Evidence of meeting #75 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was audit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I agree with what my colleague has suggested. The time should be allocated equitably so that we don't have to go through what we experienced at the last meeting.
4:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I can leave. You will be in the chair, Madam.
Okay, we're using time. We normally go with two five-minute and two two-and-a-half minute rounds. However, we just have the one round, so there's been a suggestion that we continue with the same rotation, but for five minutes each.
Is there agreement? It would be five, five, five and five, instead of dropping to two and a half.
I can call for a vote on it. The committee tells me what it wants to do.
Seeing no objection—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Chair, just so I'm clear, are you saying you want to change the normal practice? Questions are done based on the number of elected officials from each party who are here. To have all four parties have the same amount of time isn't fair to the members at the table here.
I think we should continue on with the normal practice and the normal time we have. That's what's fair to the elected members who are sitting at the table here, with all due respect.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mrs. Gray, but I have a suggestion that seems to....
I can put it to a vote. The committee determines its own path forward on these issues. I don't want to belabour the point.
Is there a will to divide the time up equally—five, five, five and five—as we move forward?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Chair, I have a suggestion.
If we have one more round, let's—
4:50 p.m.
A voice
No.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Do we have two more rounds? I'm sorry. I thought you said one round.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
No. We're at 5:30 p.m. Then the committee can choose after 5:30 p.m. That's our allotment of time.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Just for clarity, can we do another round of however many minutes then? We can get two more rounds in. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The request was to continue with five, five, five and five, as we proceed through.
I don't see a consensus. Without consensus, I'm reluctant to move away from our usual practice.
We'll continue with what's agreed to.
Mrs. Falk, you have five minutes.
June 20th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We know this audit highlights some shortcomings in barrier-free transportation within Canada. We also know the Minister of Disability Inclusion intended on a framework legislative approach for Canada's accessibility act. That was Bill C-81, a couple of Parliaments ago. It leans almost entirely on regulations with that act.
I'm wondering about this: Are the regulations that have been developed sufficient to achieve the goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040, or are there regulatory or legislative changes that would need to be done in order to achieve that goal?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General
Thank you very much for the question.
I'm going to start off by saying that 2040 is a long time away. That's a long time for people living with disabilities to wait for those changes to be made.
With respect to changes of legislation, regulations and policies, those are decisions that are outside of our mandate. We look at the implementation of those regulations. My colleagues may have some insights into the effects and impact of the regulations. However, in terms of changes to those, that's something we typically don't do.
I'll ask my colleagues whether they have anything to add.
4:50 p.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
I'll maybe just add, as Ms. Thomas said, that 2040 is a long time away. We have seen some progress on the accessibility. We hope the progress continues and that it's front-loaded rather than making a lot more necessary progress closer to 2040. That's our hope.
We've identified, in our audit, a number of areas that we think can be improved. Given that the organizations we audited have agreed to the recommendations and have plans to make changes with reasonable timelines, we are cautiously optimistic that the area of accessibility will continue to positively move forward and, hopefully, at a good pace.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Director, Office of the Auditor General
I could add something quickly.
We looked at two regulations. The first regulation is kind of the standard or the baseline. The second regulation is the detailed one where each one can identify its barriers in consultation with persons with disabilities. If the tools of consultation with persons with disabilities are used to identify what the gaps are and what the ways forward are to fix those gaps, those regulations can be used to move the stakes forward quite a lot.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you very much.
As Mr. Long mentioned, I was here during Bill C-81. I was very frustrated with it because it seemed like it came in at the eleventh hour. We had to just pass it and get it done.
We were very much focused on accountability, understanding that, when we are consulting with persons with disabilities, sometimes that will look different. It doesn't necessarily mean that we're sitting in a room having a conversation. There could be aides involved from various levels, even when we look at how people can get to the consultation point. Obviously, that was pre-COVID, and the virtual realm wasn't as adapted everywhere.
I also want to ask how CATSA did not know that the regulations required its management to take accessibility training. It's quite alarming to me that it wasn't understood that this should be done, especially when we have a.... This is a culture change. This is something that needs to be discussed, and it has to be at the forefront. That accessibility lens has to be put on there. I'm just wondering why it wouldn't know that this was something that needed to be done.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Office of the Auditor General
It's something that could be asked of CATSA. What we do know, though, is that the service that is delivered by CATSA is delivered by third party contractor services. That might be a reason that it was more difficult to see what applied to CATSA, the Crown corporation, versus people on the floor who are not CATSA's employees but, really, third party security-screening contractors.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Would that be too many middlemen in between or we don't really know?