Transport Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Max Brault]

I travel with my wheelchair, but I also have additional equipment.. If it goes on to the next location and I don't have that equipment, now I have to sleep in a room that I don't know is fully accessible without that equipment. It puts me into physical danger.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Brault.

Ms. Ziv, I saw your hand up. I'll turn the floor over to you to add as well, please.

[Maayan Ziv]

I just want to quickly echo that point about equality versus equity.

I can tell you that last week I was on a flight that was overbooked, and they tried to combine two flights into one. I was promised seat strapping, which allows me to secure my travel portable wheelchair onto the plane, and it takes one and a half seats on the plane. It's strapped so that it stays with me and there's no need for any cargo issues. That was taken away from me because other people now needed to be on the plane.

To the point about who pays more, who's more important, who's a priority or who's super elite, disability is not really high ranking on that list right now. Understand the impact that it has on a person with a disability when these decisions are made in real time: Everyone's angry, and everyone's trying to fight for their needs. It's very difficult for someone who is often also withholding fluid intake because they don't know how long the flight's going to be or when they're going to see the next accessible washroom.

I'd like to emphasize the point that this is about equity. It's not about treating every single person the same, because we don't all have the same needs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ziv.

We'll now turn the floor over to Ms. Murray.

Ms. Murray, the floor is yours. You have three minutes, please.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thanks very much.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. It's very eye-opening for me, and I'm sure others, to hear about the stress, the pain, the humiliation, danger and trauma of travel. It's simply unacceptable.

We've talked and heard about a range of greater accountability standards, regulations, laws, penalties and education. I think that is all very important testimony.

MP Strahl asked what would change airline behaviour. I think it was Ms. Ziv who answered—or maybe this was MP Koutrakis' question, actually. A co-creation of policies, plans and decisions was an answer I heard.

I want to dig into that co-creation just a bit. In the Public Service of Canada, co-creation is done, because the public service has a target of having an equal number of people in the public service with accessibility challenges as in the general public, with the range of challenges, to co-create policies, rules, regulations and so on. The public service also has the accessibility, accommodation and adaptive computer technology unit to make sure that whatever the accessibility challenges, the public servant is supported to be effective.

I would like your thoughts about whether, in this need for a cultural shift to a greater amount of empathy, you would recommend that the airline, airport and air manufacturers target having their employees be representative of the universe of accessibility challenges there are in the public, so there are people co-creating the policies, plans, decisions for the key deliverers of travel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I see Mr. Fenton's hand up, Ms. Murray.

Perhaps, Mr. Fenton, you want to take the first stab at that.

[Robert Fenton]

I'll take a first crack at it.

The problem with something like that is it's very aspirational unless governments at all levels are willing to implement laws, rules or regulations to require that behaviour.

I'm not sure that's where the industry is in Canada. However, taking the air transportation sector as a whole, I do believe this committee has the ability to make recommendations to require airlines, if they're going to do business in Canada, to have to follow the public service standard. There is precedent for this in the Broadcasting Act, where broadcasters are given specific mandates to accommodate people with disabilities in their programming and have people representative of disability portrayed in the media.

This committee and government have the ability to mandate these kinds of things within the sector. I don't think we should take this too big.. I think we need to remember what our scope is here and stay within the scope and focus of what we can do within this sector to make the experience better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Fenton.

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I would just like to thank you for that recommendation, because this committee is not making rules and laws and policies, but we are hearing your recommendations, and they will be public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Indeed.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses again. We'll try to do them justice in our report. This is one of the most important studies we've undertaken.

I'd like to ask Mr. Reznick a question. This will probably be my last question today, given the time we have left.

Following the appearance of Air Canada representatives before the committee, we received a document that explained to us how well the company was doing in handling complaints and working hard for people with accessibility needs.

I know that, for your part, you represented Mr. Tim Rose in a lawsuit against Air Canada. Your goal was to bring about systemic corrective measures so that the company would comply with the Accessible Canada Act.

Could you tell us a little about what these systemic corrective measures are?

[Gabriel Reznick]

The main issues have been reflected by everyone today. Air Transit is not accessible for persons with disabilities.

Though I can't specifically speak about the active litigation, the main issue is that airlines have the ability and the obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities. That's the main thing we're fighting for, to ensure that persons with disabilities receive that adequate accommodation and to ensure that they have the idea of universal design so that airlines accommodate without the need for individual accommodation. They start at the terminal stage and then, if needed, for individual accommodations, and they deal with them on an individual basis to ensure their dignity.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I'd like to ask you one last question, if time permits.

From a legal point of view, is there a certain point or threshold at which a carrier can argue that the costs of implementing the necessary measures are too high? How do we deal with this on a day-to-day basis?

[Gabriel Reznick]

They agreed to accommodate us up until something called “undue hardship”, which is the legal test. This is a very high test, especially when considering the size of Air Canada. I know that they came out and said they made $2 billion in 2023, so the test would be heightened for cost depending on the individual. That would be the answer to the question.

Thank you.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Finally for today, we have Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issue of co-creation of policies and regulations is an important one, I believe. The government recently announced that it would be convening a summit on accessibility in the air sector.

Briefly, to all of our witnesses, have any of you been invited to this summit?

[Robert Fenton]

Not yet.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Your phone is on.

Okay, I'll take that as a no.

[Robert Fenton]

It is a no.

I'm sorry; it's not registering for some reason.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's fine.

I'm assuming that, if any other of the witnesses had been invited, they would have so indicated. I would offer as a suggestion to the government that, based on the testimony today, these folks would be excellent participants in that summit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Bachrach, along those lines, as I stop your clock here, is it the will of the committee, with no objection from our witnesses, that their names be put forward as potential participants in that summit?

I see no objection, thank you.

Please proceed.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Ms. Murray said that we're not in a position to make laws, but we are very much in a position to make recommendations to the government, including in cases when laws need either to be amended or created.

We have the Accessible Canada Act that was just passed in 2019, yet it doesn't address many of the issues that have been raised in today's testimony.

My final question is: Can we depend on the industry to do the right thing voluntarily, or do we need the government to take a leadership role and legislate to require th em to do the right thing? If so, what form should that take?

I imagine that every witness has thoughts on this.

Perhaps I'll start with Mr. Reznick, and then we can go around the table until I run out of time.

[Gabriel Reznick]

I would start off by saying that, as outlined earlier, we already have the ATPDR and really strong human rights legislation, and they need to be intertwined. They can't be seen as in a vacuum but should be seen as different cogs in a wheel towards full inclusion and accessibility.

I'll end there to allow the other panellists to comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Reznick.

I'll go to Mr. Brault.