Human Resources Committee on June 20th, 2023

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

Welcome to meeting number 75 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, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Today all members and witnesses are appearing in person in the room.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to remind committee members to wait until I recognize you by name. Do that by simply raising your hand to get my attention, since everybody is in the room, and I will, along with the clerk, maintain a speaking order.

You have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available by using the headset in the room. I would remind all those participating that, if there is a loss of translation services, please get my attention and we'll suspend while that is corrected.

No screenshots are allowed to be taken in the room while the meeting is in session.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the decision made by the committee on Tuesday, June 13, the committee will receive a briefing from the Office of the Auditor General on accessible transportation for persons with disabilities.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. As you are aware, the Auditor General, due to a family situation, is not available to be with us today. The assistant auditor general Ms. Thomas is here. Mr. Duvnjak, principal, is with us. Susie Fortier, director, is with us as well. Welcome.

We will start with the opening statement from Ms. Thomas for five minutes, after which we will open the floor to questions. Since we have only one panel today, we'll just keep going around.

With that, Ms. Thomas, you have the floor.

[Casey Thomas, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our report on accessible transportation for persons with disabilities, which was tabled in the House of Commons on March 27.

I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Joining me today are Milan Duvnjak, the principal who was responsible for the audit, and Susie Fortier, the director who led the audit team.

This audit looked at whether VIA Rail, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and the Canadian Transportation Agency worked to identify, remove, and prevent barriers for travellers with disabilities. In 2019 and 2020, more than a million persons with disabilities who travelled on a federally regulated mode of transportation faced a barrier.

We found that all three organizations had identified some barriers and taken steps to improve accessibility. VIA Rail held consultations with persons with disabilities while designing its new fleet. It also consulted on its accessibility plan and training programs, as did the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

However, improvements were still needed in many important areas. For example, online information was not fully accessible. According to Statistics Canada, this is one of the barriers most frequently experienced by travellers with disabilities. Poor accessibility means that information is difficult to find or is incorrect for someone using a screen reader. This makes it difficult for persons with disabilities to plan or book a trip by themselves.

We also found that staff and management did not always complete accessibility training. This can affect the service provided to travellers with disabilities and their companions.

As the organization responsible for enforcing accessibility regulations in the transportation industry, the Canadian Transportation Agency identified accessibility barriers through its inspections, and it worked with transportation service providers to remove some. However, we found that the agency conducted few inspections, and it could only request complaint data from service providers in certain circumstances. Consistent access to this data would help the agency improve its oversight.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and Via Rail focused on resolving individual complaints, and they missed opportunities to use complaint data to better understand travellers' lived experiences.

Every person has a right to participate fully and equally in society. If access to these rights is delayed or denied, the impact is that some members of society are excluded or left behind.

To further improve the accessibility of trains, planes and other federally regulated modes of transportation, responsible organizations need to broaden their consultations with persons with disabilities, make their online content fully accessible, and use complaint data to identify, learn about and prevent barriers. This work is necessary to achieve the federal government's goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

We will now begin the questioning with Mrs. Gray, for six minutes, please.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for being here today from the AG's office.

In your opening statement you mentioned staff training and mandatory training for both managers and executives. I'm looking at the numbers from your audit. They're quite high on how many executives and managers, in particular, either took the mandatory accessible training late or didn't actually fulfill that mandatory training.

In your experience, how would you rate the mandatory training compliance at these transportation agencies compared to other agencies that maybe you've audited over time?

[Casey Thomas]

Thank you so much for the question. I will start the answer, and then I will ask if Milan or Susie has anything to add.

You're absolutely right. Training is critical. Training helps people to develop their skills in order to deliver their services. It improves awareness and understanding, and helps to remove unconscious bias. When it comes to management, they have that additional responsibility of being supervisors. In addition to building their skills, they need to support those who are in those positions and roles.

With respect to Via Rail in particular, 39% of their managers and executives took the training late, and an additional 17% had not taken the training at all at the time of our audit. I do believe that has since changed. I will ask my colleagues to give you an update on that.

We did see that improvements needed to be made. Therefore, we would say that they need to do better.

I'll pass it over to Milan.

[Milan Duvnjak, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

I'll add to Ms. Thomas's answer.

We do know for Via, for example, that most of the managers have taken most of the training—if not all of it. That's our latest information. I'll add also that Via had made accessibility training mandatory for all management. That's a positive. As Ms. Thomas stated, we did see that some training was not taken on time, but there have been some positive developments since then.

For CATSA, we did note that the training was mandatory for most of the managers, except for the managers who were not working directly with persons with disabilities. For example, a manager in charge of maintaining certain aspects, who didn't have frontline support, was not supposed to take that training. We made the recommendation that in our view all management should take the training.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I guess part of that as well was that this is mandatory training that comes through the regulator. I know from working previously in the financial sector that there was mandatory training we had to do as board, executive and then staff, and it was really pressed on us to make sure that we met those deadlines.

Where's the accountability here? I guess that would be my question. Is this something that you've seen in other audits that you've done in other industries where there's mandatory training for different things that maybe isn't fulfilled? Who's ultimately accountable for that?

[Casey Thomas]

Again, it's a good question in terms of accountability, because you're absolutely right. Managers and executives need to hold themselves accountable. During the course of our audit, we found that they were receptive to what we brought to them, and they were made aware of these important responsibilities.

I'll ask Susie or Milan if they have anything additional on that.

[Susie Fortier, Director, Office of the Auditor General]

We did make the recommendation that they ensure that their staff and their manager be trained. The specific regulation requires an update in training, a refresher every three years, so they will have an opportunity to demonstrate if they are taking up the recommendation on time with the oversight of the regulator.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Just to tie on to that as well, presumably it would be the regulator who would hold them to account, and that would be the Canadian Transportation Agency. Is that right? It would be the regulator who would press on them and hold them to account. Is that correct?

[Susie Fortier]

It's part of this, yes, as well as their accessibility plans. As part of their accessibility plans, they can define their timelines and their process, which has an accountability component from the review and consultation of persons with disabilities. They're also accountable to their client and to the population.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Ultimately, it would be the minister who would hold the regulator to account, who then would hold those they oversee accountable. Would that not be a sort of chain of command, I guess you would say, for holding people to account?

[Casey Thomas]

In terms of the chain of command, I would start with the executives and management within the agency itself. It's important that they hold themselves accountable and that they understand the importance of training. This isn't just a tick-box exercise. That training is an important element of what they do in order to support their clients.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

To add on to that, why would you think these particular organizations might have been lax? Did you get any sense, when you did their audit, as to why they were lax in this particular training? Was there a real rationale? Maybe it wasn't a priority or they were focused on other things. Do you have a sense as to why this wasn't a priority for them?

[Milan Duvnjak]

We spoke to them, of course, when we examined this, but there was no specific reason the training wouldn't have been taken. As I mentioned just before, both organizations had identified mandatory training for all or most of their management.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

Mr. Long, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act, I think was one of the most profound and transformational pieces of legislation that we've passed. I know that MP Chabot was involved. I think MP Falk was involved in earlier HUMA days. Obviously, Minister Qualtrough was. It's life-changing for Canadians.

It was passed in 2019 with a goal to basically have Canada barrier-free by 2040. It hit home to me when I had a constituent come into my office before we passed that act. They literally couldn't get on a bus. They were in a wheelchair. They couldn't access the bus.

For those listening in, the many people listening in today, this covers the federal government, obviously, and then organizations that are regulated by the federal government. Just for the record, it's banks, airlines, phone companies, trucking, rail, shipping and what have you.

There's just one point I want to make before I ask questions. The Accessible Canada Act is good for everybody. Ramps and elevators obviously help the disabled, but they're also there to help people who are elderly or to help a mother with a stroller. Signs that are easily legible help people who are learning new languages. Captions on TV help people in a busy, loud airport.

The things that we will do, things that we will legislate, are good for all Canadians, but I mean, it's going to be a while. Obviously, there's great work happening and we're going to get there, but it will take time. It will take a lot of work from all Canadians.

My first question for you, Ms. Thomas, would be about how in the audit you found that while Via Rail and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority consulted with persons with disabilities on their projects, persons with disabilities continue to face ongoing challenges, such as websites that are not accessible. Can you elaborate on that finding, please? Thank you.

[Casey Thomas]

Thank you very much for the question.

Online is often a place where many travellers start their journey. Travellers will expect complete and clear information. Persons with disabilities also need complete, clear and accessible information. This makes the experience equitable for persons with disabilities.

What we found during the course of our audit was that 17% of the online criteria in relation to Via Rail had not been met. Some of this information may not have affected a traveller's journey or a traveller's ability to book, but some of it would have.

For example, a person with a disability or a person using a screen reader may get a wrong departure time, which could obviously affect their ability to plan their journey. We also found that in information for persons using a wheelchair it wasn't always easy to find the accessibility in the stations. It would require a person to click on each station to determine where and how they were going to able to manoeuvre around the stations.

With respect to CATSA, we also looked at their online criteria and found that about 15% were not met. With respect to CATSA, it was difficult to find out for a person travelling how they were going to get through security. This might not affect how they were going to plan their journey, but it definitely could cause stress for the traveller when they were arriving at a station and when they were trying to get to the next place they needed to be.

I'll ask Milan if there's anything to add.

[Milan Duvnjak]

I'll just add that we tested a large portion of these online criteria. We have the numbers in here. We used international standards, which are basically around the four principles: perceivable, understandable, operable and robust. Those are the principles we tested against.

As Ms. Thomas said, not all of the 17% and 15% were crucial. For example, a description of the Canadian flag not being available is not going to stop somebody from travelling, but not knowing at which stations or where you can access rest stops, that is something that's important.

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

Thank you for that.

Being in HUMA, when I travel, I'm always looking at the airports, or what have you, as to who has what and what's missing. Obviously, there still remain many challenges for persons with disabilities.

Would you agree this indicates there are issues with the consultation process? Can you share your thoughts on that?

[Casey Thomas]

I'll start off, then I'll pass it over to my colleague to add a bit of detail.

Consultation needs to be meaningful, accessible and inclusive. We found that both Via Rail and CATSA had consultation processes that included persons with disabilities in order to get their input. Having said this, we were unable to determine with Via Rail whether that input was actually used in part of the development of their accessibility plan.

I'm going to pass it over to Madam Fortier to add a bit of detail.

[Susie Fortier]

We looked at the consultation process for those two entities. The regulation requires that consultation be done for the accessibility plan for all transportation service providers. However, in our audit, we only looked at the two Crown corporations.

The other transportation service providers need to have their accessibility plans later, in the upcoming months and years, so we didn't look at their consultation process and how the information was used.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Thomas, thank you for having travelled to inform the committee about the audit you prepared.

It gives me the opportunity to tell you that the audits provided by the Office of the Auditor General on various matters are invaluable for accountability purposes. They shed light on various situations for parliamentarians .

This audit is informative. However, as I was reading it, I felt that I would like to know more about it. I understand that you may not be able to tell us much more.

As you said in your address, there are after all a million people with disabilities who have encountered barriers. These people are of course not a homogeneous group. Some have a mental disability and others a physical disability, such as blindness, while others face mobility and accessibility problems. For example, people in wheelchairs require ramps.

Of these barriers, which are the most pressing and need to be better known? I understand that it was difficult for you and your office to identify them concretely. However, if we want to eliminate these barriers, which is the objective, it's important to be able to target them more clearly. It's rather like when you read a good book, and it leads you to want to know a little more. What do you feel are the major barriers being faced by persons with disabilities who use the major carriers?