Public Accounts Committee on April 17th, 2023

[France Pégeot]

This is in the context of air passenger protection. It's not in the context of accessibility.

When an incident happens, it could be within the control of the airline; it could be within the control of the airline but required for safety, or it could be outside the control of the airline. For example, something outside its control would be a snowstorm.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You're very welcome. Thank you.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Pégeot, I have only two and a half minutes, so I'm going to ask a pretty broad question, but I'd like you to be as specific as you can.

You said the current regulations were somewhat restrictive. What would you recommend in terms of changing the legislation, both to provide quality service to Quebeckers and Canadians and to foster a more competitive system?

[France Pégeot]

Your fellow member just asked me to talk about the three categories of flight cancellations. One of the categories that's open to interpretation is the second one, situations within airline control but required for safety purposes. That's where we've been involved, through tribunal decisions that help bring clarity to the definition.

Basically, the legislation needs more clarity around the responsibilities of the airlines and situations that are obviously exceptional but do not warrant passenger compensation. That's an example of how the current legislation could be clarified. It's actually a legislative responsibility, which falls on parliamentarians.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

All right.

If I'm not mistaken, you have four full-time employees in Canada responsible for the accessibility program in the transportation sector. Do you think that's enough?

[France Pégeot]

We do the best we can with the resources we are given. We recently received a fairly sizable infusion to help us improve our overall capacity for enforcing the law, including in terms of accessibility.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

That means you are looking at hiring more people.

Something else to consider is the fact that not all the complaints are brought to the agency's attention. Some are sent only to the airlines, so the agency could keep track of all the cases and tackle accessibility issues head‑on.

[France Pégeot]

Yes, the complaints that go directly to the airlines and the complaints that come to the agency are completely separate.

I probably should have been more specific in my earlier answer. We don't have the authority to request that information.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Should the legislation be changed so you have that authority?

[France Pégeot]

That's certainly something that could be considered. Nevertheless, the financial resources we have just been given will strengthen our capacity to enforce the legislation.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

That means two significant legislative changes are worth considering. I hope the committee analysts took note of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for two and a half minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up now with the Auditor General in regard to the end of my last comments to the Via Rail representative.

They mentioned that they had a body, that this body was a consulting body, and that it was monitoring the work they were doing to implement many of the objectives of Via Rail, including the work related to online reservations, booking and accessibility for that website. The representative also mentioned that this body was a group of people taken in some part from advice by the government.

This is an area that I think is really important: the requirements for what is a good level of consultation. What is the threshold for respectful consultation, where one takes into account the lived experience of the persons who are offering that consultation but also ensures that when they do offer those aspects of themselves that are important to consultation, there's actually follow-up in respect to the kinds of standards that persons with disabilities would expect from consultation?

My question is—and I do understand that this might be something that is not yet developed by the Auditor General's office— what are the best practices on how to consult inclusively, accessibly and in a meaningful way with persons with disabilities? In your view, did the audited organizations follow the best practices, or were there shortcomings?

[Karen Hogan]

I might see if Susie wants to add to this, since she did a lot of the detailed work, but I guess what I would tell you is that even the accessibility act says that there should be nothing about us without us, so obviously consultation is important.

What we found when we looked at the consultations linked to Via was that it wasn't always clear how they considered the input. That doesn't mean they didn't, but that we just couldn't identify it.

I don't know if Susie wants to add more about some best practices.

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

We looked at various things for identifying best practices, including the guidelines from the United Nations on consulting persons with disabilities, as well as various other information from academia. We also consulted with persons with disabilities ourselves on how to consult persons with disabilities.

You mentioned inclusivity, accessibility and engagement.

For inclusivity, we want to make sure there is a broad variety of persons who are consulted, so they cover a broad variety of disabilities. We want to make sure that the consultation itself is accessible, because there are various means of communication, and if the consultation is using only one of those means, that can in itself be a barrier to participation in the consultation process. Also, we want it to be meaningful, meaning that the information gathered in the consultation should be decided upon in a meaningful manner.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

For the organizations, were they, from your perspective, or at least from the perspective of the Auditor General's office, consistent with those objectives?

[Susie Fortier]

In some cases, they were. We mentioned in particular in the report the consultation for the new fleet of Via Rail, which we thought met a lot of these good requirements. There's always opportunity to do a broader consultation, and, as noted in the report, we have some cases of some elements of programs on which there was no consultation—for example, the teaching method on the training for accessibility. So—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

There was no consultation. Wow.

[Susie Fortier]

The consultation was not done for specific content.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Desjarlais.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Cardin, I want to go back to you to follow up a bit on Mr. Desjarlais's and Mr. Kram's comments.

How much federal subsidy does Via get every year from taxpayers or from the government?

[Marie-Claude Cardin]

Is that in the context of accessibility?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

No, I mean overall. How much in subsidies does the government deliver to Via?