They trap too many people into lives of poverty, with unsuitable or no housing. To this day, there remains no alignment between our building code and the enshrined rights of the Canadian charter and the human rights code. Rewriting our building code will finally make accessibility a fundamental and integral ingredient from the start.

To this day, the building code still exempts most housing from accessibility and doesn't include visitability or age-in-place requirements. No amount of building certifications that certify nothing or building code harmonization will address these problems. We must stop token gestures and superficial changes. Real progress means a budget for our post-secondary and continuing education programs to retrain faculty and have supervised program redesigns.

There are also too many outdated and conflicting policies and programs that bureaucracy and gatekeepers are hanging onto. Government staff and obligated organizations seem to lack the knowledge, power or courage to make decisions that fully address accessibility. As long as enforcement is not used, people will continue to not take this act seriously. General misunderstandings happen because without alignment, these codes, policies and standards provide only minimum accessibility—a floor that cannot be fallen through, not the ceiling this act requires.

Also, many use the CSA's B651, the national building code and ASC standards only as goals, with no motivation to do better. Many use budgets and value engineering to do the bare minimum, treating accessibility in the built environment as a budgetary concern rather than the human rights issue it is.

In conclusion, we believe those with lived experiences are important to hear from, but we also need to leverage the expertise of experienced accessibility specialists in all of the areas the act covers. They will help you achieve your goals. Commit, please, to decisive action now to ensure we help people as soon as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you for your opening comments.

We'll now go to Amanda MacKenzie, from March of Dimes Canada.

You have five minutes.

[Amanda MacKenzie, National Director, External Affairs, March of Dimes Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for inviting March of Dimes Canada to speak to this committee today.

My name is Amanda MacKenzie. I'm the national director of external affairs at March of Dimes Canada, or MODC, a leading national charity and service provider for people with disabilities. I'm a white woman in her forties with glasses and brown hair, wearing a blue blouse, a black jacket and a silver necklace.

It's a pleasure to be here today, and I'd like to thank MP Falk for the motion to conduct this study.

Achieving full inclusion and accessibility is, to be sure, a great challenge, and we must be successful. We're just three months away from when Ontario, according to the AODA, is required to be a fully accessible and inclusive jurisdiction. There was a 20-year runway, and as Thea just noted, Ontario is far from achieving that goal. Canada cannot make the same mistakes and has to learn from the Ontario experience of making few improvements while waiting years for standards.

Today, I'll discuss two priorities in the road map to 2040: the built environment from a homes perspective, and the design and delivery of accessible programs and services.

MODC's central concern with the built environment is regarding accessible homes. We have successfully administered Ontario's provincially funded home and vehicle modification program for over 20 years, and we recently began administering Manitoba's new safe and healthy home for seniors program. They're incredibly successful programs because they provide direct grants, not tax credits, to people with disabilities with lower incomes to modify their homes, ensuring accessibility and independence in their own communities.

The federal government has a substantial role to play in increasing the supply of accessible homes through standards and policy, such as ensuring that all homes in the upcoming housing design catalogue are universally designed. It can also provide direct and targeted grants for home modifications to help people with disabilities remain in their homes, reducing pressures in other housing categories ahead of national standards being finalized, which could be years away.

The second priority I want to speak to is the design and delivery of accessible programs and services.

The best example of how government ensures that programs and services are inaccessible for those they're meant to serve is the use of the disability tax credit for people with disabilities to access financial security programs like the RDSP, the disability supplement for the Canada workers benefit and the incoming Canada disability benefit. Simply put, the goals of these programs are not going to be reached if they're not accessible for the people they're designed for.

With the CDB, the Canada disability benefit, we have a tremendous opportunity to build in fully accessible program design and delivery from the start, and we don't have to guess how to do it. The CRA's disability advisory committee, MODC and Prosper Canada's “A Benefit without Barriers” report, and the experience of other jurisdictions and people with disabilities have provided advice and guidance, yet here we are again.

National standards are important and can guide decision-making about future program and service design and delivery. While the national standard now in development may present an improvement down the road, it doesn't mean we stop the car and turn it off until that road appears. We know enough now—and people with disabilities have been teaching government for years—about how to make public programs accessible. It's time the government really listens and begins co-designing accessible programs and services with people with disabilities—now.

The final lesson to learn is that in order to be compliant with the Accessible Canada Act, companies and federally regulated industries are really coming to organizations like mine to review their accessibility plans and progress reports for free. We no longer live in a world where people with disabilities and organizations like mine are grateful just to be included and consulted. At MODC, we're asked at least once a week, but we don't have the capacity to do this without compensation. People with disabilities and their organizations must be compensated for review of accessibility plans and progress reports. This is one way to make “nothing about us without us” real for federally regulated sectors. Ideally, the ACA will be amended to require compensation, placing the responsibility on the companies to pay, as it's their job to become accessible and inclusive as participants in our economy.

Finally, I want to thank Canada's chief accessibility officer, Stephanie Cadieux; MP Chabot; and MP Zarrillo for opening the conversation in this study last week about the continuing culture shift and the end to ableism that are truly needed in order to be an inclusive and accessible society.

The questions we should be asking ourselves here—and everywhere—are about “How can we?”. How can we reach and teach people who don't have an experience of disability? How can we be allies in our personal and professional lives? Lastly, how can government act as a true ally, using all levers at its disposal to make progress on this shift?

I'll leave you with those questions and I'm happy to answer yours.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. MacKenzie.

We will now go to the first round of questioning, beginning with Mrs. Falk for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

First of all, my name is Rosemarie Falk. I am from Saskatchewan. I am female. I'm in my thirties. I am wearing a black blazer and green blouse today. I want to thank each of you for taking the time to not only share some of your experiences but also your testimony as a whole today.

Ms. MacKenzie, I would like to start with you, if possible.

When this committee was considering the Accessible Canada Act, the March of Dimes provided a written submission that raised concerns about the bill's lack of timelines and deadlines for implementing key requirements. This was a concern that was echoed by many of the witnesses, and unfortunately, amendments to the bill were in large part rejected by the Liberal government.

Does the March of Dimes still have concerns around the lack of dates and deadlines in the act?

[Amanda MacKenzie]

Thank you for the question.

I think from my remarks you can tell that this is a theme. We don't have the deadlines. To be frank, even if we did, if we look at the Ontario experience, we see we have a deadline in Ontario that's not being met.

What are the consequences of not meeting those deadlines? There don't really seem to be many, other than possibly public opinion about the lack of compliance with the government's own legislation. I think amendments to this legislation to put in some actual deadlines and requirements for meeting them would be certainly well received by us.

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

To follow up on that, from your perspective, how has the absence of those deadlines and timelines prevented our progression to a barrier-free Canada for those with disabilities?

[Amanda MacKenzie]

I think a lack of timelines gives those who are developing standards—and I'm not going to say Accessibility Standards Canada isn't doing a good job, because they are—some time to take time, and I find that a bit challenging.

What it also does, as I said in my remarks, is leave open the space for not making improvements and not taking current knowledge and guidance that have been provided to government on accessibility and inclusion and implementing them now, instead of waiting for standards to be developed.

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

For sure, it somewhat takes away the accountability of those who are getting the work done.

The March of Dimes also flagged concerns with the responsibility for enforcement being divided among the three agencies—the CRTC, the CTA and the accessibility commissioner.

Would you still recommend that the enforcement responsibilities be under one agency as opposed to several silos?

[Amanda MacKenzie]

Yes, I think it should be. Silos are never a good idea. I see that in my day-to-day work, and I'm sure everybody is familiar with the impact of siloed work, which just creates delays and confusion. The idea is certainly to have one place where we're doing compliance.

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

Would you say that having these separate silos and the shared responsibility has created confusion or hindered the complaint process when someone comes across a barrier?

[Amanda MacKenzie]

On this question, I'm going to say I don't know the answer. I'm not sure. I haven't dug into compliance and what the complaints are. We have done a little bit of work on the CRTC side with some of our communications companies out there, and they are confused about compliance. Having it under one roof would be a much better idea, and if that could be an amendment, I'd be delighted with that.

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

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Sutton, when the Accessible Canada Act was being considered in this committee, you were representing a different organization, but you did testify that the bill needed timelines and deadlines. Is this still an area of concern for you?

[Christopher T. Sutton]

Yes, I do think, as Amanda just said, that timelines are critical. At the same time, when we think of timelines, in the example of Ontario, this world is rapidly changing. We are living with phenomenal advances in technology, etc., and really being able to focus on those and make sure they're accessible in design from the outset is very critical. I think the aspiration of putting a timeline out there is great, but at the same time, we need to be looking at accessibility across the board and how to make it consistent.

When we look at the development of standards with Accessibility Standards Canada and so forth, we really have to commend them, because they are taking an approach that no other organization has really done. They've taken these standards and are using the community, by bringing the community together with other stakeholders, to develop these. As a result, they're taking much longer to be developed because we want to make sure it's being done with the community and getting the feedback that's needed there.

I do think that while timelines are critical, they might not always be able to be met because it's such an inclusive process.

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

That's for sure. Thank you.

At our last meeting, I had the opportunity to ask some questions regarding mandatory accessibility training. When we had the CEO from Air Canada here, we saw that this is something that seems to be absent at its executive level.

Do you think that accessibility training is something that should be mandated in order to be changing that culture that was suggested earlier, the culture in society?

[Christopher T. Sutton]

Yes. Mandated training is very critical. When we think of how to make changes in society, the changes need to be driven throughout the whole organization—top down, bottom up, etc. We want to make sure that this is not just a check mark, an initiative driven by human resources or something. It needs to create a culture. We need to live in a society where inclusivity and accessibility are embedded.

Training is one aspect, and something that's very critical. This is something we need to focus on and do better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Next we have Mr. Long for six minutes, please.

I would ask committee members to identify to whom they are directing their questions.

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

Good morning, colleagues, and thank you to our witnesses.

My name is Wayne Long. I have been a member of Parliament since 2015 for the beautiful riding of Saint John—Rothesay. That's in southern New Brunswick. I'm wearing a blue blazer, blue shirt with white polka dots, and I have brownish-grey messy hair again this morning, unfortunately.

Before I start, I do want to apologize on behalf of the committee to Mr. Sutton for the problem that happened last week. That was unacceptable. We all know that, and we need to do better, so I apologize.

I just have a few comments. My riding of Saint John—Rothesay, obviously, is in an old city. It's an old historic city with many old beautiful buildings. Many of the businesses are in those buildings. I've become keenly aware that a large percentage of those buildings are just not accessible. I mentioned last meeting that we have a friend who's in a wheelchair. Everybody means well, but you just don't give it the thought. We were going to go to a restaurant with him, but we really struggled to find one in uptown Saint John that he could go to with us, because the restaurants simply weren't accessible.

I'm a proud member of HUMA. I've been with HUMA since 2015. In 2019, MP Falk, MP Chabot and I were part of that group that brought in Bill C-81 with Minister Qualtrough at the time. We're very proud of that legislation, the Accessible Canada Act. To all of your points on being barrier free by 2040, we're almost in 2025. We've got a better part of 15 years to get this right, and you've all touched on it, but I want to start with you, Mrs. Kurdi.

Everybody on this committee wants to get there. We know we need to get there. Mr. Lepofsky said at the last meeting that we've got a lot of groundwork to cover to get there.

Mrs. Kurdi, I wouldn't say we need to correct our course, but what can we do immediately to make sure that we hit our goal of 2040? Give me three things that you think we need to do right away.

[Thea Kurdi]

Three things that we can do right away are these: One, we've got to get accessibility—and we have to stop waiting to try to be perfect—fixed in our building codes. This is critical to not only pre-planning, when we do our space planning, but to all of the rest of our budgeting. It has to be in the legislation.

Having additional accessibility standards is useful for the things that fall outside of the jurisdiction for the building codes, but the building codes themselves have to be rewritten. We've spent too much time tinkering with a small section that has been designated to accessibility. It has to be rewritten from top to bottom, because disability is a part of the human experience in everybody's lives. You're either born with a disability or you get a disability through illness, accident or aging. Fixing the building codes is priority one.

Two, you must use enforcement, and use the penalties, if necessary, that are written into the act. Nobody is taking this act seriously—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Kurdi, we have lost interpretation services.

There's an echo coming from the sound in your room, so we'll suspend for two minutes while it's being checked.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mrs. Kurdi.

[Thea Kurdi]

It's about getting back to fixing the building code. “Guidelines” is not the right word. People don't understand standards or parts of legislation.

Enforcement is critical. Without enforcement, people are not scared. When the act was first passed, everybody was on their toes, ready to act. Unfortunately, as they started to become comfortable—and we saw this over the last 20 years in Ontario—they got settled into thinking that maybe this wasn't urgent. They didn't take it seriously.

As a long-time educator, I agree with Amanda and everybody else who said in their testimony that it's about breaking this down into smaller, achievable deadlines that people can hit, knowing they're going to be accountable through the accessibility commissioner. This is an arm's-length position that is already in the act. We need to be using the commissioner in the same effective way we've been using Stephanie Cadieux, the chief accessibility officer.

Lastly, in terms of education, we live in a systemically ableist society, unfortunately, with a great deal of bias about what disabled people can or should do. This is getting in the way a great deal. I would like to see investment in training the next generation of designers and clients in order to make sure they understand that accessibility is better for their business and an integral part of what it is to be Canadian.