THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 1, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, met this day at 4:15 p.m. to give consideration to the Bill.
Senator Chantal Petitclerc (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators and witnesses.
[English]
Good afternoon. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[Translation]
My name is Chantal Petitclerc, and I am a senator from Quebec. It is a privilege to be chairing this meeting.
[English]
Before we give the floor to our witnesses, I would invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator Ravalia: Welcome. Mohammed-Iqbal Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh from Toronto.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Josée Forest-Niesing from northern Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Toronto.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Toronto.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Toronto.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ottawa, Ontario.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ottawa.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Honourable senators, we are continuing the study of Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. We are privileged to have you with us. Thank you for contributing to the study of this important bill.
Today, we are welcoming, from AGE-WELL, Rosalie Wang, assistant professor at the Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy at the University of Toronto and, from the Canadian Association of the Deaf, Frank Folino, president.
[English]
We would like to give you some time for opening remarks, to be followed by questions.
[Editor’s Note: Some evidence was presented through a sign-language interpreter]
Frank Folino, President, Canadian Association of the Deaf: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology during its study of Bill C-81, the “Accessible Canada Act.”
The Canadian Association of the Deaf is a national not-for-profit organization that promotes accessibility for Deaf people who use American Sign Language, ASL, and Langue des signes québécoise, LSQ.
CAD has been an active member of the leadership team of the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, FALA, which has brought forward needed amendments for Bill C-81, such as timelines, standardization processes for the timely resolution of complaints and others as well.
We commend the Government of Canada and the minister for introducing Bill C-81, which is an important and positive step toward becoming an accessible Canada. However, an integral part of Bill C-81 that will achieve its purposes of a barrier-free Canada is legal recognition of ASL and LSQ as the languages of Deaf people. This will make a tremendous difference for Deaf Canadians, through accessibility, information, communication and services.
Since Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, many other countries have ratified the convention as well. The governments of over 45 countries have already recognized their national sign languages. Some examples would be Greece, Ireland, Scotland, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand and many more. Canada — our country — is not on the list. Also, the convention clearly recognizes that sign languages are equal to spoken and written languages that interweave with other articles of the convention, which mentions specific rights to sign languages and accessibility.
Achieving accessibility for Deaf people through recognition of ASL and LSQ will allow full participation, protection and promotion. This will allow them to fully exercise their rights and responsibilities in a barrier-free Canada.
Some examples of these would be: Production of ASL and LSQ videos on federal government websites, provision of ASL and LSQ in person and video interpreting at federal government services and provision of picture-in-picture screen of ASL and LSQ interpretation through broadcast television and digital communications — for example, federal leaders’ debates, emergency alert announcements and any other accessible services.
An example is the New Zealand shooting that happened recently. It was a horrific, terrible event and the Prime Minister of New Zealand announced in her broadcast on television with their sign language interpreters side by side so that Deaf citizens of New Zealand had full access to information in their sign language. Their country recognizes their sign language. They know they need that in order to be accessible. Canada can take this opportunity and follow suit amongst other countries in the world.
The principle that guided the development of the CRPD is “nothing about us without us.” To remain true to this principle, it is imperative that the Senate amend Bill C-81 and add to clause 6 of the bill, the following:
All deaf persons must have barrier-free access to full and equal participation in society, recognizing that American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ) are languages of persons who are Deaf in Canada.
That’s the amendment we propose to the Senate to consider.
We are not asking for official languages recognition. This is our language, our culture, our community, and will enable us to participate fully in society. We propose that to you for your discussion.
Furthermore, we recommend that clause 117 be amended to require accessibility regulations to advance the purpose and further principles of the act. This will allow Canada to meet its human rights obligations.
The international community is looking forward to attending the conference of states parties, to the CRPD at the UN headquarters in June 2019. I am eager to join their celebrations as a proud Canadian, and I would like to be able to announce at that time that Canada, too, recognizes ASL and LSQ.
Following Royal Assent, CAD looks forward to working with the Government of Canada on the implementation of the accessible Canada act, including legal recognition of ASL and LSQ as the languages of Deaf people in Canada.
I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
[English]
Rosalie Wang, Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, AGE-WELL: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of AGE-WELL. AGE-WELL is Canada’s aging and technology network, federally funded network through the Networks of Centres of Excellence program. As a pan-Canadian network, we include researchers, older adults, caregivers, partner organizations and trainees whose collective goal is to accelerate the delivery of technology-based solutions that make meaningful differences in the lives of Canadians.
As we are all aware, Canada’s population is aging, and the prevalence of disability increases with age. In 2016, for the first time, more Canadians were 65 and over than under 15 years of age. While many seniors are healthy and active, 38 per cent of Canadians aged 65 years and over report living with a disability. Of Canadians 75 years and older, it is 47 per cent. This is in contrast to 20 per cent of Canadians aged 25 to 64 years who report living with a disability. A barrier-free Canada will significantly assist those aging with a disability, aging into disability and aging well to fully and equally participate in their valued activities in their communities and in society, and promote full citizenship.
As such, AGE-WELL fully supports the expeditious passage of Bill C-81. We commend the leadership of this government and Minister Qualtrough for their dedication in tabling this truly landmark bill. We are encouraged by the minister’s foresight to accommodate rapidly advancing technology and other innovations in the field of accessibility.
AGE-WELL works to create products and services. For example, applying accessible information and communication technologies to support ease of social interaction between seniors and their families living at a distance, artificial intelligence to help in the early detection of functional or cognitive changes, and robotics to allow people using powered wheelchairs to more safely navigate their communities. We know how quickly technology is advancing. We also know how technology can transform the lives of individuals living with disabilities by equalizing opportunities and facilitating social, economic and civic participation.
We offer two points for the committee’s consideration. First, we would like to see explicit acknowledgment under the principles of the bill of individuals experiencing multiple forms of discrimination in Canadian society. We would like recognition of the challenges experienced by people who face multiple and compounding forms of discrimination. In particular, seniors continue to experience pervasive ageism in society. This discrimination is amplified if they are living with a disability and are, for example, women living in poverty.
As our second point, we would like further consideration of the role of personal assistive technology in facilitating full societal inclusion of Canadians living with disabilities and federal leadership in supporting universal and more equitable access to these technologies. Bill C-81 aims to address barriers pertaining to employment, the built environment, information and communication technologies and many other areas, but to achieve the goal of a truly inclusive Canada, where people with disabilities may benefit from equal opportunities, personal assistive technologies will continue to be necessary. Multiple stakeholders in our research have indicated the need to better align environmental accessibility initiatives with access to needed technology.
For example, having ramps in elevators or accessible transportation services will not be useful to someone who is confined to their home because they don’t have an appropriate wheelchair, and having accessible face-to-face bank services will not be useful for someone who can’t make their wishes known without a customized alternative communication device.
There is a significant unmet need for disability supports which include assistive technologies, with 24 per cent of Canadians aged 15 years and over living with disabilities reporting an unmet need. Access to assistive technologies in Canada is inequitable, with access limited by criteria such as age and disability type in some jurisdictions. This may, in effect, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We acknowledge that the majority of assistive technology funding and service programs are under the purview of provincial or territorial health and social services ministries or departments. However, under Bill C-81, the minister will have the power, duty and function to collaborate with these jurisdictions to coordinate efforts as they pertain to accessibility. We urge the ministry to make it a priority to raise these equity concerns and support a strategy to be collectively developed and adopted which aligns the principles and goals of the accessible Canada act and assistive technology programs and services.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our perspectives. On behalf of AGE-WELL, we look forward to working with the federal government and contributing our network’s collective expertise to creating a truly barrier-free Canada.
The Chair: Thank you both for your opening remarks. We do have questions for you. I want to remind my colleagues that we will try to keep the questions and answers under five minutes. So the shorter the preamble, the more answers you will get.
Senator Seidman: Thank you both very much for your presentations. Ms. Wang, if I could start with you, please. You talked about multiple and complex forms of discrimination that older people would experience.
If I look at data from the Canadian Survey on Disability, 26 per cent of people aged 65 to 74 per cent suffer disabilities, and 42.5 per cent of people 75 and over suffer disabilities. That’s fairly old data; I’m not sure you have newer data to correct that.
You’re looking to see.
Ms. Wang: Yes.
Senator Seidman: It’s important, because those are very big numbers. I would like to feel assured that this legislation represents issues that seniors have to deal with, and that they feel it addresses their needs, as well.
Do you think this legislation addresses the needs of seniors? Are there barriers that are unique to Canadian seniors with a disability?
Ms. Wang: The statistics I cited were from the most recent disability survey in 2017, which was reported just late last year, so those are accurate. This means 38 per cent of 65 and over report having a disability, and for 75 years and older, that percentage is 47 per cent. For seniors 65 and over, it’s almost double that of the younger working-age cohort.
For the accessible Canada act, having a barrier-free, accessible Canada will help seniors and everyone in the community who has any form of disability. Even though there is quite a lot still to be done through the regulations, I think passing the bill is an excellent start.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate that. I think we all appreciate that, and we’d like to feel that seniors’ needs are addressed at the very outset with this legislation.
Is there something that we’re not getting? Are there particular disabilities that seniors have to deal with on a daily basis that could be facilitated through an amendment, for example, in this legislation?
Ms. Wang: I was looking at the recent, more expanded version of the definition of “disability” that includes mental, cognitive, intellectual and learning disabilities. I think that potentially covers areas around changes in cognition related to dementia, for example. Looking at the definition of “disability,” that in itself is already as inclusive as we can make it at this time.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.
Mr. Folino, thank you so much for being with us. You made it very clear, in no uncertain terms, how important recognition of ASL and LSQ is to the deaf community. I wondered if there was a particular location in this legislation where you would like to see that reference made. Would it be under basic principles? Is it at the very outset of the act? Is there a particular place in the legislation that would make you feel happier as a basic recognition?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Thank you, Senator Seidman, for your question. During my presentation, I proposed a specific amendment to be placed in clause 6: to add there that all deaf persons must have barrier-free access to full and equal participation in society, recognizing that American Sign Language, ASL, and Langue des signes québécoise, LSQ, are languages of persons who are Deaf in Canada. We feel that fits nicely in clause 6.
That’s our reasoning for proposing it in clause 6. However, if you have an idea of where it could be better placed, if that’s not suitable, we are open to that discussion.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I think that’s really helpful. I’m sorry, I clearly missed the clause 6 piece, because I was so taken with your very demonstrative suggestion for an amendment. You were absolutely crystal clear, and I appreciate that. I think clause 6 is the principles section, if I’m correct.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Yes.
[English]
Senator Seidman: So I understand that you would want it in basic principles in this legislation.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Yes, that’s right.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much.
The Chair: There is a question from the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much for being here. It is compelling and important for us to pay attention to what you have told us, and I hope we do that in clause by clause tomorrow.
I have two questions. The short one is this: In the Deaf community, what is the percentage of our population in this country who would benefit from an enhanced bill?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Thank you, Senator Munson, for your question. We don’t have exact recent data, but our estimation is that there are 370,000 culturally Deaf people in Canada. Our calculation comes from one tenth of the population. We also have hard-of-hearing individuals who sign and other community members who also use sign language. A rough estimate would be 3 million.
Once the ASL and LSQ are recognized, it will enable Statistics Canada to put proper questioning in place within the census so that we can get accurate data of people who are Deaf who use ASL and LSQ.
[English]
Senator Munson: Thank you.
Jobs are very important to everyone, and what we’ve heard in the disability community, of course, is that the jobless rate is extremely high because there is systemic discrimination. “I’m not going to hire you. I’m just going to look the other way because I can find somebody else to do this job.”
In this bill or any operations this bill covers, would this bill, with your recommendations, enhance the opportunity for people to seek full employment, either in the public service or associated with anything involved with the public service?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Again, thank you for your question. Absolutely. Currently, the unemployment rate for Deaf Canadians is almost 60 per cent. If this bill is passed, and we recognize ASL and LSQ, it will provide ample opportunity for employment.
Minister Qualtrough, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, mentioned that there would be 5,000 new jobs made as a result of this bill passing. If you allow access to ASL and LSQ, it will allow them to work.
Another example would be at Service Canada. If they are going to get their passport renewed, they could get video-remote interpreting services — an app — log on to that app and get access to interpreters.
As well, if there are Deaf individuals working within Service Canada who are servicing the general public, and someone from the general public comes up to seek my services, they can also use VRI and access a video-remote interpreter. That removes those barriers and allows us that equality to work on par with other Canadian citizens.
This bill is definitely heading in the right direction and is the first step to full accessibility, whether accessing government services or being employed by the federal government. That will allow a benchmark to increase the job market for Deaf people.
[English]
Senator Munson: Thank you again. Just very briefly. The words “may” and “must” have been an argument that’s been going on in our committee and whether the government “may” do something or “must” do something. I’m intrigued by the announcement that you’ve made about the New Zealand Prime Minister and that there was a person providing interpretation.
I would guess, in your view, that even when we do our report and we have a news conference about this, our committee, or when the Prime Minister or whomever, a premier, announces disasters happening — for example, the floods here and around Ottawa, because it is such a compelling story — should the government or we be obliged to provide that kind of interpretation? Is there that guarantee in this bill?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Again, thank you for that question. It has to be “must.” We want access. We want to know about disasters. For instance, the flood here, there are no public announcements with sign language interpreters. Individuals have no idea what’s happening with the flood and could potentially be at risk.
If there are public announcements, they should be provided in our sign languages. It will enable us to prepare, protect our homes, apartments or wherever we are, and ensure the safety of our fellow citizens.
So yes, the answer is “must.” We must have interpreters. We should be leaders on this front.
Mexico is already ahead of the game and providing interpreters for announcements. France, the U.K., Germany, Europe, Eastern Europe, Austria, Russia, they’re already providing those kinds of services, and so we are behind the game. We must ensure equal access.
When there are any live announcements from the Prime Minister, we, as Deaf citizens, want access to that information in our first language, in American Sign Language or Langue des signes Québécoise.
[English]
Senator Munson: Maybe we could call it American-Canadian Sign Language?
The Chair: You can propose that.
Senator Eaton: Just to continue on with Senator Munson.
What are the barriers? It seemed like such an obvious thing, and as you raised the New Zealand crisis two weeks ago, the terrible terrorist attack, you saw the Prime Minister of New Zealand and you saw a sign-language interpreter behind her the whole time. Is the barrier simply ignorance? Is it lack of money? Lack of federal-provincial coordination? What do you think it is?
If you were Minister Qualtrough, what country would you look to as an example so that a person going into a hospital emergency room, emergency announcements on the TV would have access? Who does it best? What are the barriers in this country to getting something set up?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Thank you for your question.
The barrier itself, with regards to provincial and federal funding, they don’t realize or recognize it. For instance, they’re unaware. They think that captioning is equal access, but that’s not their first language. English and French is not their first language, American Sign Language and Langue des signes Québécoise is. So it’s an attitudinal barrier. Why do we need to provide sign language interpreters? It’s good enough to have captioning. But that is not good enough for our community. It’s not our first language. If you want to make a connection to our community, you need to provide it in sign language.
In the past we had telephone, TTY, but that is very slow and cumbersome. For years, everyone said that was good enough. It took forever for us, as Canadians, to implement Canadian video relay service, which is real time. Now I can finally, by video, call my doctor, make an appointment, talk to my family, call work.
[English]
Senator Eaton: When you call your doctor —
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: So that’s my access in my language.
[English]
Senator Eaton: When you call your doctor and you can do it on video, is there a person in the doctor’s office to sign back to him?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: The interpreters are placed in call centres, and we use this service. There are over 30,000 calls every day, and we call through an interpreter across Canada, and I can make an appointment. So I’ll reach them on their phone.
So the doctor or receptionist on the other line will pick up the phone, I’ll be looking at my app on a computer screen, or a mobile device, and I will be signing and the interpreter will be interpreting for me in real time and then speaking to the receptionist. This is happening in my own native language. So it enables a better quality of life because we’re recognizing ASL and LSQ sign languages. That will improve and advance the quality and lives of Deaf individuals, Deaf Canadians.
[English]
Senator Eaton: When you actually go to the doctor —
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Because originally, in the past, I would have to use this cumbersome typewriter and then call a relay operator and converse that way, which took a long time.
[English]
Senator Eaton: But when you actually go to the doctor, what happens?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: When I go to the doctor they bring in a live sign-language interpreter. I have to book that in advance. For instance, when I make my call through video relay service and I make an appointment four weeks in advance, let’s say, for example, I will then request that they book a sign-language interpreter. They will make that arrangement, and they will be there and available on the day that I appear at my appointment. There will be an interpreter there.
[English]
Senator Eaton: Is my time up?
The Chair: It is. Thank you for your questions, and thank you, Mr. Folino, for your answers.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you both for your presentations.
My question relates to immigrant communities that have assimilated into Canada where, for example, the language of communication may not be ASL or LSQ. That’s the first part of my question for Mr. Folino.
For you, Ms. Wang, do you have culturally sensitive programs with respect to disabilities for immigrant populations? Thank you.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Thank you for your question. We do have new immigrants, many Deaf Canadians, and there is that language barrier because that individual may know their own sign language which is not similar to our American Sign Language. There are over 300 sign languages in the world.
Our hope is when Bill C-81 recognizes our sign language, that will then further develop Deaf sign language interpreters and they will become the facilitator to support these new immigrants, because they will have a similar cultural understanding and connection with that individual.
For instance, at the airport, when new immigrants arrive, there are so many barriers because they can’t write English. They have just newly arrived, and they don’t know how to communicate. So this will enable the development of Deaf interpreters. So we could market that service at airports and enable any new immigrants who are Deaf to identify themselves and then they would get assistance from these Deaf interpreters.
For new immigrants, they have spoken interpreters readily available at the airport in Chinese, German, various spoken languages, and they’re available there. At the airport they’re sent right away to be able to communicate with new immigrants to communicate in their first language.
But when a Deaf person arrives, they don’t have access to the same services and they don’t have that kind of support. So if we want a barrier-free Canada, we encourage the development of Deaf interpreters, which then encourages employment for Deaf interpreters and that service can be provided at the airport. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much, Mr. Folino.
The Chair: Ms. Wang, do you want to answer the second part of the question?
Ms. Wang: Yes. Thank you for the question.
Our cross-Canada network does a lot of research engaging a lot of different individuals, both older adults and caregivers in our projects, in our technology development and service, policy and practice development.
We have specific projects that engage Indigenous and French-speaking communities. It is inclusive of a lot of different communities in Canada. Specific to immigrant populations, I don’t know of a project that is specifically looking at a subset of the population who are new immigrants, but a lot of our projects are inclusive of the population of seniors and caregivers and include them within the research program.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. I’m going to go back to the airlines, which was touched on by Mr. Folino earlier. I’ve been travelling here back and forth all the time. I have not seen much sign language assistance at our airports. Airline travel is so critical. It is dangerous and, for safety reasons, sign language is important to protect this particular group of citizens. Can you comment on this? What can this bill do for airline travel and public transport?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Thank you for your question, Senator Oh. You are correct. It is important to have sign language at the various airports for safety. There is one airline company that has provided a video with captions, but it should also be in sign language. Take me, for example. I’m sitting in an airport and I can’t hear. I can’t hear an announcement that a flight or a gate has changed, or I need to move, or there has been a delay. There is no mechanism to alert me that there has been a change or there is an emergency. We do have the technology to have an alert system on my phone, or to alert me to let me know that there has been a change. It needs to be in text and displayed, as well as in sign language. There was one international airport that I went to where they had sign language at the airport.
I feel that passing Bill C-81 and recognizing ASL and LSQ will create a barrier-free Canada and will provide accessibility at the airport. When I go to the customer service desk or when I give my passport to the flight attendant before I get on a plane, we could also have various iPads and use access VRI technology and access an interpreter live. Then I can communicate efficiently with customer service or with the flight attendant in my own language.
Again, I emphasize that CRPD says that written language and spoken languages are equal to sign languages and that will promote equality of life in Canada.
[English]
Senator Oh: Certainly, you use your phone more than I do on my flights.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Yes.
[English]
Senator Oh: Ms. Wang, do you have any comments?
Ms. Wang: Thank you. I think there are a lot of opportunities to enhance the accessibility for travelling seniors. I know there are mechanisms in place right now to provide assistive mobility. All of the assistance related to moving from one gate to another are in place.
Often what happens, though, I think from the service side, having a greater acknowledgment of people’s diversity in abilities would be very useful in terms of being able to train people who are working in transport to be more aware and sensitive to variations in abilities. For seniors, for example, it could be that somebody has some delayed response time to different things or have changes in their cognition and things that are moving very quickly. Having added training for the service staff would be useful in being able to accommodate different needs so that communication is clearer.
In terms of technology, we are relying on technology more and more in transport and not everybody is as familiar with technology. If things are reliant on an app to be able to transmit the message for changes in flight times and things like that, that’s one positive way of being able to transmit information. However, if you don’t have the familiarity or don’t own the devices, that could be a detriment in getting to the right place at the right time.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Folino and Ms. Wang, for being here today. It is no secret we are working through a very important bill and getting closer and closer to narrowing in on those pieces that could bring even more strength, teeth and perspective to it. I am glad you are here today.
One of the areas we continue to think about are the timelines in this bill in its present state. I would like to hear from both of you what you think. There are those who might think that having a date established and set doesn’t make it strong enough, or it might cause things to be delayed — different reasons for different conversations. I would like to hear what your thoughts are and the advantages, perhaps, of having timelines in this document that we don’t see now.
Ms. Wang: I think timelines are very useful for accountability, and incorporating them would be beneficial. I recognize Minister Qualtrough’s comments about being flexible with advances in technologies, but that if there is a timeline imposed people may delay in terms of reaching those timelines. I think staging them appropriately and realistically would be a good approach.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Thank you for your question. I agree that timelines are very important to put in the bill. It creates accountability to ensure that everyone is following along. My concern is if there is no timeline, they may wait 25, 30 or 40 years to ensure that they’ve met their accessibility needs, and that’s only going to increase down the road. We need to encourage timely timelines, and have some flexibility within those timelines, but to ensure that they have accountability to meet the demands of the bill. Take Ontario, for example. We have to wait 25 years for it to be fully implemented and barrier-free, and 25 years is too long. That’s my concern.
Right now the bill doesn’t address timelines. My concern is that it will fall to something similar to what has happened in Ontario. So when you are doing your clause by clause, I would encourage you to add timelines. Up to five years, at least to implement the initial regulations so that we can follow through to the second stage.
When we set up those timelines and then those regulations, if they have no timelines to ensure that the first set of regulations is out — if that’s omitted from the bill, then I feel that we may not follow through. That’s my concern.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
I think you said it, Mr. Folino. The clause by clause, you talked about up to five years. How strong do you think that timeline language should be?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: I don’t want it to be too flexible. I want it to be strict. In the interim, we need to have that system in place. If that’s not there, then it is far too loose and flexible, and I don’t want that. I want some structure to ensure that we meet our obligations.
[English]
Senator Poirier: Thank you both for being here. My first question is for Mr. Folino. It is a follow-up to Senator Eaton. You mentioned that when you go to the doctor you call a bunch of different access centres, they set up the appointment for you in advance, and when you get to the doctor there is somebody there who can provide sign-language interpretation so that you will be able to speak to your doctor.
Being from a small community in rural New Brunswick, I was just wondering what the services are in those kinds of areas as compared to urban Canada. Do you know if services are available throughout Canada? I’m just wondering, in certain areas, how accessible would it be for a doctor to have somebody come in and provide that service. Are you aware of the percentage, if it is available, for services across Canada equally?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Thank you for your question. We have a national association, the Canadian Association of Sign Language Interpreters, CASLI. They have roughly 800 to 900 members, professional sign-language interpreters, who serve the ASL community. For the French LSQ community, there are roughly 200 interpreters who are under the Association québécoise des interprètes en langues des signes, AQILS. They are both professional associations. So there are 800 ASL English and 200 LSQ French, which is approximately 1,000 interpreters in Canada.
Yes, I recognize that’s a small number. When this bill is passed, the support will be in place to grow that capacity and support programs to produce more sign-language interpreters. That will then provide more opportunities of employment for interpreters in the Deaf community in order to facilitate communication.
To answer your question about rural areas, there are definitely challenges for in-person interpreting, depending on where they are located, but they could access video-remote interpreting. They could connect via video to an interpreter at those appointments. At the same time, it is undeniably true that we need more sign-language interpreters, and we need to grow that capacity. Recognizing ASL and LSQ will help with a barrier-free Canada.
[English]
Senator Poirier: On a different subject — and the question is for both of you. The legislation proposes that there be four different bodies responsible for dealing with complaints related to accessibility. From what we’ve heard, advocacy groups and accessibility experts have expressed some concerns regarding this and how it might lead to some confusion.
Do you have any concerns about the proposed complaints framework in the bill? If so, why?
The Chair: Who wants to answer that question?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Yes. We have similar concerns. Along with the disabled community, the Deaf community is also concerned about where they would lodge their complaints. If there are four entities, it can become confusing where to lodge a complaint. There needs to be one door where they can facilitate where those complaints go. That will be more efficient and solve the problem, instead of putting the onus on us to go to the various bodies and then being told that we’ve lodged our complaint in the wrong place. That just prolongs the process, and it may take two, three or four years to resolve. That’s our concern.
So we would like one standard, one door through which to lodge our complaint.
For instance, the chief accessibility commissioner could receive those complaints and then triage them. That would help. A streamlined complaints process would lessen the anxiety for the disabled and Deaf community.
[English]
Ms. Wang: I absolutely agree. Having a very streamlined process will be very useful.
From all the research we have done related to accessing services for assistive technologies and rehab services, having multiple channels where people access services becomes very complicated. People are indicating that they have to repeat their stories multiple times to multiple people. In many cases it is an assault to their dignity, because they have to keep repeating the same thing to different people who, at every stage of their discussion, may or may not fully understand what their concerns are.
Having one access point where it is triaged in the background or where their complaint is put through to the right channel is definitely something that can improve the lives of people with disabilities.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you both for being with us. My first question is for Ms. Wang, and then I would like to hear from Mr. Folino, as well.
Ms. Wang, you talked about multiple forms of discrimination that individuals face as they grow older. Could you reflect on the complexity of intersectionality? You are aging, growing older, possibly facing multiple forms of disability, but you are also impacted by your race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, et cetera. Can you tell us a little bit more about what you have observed in your research?
Ms. Wang: For a lot of the research participants with whom I’ve been involved, and from other projects within AGE-WELL, ageism comes up a lot related to how people do not necessarily understand individuals who have Alzheimer’s disease or cognitive impairment, and people who have multiple forms of physical concerns in addition to cognitive changes. There is a lot of stigma associated with a lot of age-related types of conditions.
Being an older person, individuals have reported that they are not treated in the same way as young, productive people in the community. If they are retired, they may often experience some form of discrimination that is related to not being a “productive member of society.” That in itself is wrong.
Compounded with that, if somebody is experiencing changes within themselves in terms of cognitive impairments, there are a lot of different things such as navigating the environment or services which become much more complicated. That’s on top of issues related to changes in their vision or hearing, which makes it more difficult to navigate different services in the community.
That’s potentially compounded with issues related to a lot of loss in their social supports. If it is somebody who is of a lower socioeconomic status in terms of the work they were doing or education, sometimes that is in addition to the other forms of discrimination that they experience.
Senator Omidvar: Mr. Folino, I’m sure members of your community and the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, experience an intersection with their disability in different ways. There is nothing in the bill about intersectioniality. Do you believe that we should embed the language of intersectionality into the principles of the bill to ensure that legislators are looking at multiple factors and multiple features of discrimination?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: The short answer is, yes, absolutely. The Deaf community has different intersectionalities: deaf plus, people of colour, LGBT, deaf plus disabilities, deaf plus blind. There are many within our community and intersectionalities. I feel strongly about this, and I would support that mention in the principles of the bill. CCD’s presentation, Council of Canadian with Disabilities, mentioned intersectionality. We support that as the Canadian Association of the Deaf.
[English]
Senator Forest-Niesing: I will start with you, Ms. Wang. I hosted very impressive individuals in my office who were involved in research and work at the Canadian Frailty Network. They were bringing to light some insightful elements: although frailty may not fall categorically within the definition of disability, it should be included.
Is it your feeling that the definition of disability as contained in the bill, as it is proposed, is broad enough to capture the consequences of frailty?
Ms. Wang: I think it does, yes.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you.
Mr. Folino, thank you for your testimony. We all heard a bit of a gasp when you said there were 300 sign languages around the world. That causes us to be very concerned about ensuring that, if we are talking about the possibility of including ASL and LSQ as the languages that Canadians use, we’re obviously overlooking other sign languages that Canadians may use.
Although I can’t imagine that we could reasonably expect that everyone should and could be accommodated in Canada in sign language of their native language, I wonder how you feel about adding to ASL and LSQ the Canadian Indigenous sign language?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: Thank you. Yes, I feel that’s important. I do not want to represent or speak for the Indigenous community. I recognize myself as a White individual, and I support the recognition of Indigenous sign languages as the first settlers of our country. Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous Languages is at third reading at the House of Commons right now, and we support the passage of that act. Within Bill C-81 or, as Minister Qualtrough mentioned, there is the possibility of future pieces of legislation with recognition of Indigenous sign languages in the disabled community. The Indigenous community mentioned that there may be another bill, the Indigenous disabilities act. That is another place where Indigenous sign languages could be recognized. My point is that it should be recognized either in Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, in Bill C-81 or in its own Indigenous languages act.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you so much. You both spoke about the value of innovative technologies as an important tool to help overcome barriers. Do you know if there are any specific federal programs, initiatives or funding to focus on specifically developing those kinds of technologies?
Ms. Wang: Certainly the AGE-WELL network is developing these kinds of technologies. Maybe I can ask for some clarification in terms of your question.
Senator Kutcher: In a wider sense, for example there are funding agencies in Canada that specifically fund research into certain areas. Are there some that would look specifically at various technologies for the Deaf or for other groups?
Ms. Wang: NSERC provides funding, but it is an open program in terms of the projects that are being proposed so the funding is not certain. It is similar with CIHR. Funding is not certain, but they do fund research that’s related to assistive technologies. I may have to get back to you on that.
I think there is a federal collaborative that is mostly industry driven that supports assistive technologies. I think it’s in the Ministry of Research and Innovation, but I can’t be sure about that. I can find out.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Folino: The future technology for the Deaf community is video-remote interpreting, VRI. It’s already developed. We need to put funds behind that to grow that technology, but it is not the only technology. We can create Deaf economic systems with technological innovation. For example, production of ASL and LSQ videos. They could contract with the federal government to provide that service.
The United Kingdom has a specific program under BBC News. They have specific programming, one or two evenings a week, specifically for the Deaf community. It is Deaf programming, Deaf videos, culture, news, lives of Deaf individuals. It is a dedicated channel. It is broadcast all through Europe, Asia, the United States, Mexico and South America. We don’t have that here in Canada yet. We hope, with this bill and with the recognition of ASL and LSQ, that there will be resources and funds to support this community and enable the development of that type of technology. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for your excellent questions. Thank you very much to our witnesses. You’ve been very helpful in our study of study of Bill C-81.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Some witnesses are joining us by video conference and some are here in the room.
[English]
By video conference we have, as an individual, David Onley, Former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario; and from Barrier Free Canada, Donna Jodhan, President. Thank you for being here. We also have with us Mr. Christopher T. Sutton, National Executive Director of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association; and Ms. Seema Lamba, Acting Coordinator, Programs Section, from the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
As you can see, our last panel of witnesses before we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill tomorrow is a full one. I will ask for your cooperation in being precise in your questions. Let’s try to keep it to either one question or three or four minutes. Please be conscious of directing, especially with witnesses by video conference, whom you would like to answer your question. That will be very helpful and efficient.
Hon. David Onley, Former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, as an individual: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-81.
Over the past year, I conducted the third legislative review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, known locally in Ontario as the AODA. After hearing from hundreds of people all across Ontario, our review was submitted to the provincial government on January 31.
I believe my experience in that capacity and that arising from my seven years as Ontario’s first Lieutenant Governor with a physical disability enables me to share some insights which I hope will enhance and improve your deliberations for the accessible Canada act.
When I began as Lieutenant Governor in 2007, I adopted accessibility as the overarching theme of my term of office. I’ve defined accessibility as “that which enables people to achieve their full potential.”
I came up with that definition because I wanted people to see that accessibility is much more than what we think of when we just hear the term, things such as curb cuts, ramps, wheelchair parking spots and automatic doors. Accessibility is much more than just the ubiquitous blue wheelchair sign.
The Canadian Survey on Disability echoes what other surveys have concluded: Almost 20 per cent of Canadians, over 6 million people, have one or more disabilities that limit them in their daily activities. Moreover, people with disabilities form our single largest minority group. It is the only minority group that others can join, and do join, not by choice but by accident, disease or, in many cases, simply as a result of getting older.
These are some significant percentages, but the most significant statistic is this: When the immediate family members of Canadians with disabilities are included, it means that over 53 per cent of all Canadians are directly affected by disability. That means that right now the majority of Canadians are affected by disability in some way, either personally or through an immediate family member.
This is a very significant finding. The reason I think it’s important is because it tells us, given the fact that a significant percentage of incidents — and we don’t know the exact number — is related to one of the unfortunate by-products of aging. That is a decrease in mobility and a decrease in accessibility or functionality to get around. We can say with some degree of real confidence that a higher percentage of Canadians are going to experience disability and, through family members, have it affect them in their day to day life.
The reason I start by mentioning this is that I know you have had comments from other presenters on the importance of setting dates for objectives insofar as achieving standards are concerned, achieving goals related to accessibility. I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I must say it’s something that has taken me a while to get to, especially during the implementation of the AODA. I was part of the discussions at the very beginning in 2005 and the first chair of the minister’s advisory committee on the implementation of the act. I, along with most of the members of the first advisory committee, felt that moral suasion and goodwill would be sufficient to achieve the objectives.
The first review of the act done in 2010 by former MPP Charles Beer reached an opposite conclusion, as did the second review by the former Dean of the University Toronto law school, Mayo Moran. When I began my review in February 2018 I took that into account, but I was still fairly convinced that moral suasion and good economic arguments, of which there are many, would be sufficient to convince companies and individuals that achieving full accessibility was a reasonable objective and something that we should set our minds to very quickly.
Having listened, as I mentioned, to hundreds of people from across the province and taken submissions via email and in person, my views changed. I now believe quite firmly that the only way we’re going to achieve true and full accessibility is for the various standards and objectives to have a definable date in place and a government that is willing to enforce the implementation of these measures.
Had we had that set up in the AODA in 2005, I think we would be in a far different situation than we are right now. The original objective of the act was to make Ontario fully accessible by the year 2025. At the beginning, I remember thinking very clearly that this would be achievable within seven years, maybe ten at the outside. But as my hearings went on and as I looked at the previous reviews and listened to people’s real-life stories of the barriers they were facing and the dispiriting situations that they found themselves in, I’ve come to reach a completely different conclusion.
I know there is a strong difference of opinion on this, but I would simply put it to you that as you look at other endeavours by government, whether they are matters related to climate change or the environment, or whether you’re dealing with students as I do at the University of Toronto in political science, you have to have a date, a deadline and a clear objective in mind. If you don’t, it just becomes an endless process.
The Chair: Mr. Onley, I apologize, but I will have to interrupt you.
Mr. Onley: That’s quite all right.
The Chair: I know we have many questions, and you will have a chance to go deeper into what you’re saying. Thank you for your opening remarks, but we would like to have time for everyone.
Ms. Jodhan from Barrier Free Canada by video conference, please go ahead. Thank you.
Donna Jodhan, President, Barrier Free Canada: Good afternoon and thank you very much. Barrier Free Canada is a grassroots and non-partisan organization. We were founded in late 2014, and we were instrumental in kick-starting the campaign for the Canadian government to pass legislation to enact a Canadians with disabilities act for a barrier-free Canada.
At the present time, we are supported by over 25 national organizations across Canada. We have been endorsed by the Cities of Toronto and Halifax, and individual support continues to grow steadily, with a present base of about 2,000 persons.
We have also established a social media presence, with over 3,000 followers on Facebook and hundreds of followers to our Facebook group named BFC Advocating for Change. We also have thousands of Twitter followers.
Barrier Free Canada is grateful for having been given this opportunity to have our voice heard. We believe that when this act is passed, it will go down in history as one of the most important pieces of legislation, as it pertains to the rights of Canadians with disabilities and to their friends and families. We look forward to continued collaboration with the government on this very important piece of legislation.
Bill C-81 requires timelines. Timelines are essential to ensure that key accessibility measures are taken. Timelines are also required so that progress on accessibility can be measured. In particular, we support recommendations for the bill to include a timeline for achieving a Canada without barriers and timelines with which accessibility standards are developed and enacted by law. Timelines are also needed to establish the infrastructure necessary to implement the bill.
Bill C-81 imposes no duty on our government to use the powers available in the bill. We support recommendations to change the word “may” to “shall” to ensure that the government implements key steps for achieving accessibility.
Bill C-81 requires federally regulated organizations to establish accessibility plans. However, the bill does not require these to be good plans. It does not require an organization to implement its accessibility plan.
Bill C-81 wrongly splinters the power to make accessibility standards, such as regulations, and the power to enforce the bill across numerous federal agencies. This splintering will make the bill’s implementation and enforcement less effective, more confusing, more complicated, more costly and will increase delay.
Bill C-81 inappropriately gives the federal government and various federal agencies the sweeping, unjustified and unaccountable power to exempt organizations from a number of important accessibility obligations. The government can even exempt itself. The bill does not require the federal government to use its readily available power to ensure that federal money is never used by any recipient to create or perpetuate barriers. The bill must be amended to leverage the federal spending power in order to promote accessibility.
The federal government is the largest employer, and it is the largest organization that will have to obey this legislation. Therefore, the key federal agencies that will develop accessibility standards, oversee and enforce this legislation must be independent of the federal government. Under the bill, they are not. They all report to the federal government.
We support recommendations for amendments to ensure that CASDO, the accessibility commissioner and other key agencies are sufficiently independent.
Bill C-81 does not sufficiently address barriers created by poverty and intersectional discrimination, nor does it address the unique barriers experienced by Indigenous and First Nations persons with disabilities.
Bill C-81 does not recognize ASL and LSQ as the official languages of people who are Deaf.
It is unfortunate that penalties must sometimes be applied for non-compliance. In the draft bill, these penalties can go up to $250,000. There is no minimum.
The three categories normally applied are minor, serious and very serious. We are asking that a minimum penalty be applied to any non-compliance, and that this minimum penalty start at least at $50,000. People with disabilities will be affected drastically by any non-compliance.
It is our sincere hope that Bill C-81 will be given Royal Assent before the next federal election in October. If it is not, we are afraid that years of hard work on the part of this government, as well as many other organizations and individuals, would all have been for naught.
Finally, we thank the Senate for all of its hard work and dedication, and a special thanks to Senator Jim Munson for his leadership. We look forward to the Senate putting its mark on this historical piece of legislation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Christopher T. Sutton, National Executive Director, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association: Honourable senators, thank you for the honour of speaking on behalf of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association as you conclude your research on Bill C-81. The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association was established in 1982 and is the leading consumer advocacy organization representing the needs of nearly 4 million Canadians living with hearing loss. With a network across Canada, we work cooperatively with professionals, service providers and government to provide life-enhancing information, support and advocacy to ensure people living with hearing loss overcome barriers in all aspects of their lives.
My name is Christopher Sutton, and I am the National Executive Director of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association. Like most of my colleagues you have met during this process, I am fortunate to have had a rewarding career working on behalf of people with disabilities in the corporate, not-for-profit and government sectors. Even with my advanced level of education and the professional successes I have enjoyed, as a person who lives with an invisible disability I continue to live with barriers on a daily basis.
The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association supports Bill C-81. While we acknowledge that laws and standards are only one part of breaking down barriers, we see this as a positive step toward ensuring that everyone, regardless of their abilities, can live in a barrier-free society. As an individual who has lived in the United States, where they have the Americans with Disabilities Act, I’m hopeful for what this Canadian legislation will accomplish.
The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association congratulates the Government of Canada for its work in developing this legislation and the process they implemented to consult with people with disabilities to ensure this legislation meets our needs. The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association was a partner in this consultation process and continues this work through our engagement as one of the founding members of the 95-member Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance. We are pleased to see many recommendations we provided will be included in this critical legislation.
There are some areas in which there could be improvements to ensure that this legislation is the best possible and allows Canada to lead globally in the areas of accessibility, inclusion and diversity to ensure we all live in a barrier-free society.
As one of the partner organizations working with the Federal Accessibility Legislation Alliance, we support the 11 recommendations that were provided to this committee and would like to stress the following:
Pass Bill C-81 now. Our communities have worked so hard to put together this legislation, and we don’t want to see it fail because of the upcoming election. We encourage you to make this bill pass as swiftly as possible.
We recognize this legislation isn’t perfect. However, there is a foundation that has been put in place that will make significant change for the disability community. We recognize that the real work will begin when standards and regulations are developed and we are confident that this is a place where we can address some of these issues.
However, if amendments are made, we encourage the following: We encourage you to set timelines for achieving a barrier-free Canada. Similar to those used in Ontario under the AODA with the goal of having a barrier-free Ontario by 2025, build specific timelines and deadlines into the legislation so people have a vision and goals to work toward for a barrier-free society. We understand this will not happen overnight, but we believe it is critical.
We want to ensure this legislation and development of regulations are a priority regardless of what government is sitting at the time.
Second is access to communication accommodations and supports. While most people have an understanding of an accessible-built environment, we strongly encourage the use and adoption of innovative solutions that provide access to communication accommodations and supports. These communication accommodations and services include such things as CART, captioning, ensuring service counters, conference rooms and other facilities are looped for those with hearing assistive devices, text communication, sign language and other forms of communication supports. Communication and supports must be made mandatory throughout the standards and regulations.
Funding must be available so that people with disabilities and organizations that represent the work on their behalf are properly compensated for their contributions to the design and implementation of this legislation. Too often people with disabilities are asked for their lived experience — living with a disability — and expertise with no financial compensation for their knowledge and time investment.
Funding is also needed to develop and distribute tool kits, guides, training and other resources to ensure successful implementation.
Additional funding also needs to be provided to organizations like the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association that work on behalf of Canadians living with disabilities so we have the resources and support that they need to ensure they can live productive and barrier-free lives.
Also, what is very critical is creating a culture of inclusion and equity. All people employed by the federal public sector, including parliamentarians and staff, must engage in an intensive education program to ensure they understand and demonstrate inclusive attitudes and equitable practices to promote dignity for all people with all abilities.
We also believe policies and practices must be set and followed that change attitudes, and employment outreach strategies must include actively recruiting people with disabilities at all levels of employment, from front line to senior management positions within the government.
While I am here to address the disability issues as a whole and not specific to hearing loss, it is important to note that today marks the beginning of Better Hearing and Speech Month. As Canada’s leading voice for people living with hearing loss, I am here with a strong message that it is critical for you to be aware of the rising number of people with acquired hearing loss and the associated economic burden of the results of unmanaged hearing loss poses a cause for Canada and globally.
Hearing loss has rarely been an issue that has captured public support, and while some strategies for hearing care have been implemented in some provinces, awareness and resource allocation for hearing health care remains scarce. This is concerning. An unaddressed hearing loss puts affected Canadians at significant risk of unemployment and developing serious conditions such as depression, isolation, anxiety and early onset cognitive decline that adds further costs to the health care system.
The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association has partnered with industry associations, professional organizations to form the Hearing Health Alliance of Canada. This coalition was created with the goal of working with the federal government to ensure the creation and adoption of a national hearing health care strategy.
The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association is committed to continuing its work with this committee and government as they implement this legislation to ensure the needs of all people with disabilities are met.
Again, thank you for your invitation and attention to our mission to create an accessible Canada. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Please go ahead, Ms. Lamba.
Seema Lamba, Acting Coordinator, Programs Section, Public Service Alliance of Canada: Good evening. Thank you for inviting the Public Service Alliance of Canada to address you today. The PSAC represents over 180,000 workers across Canada, including thousands of federal public-sector workers in government departments and agencies, Crown corporations, museums, workers in the federal transportation sector at airports and port authorities, and others.
Our union supports the accessible Canada act’s goal of a Canada without barriers. Persons with disabilities must be able to fully and equitably participate in all aspects of Canadian society. As a bargaining agent, our comments will focus on accessibility in employment and the impact on employees with disabilities in the federal sector.
Both Bill C-81 and the Employment Equity Act require federal employers to create plans to eliminate barriers for persons with disabilities. PSAC’s concern is that there is an overlap between the two pieces of legislation but no indication or direction as to what this means in practical terms for employees with disabilities, employers and unions. In our view, it would be preferable to improve the Employment Equity Act and refer the employment aspects of Bill C-81 to the Employment Equity Act provisions rather than create new legislative provisions duplicating the same area. It is an appropriate time to do so, as the five-year parliamentary review of the Employment Equity Act has not occurred since 2002. It is in desperate need of review.
Another area of concern with Bill C-81 is the failure to refer to the role of unions. Unions are an important stakeholder in the workplace and are legally bound to represent their members in matters of employment. This representation includes advocating for accessibility and the removal of barriers in the workplace for our members with disabilities.
Unions like PSAC are directly involved in employment equity planning in federal workplaces. Under the Employment Equity Act, employers are required to consult and collaborate with bargaining agents. Bill C-81 does not have the same requirement; it requires employers to consult with persons with disabilities when creating accessibility plans. Bargaining agents should also be involved in the preparation and implementation of accessibility plans in the same way they are involved currently with employment equity plans.
Another important aspect to accessibility in employment is the duty to accommodate in the workplace. Even with the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act, public-service workers continue to be denied accommodation in the workplace. For example, there is a Treasury Board directive on leave and special working arrangements that continues to have an adverse impact on many employees with disabilities by effectively forcing them to retire from the public service after two years.
Accommodation-related grievances and human rights complaints can often take years before they are resolved, further compounding the issues faced by people who are seeking timely accommodation and a worsening of their condition.
The federal government has acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has also named the Canadian Human Rights Commission as the domestic monitoring body for the convention. As a result, Canada has an obligation and commitment to ensure that people with disabilities have full enjoyment of their human rights as asserted in the UN convention ratified in 2010.
The Joint Union/Management Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion’s final report noted that the two top barriers identified by employees to achieving diversity and inclusion in the workplace were staffing and recruitment policies and practices, as well as the levels of workplace accommodation and accessibility. The Public Service Employee Survey results also consistently show that persons with disabilities face high rates of discrimination at work.
The task force recommended that a centralized, systemic approach be developed for accessibility and accommodations, including centralized funding for accommodations. Currently, the responsibilities are devolved from the central agencies to departments, resulting in patchworks and inconsistent application in the understanding of the employer’s duty to accommodation.
In consideration of the parliamentary schedule, PSAC does not wish to impede passage of this bill, as we support the goals of the legislation. We encourage you to review the recommendations we have provided in our written submission to this committee and to take them into consideration when amendments or reviews of this act, or similar legislation, are brought forward in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
The Chair: We have a list of senators who have questions. Senators, please say from whom you would like an answer.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentations. There is no question in my mind that this is quite a wonderful way to end our hearings, because you’ve all presented very powerfully and clearly, so I thank you for that.
Tomorrow, we will do clause by clause. I think we also hear your plea. We’ve heard over and over again in our hearings that the disability communities do not want us to do anything to jeopardize this legislation. They feel very strongly that it is an important beginning for disability communities, and I think we hear that as well.
We have looked at very clear, crisp amendments that would improve the legislation in what might be considered a mandatory kind of way that we think might be able to get to the house and back again. That is the issue here, because any amendments we make have to go back to the House of Commons.
I might start with you, Ms. Jodhan, and then move to everyone if they wish. If there were one area of legislation that you would ask us to strengthen, what would you choose?
Ms. Jodhan: I would ask you to ensure that timelines and deadlines are implanted into Bill C-81 so they could be adhered to more correctly. Without timelines and deadlines, it is not possible to have things happen in an orderly manner. So in response to your question, I think timelines and deadlines are what I would like to see strengthened.
Senator Seidman: Perfect. Thank you.
Mr. Onley: I would agree. You said it very succinctly: timelines and deadlines. You could even go to the point of calling for a realization of a Canada without barriers on or before January 1, 2040. It sounds like a long time, but it is not.
Unless there is a timeframe objective, it can become a lot of virtue-signalling. We’ve had enough of that over the decades.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, that’s very helpful. Mr. Sutton?
Mr. Sutton: I agree with my colleagues. Timelines are critical.
One thing we’ve seen in numerous jurisdictions is that, when it is not the priority of the government, things become sidetracked. It is so critical, because this government has made accessibility through this legislation their priority but future governments may not. We really want to see a vision and an end timeline.
For example, Ontario in 2025. We know that on January 1, 2025, we will not wake up to a fully accessible Ontario, but we know that a lot of things should have been implemented by then. From there we will work toward more standards and regulations. Timelines and deadlines are critical.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Ms. Lamba: I would say we would want to see consistency between the Employment Equity Act and the accessibility plans.
I also want to point out that some in the federal public sector will still have access to the grievance process and some won’t, because it is only through the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act that people have access to the grievance process. There will be inconsistencies in how workplace accommodations or grievances are dealt with.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Munson: Those were my questions, because we are wrapping up.
Is there enthusiasm for this bill in the public service? You are representing tens of thousands of people. Has it been difficult in the past for those who want to work in the federal government or for those who were working and quit after a couple of years because they just can’t endure the working environment? I’m curious about the attitude in the public service.
Ms. Lamba: There are two questions in there. Is there enthusiasm? Yes, there is, by our members. Second, I will point out that the separation rate for people in the federal public service is almost twice as high as the entry rate, yet the representation rate is still sort of the same. So there is a disproportionate number of people with disabilities who do leave the federal public service.
Senator Munson: I have a question that has not been asked, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about. It’s a philosophical question and I know we don’t have time to get into philosophy, but we talked a lot in the last many years about a gender-based analysis that deals with hiring practices and how you go about working in the public service. GBA has been used within the federal government. Anybody can answer this question, but in terms of a disability lens is there something here that we could look at as we move in towards regulation and other ideas? I recognize that everybody who should be consulted has been, but the whole principle of hiring and being part of something should be looked at through a disability lens.
We’ve lost the feed. I don’t know if Mr. Sutton or Ms. Lamba would like to answer that.
The Chair: Maybe somebody here could answer while we fix the video conferencing.
Mr. Sutton: Thank you for that question, senator. There are many jurisdictions that look through a disability lens. I think it’s so critical. I will give you a personal example. When my parents found out I had a hearing loss when I was seven and a half years old, I had really no spoken language abilities at that time. I stuttered. My name was Chester. I could barely speak. As a consequence, my parents had a decision to make about which language I would learn, and they picked English.
I’ve tried to apply for jobs in the public service at the federal level, but because I only speak English, most times I am not able to get into the positions. I think that’s a consequence of my disability, unfortunately. So I think it is important to look through a disability lens when looking at employment opportunities, and perhaps even quotas. I don’t like quotas because I think they are discriminatory, but I do think it is important that we have equal representation because we are part of the population.
Senator Munson: I don’t want to take up others’ time because there are many more questions. I want to thank you very much. I feel this is an important issue, as we go down a new road when it comes to this issue, because there are so many people who are not employed.
The Chair: Did you want to add something?
Ms. Lamba: I did. The task force I was talking about was the joint task force of bargaining agents and Treasury Board that did a study on diversity inclusion. They are recommending a diversity inclusion lens, so it’s a more intersectional approach and looking at everything we do. I point out that the task force notes that staffing, recruitment and all around people management is one of the critical barriers. I would say it is a critical barrier for people with disabilities in getting into employment.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: My question is directed to the Honourable David Onley. Your honour, can you give us some ideas — I know we cut you short when you were presenting and I got the sense that there was a richness of the Ontario experience that you might have shared with us. What have we learned from the Ontario experience? What are the pitfalls here, besides the timelines which you spoke to very clearly?
Mr. Onley: I feel the big takeaway from the experience was that there are a lot of very frustrated people who are really expecting government to deliver on this. And while we were talking about the Ontario act, the conversation again and again, without any prompting from the presenters, inevitably moved over to the federal act, and considerable enthusiasm that, at last, there was going to be a national approach to accessibility.
I think that was probably the most overwhelming thing, because it just kept happening again and again, whether it was a hearing at Carleton University in Ottawa, or up in Thunder Bay, or in London or other parts of the province. Without any prompting, that message kept coming back again and again. So there is an expectation, and there will be profound disappointment if this is a watered down or weakened document. People are really looking for results.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to all of you for being here. Yes, we are getting near the finish line of a very long race. It is just the beginning, so we are thrilled to have all of you here today helping us solidify some of these next steps.
This comment or question is for the Honourable David Onley. I want to thank you. Your video still reigns across the province and the country for education and training. It is a video that’s still used, and I bring that up for a particular reason. You have talked about timelines, and we’ve heard that. The education and training piece, when you have finished your third review, learnings from AODA and our next step moving forward, we don’t see that as a specifically purposeful statement in this bill. I would love if you could comment on that aspect of education and training and what you believe it has meant for culture, in your experience, in Ontario.
Mr. Onley: It has certainly been an incremental process. I think it has been assisted by groups such as Roots of Empathy, to name just one, that have encouraged in their own way to help improve our society, as well as the different advocacy groups who have been inspired to continue working at this.
Prior to the cameras being turned on, Donna and I were talking about — and I hear this again and again from others — just how tired we are as advocates. There are only so many decades — not years but decades — that you can keep pursuing things without reaching a point where you just wonder how much longer you can keep on doing it.
I realize this doesn’t fully answer your question, but be assured that if there is quality content to this and people see that it is a strong bill and a strong act, that there will be considerable enthusiasm and support that will be directed towards it. I think it would then be an encouragement insofar as education and the training is concerned.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to all four of you for your continued and tireless advocacy.
Senator Ravalia: My question, too, is for the Honourable David Onley. Thank you to all of you for your presentations. Your honour, outside of the timelines, are there any aspects of Bill C-81 that you feel did not fully address what you so articulately said at the beginning: the ability to achieve one’s full potential?
Mr. Onley: No, I think it has been well covered. I really do. It is something that’s going to require work as this act comes into force, but it is also going to require the Province of Ontario, with many of the recommendations that I made in the review, and other provinces with their own initiatives — this is not going to be, like in a football analogy, a Hail Mary pass where the act comes into force and Royal Assent is given and then we start holding parades for accessibility. We still have a long way to go, but it will be an encouragement to advocacy groups, to other provinces that have accessibility acts and encouragement, I hope, to provinces that don’t have accessibility acts to enact their own in their areas of jurisdiction.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
The Chair: Did any other witness want to comment on that?
Ms. Jodhan: I would like to echo the Honourable David Onley’s comments. Our community is very hungry for success, and we hope and pray that this piece of legislation will be passed. If it is not, I don’t know how many of us will have the energy, stamina and wherewithal to start from the beginning again.
For me personally, I probably won’t. As an advocate who has fought for many years, it wears you out after a while. But I will say — and I want to commend this government for having done this, and this is the first Prime Minister who made this promise to us — that we are looking forward to this. And we hope and pray that it does happen.
I, for one, am very optimistic that it will happen. I want to congratulate the Senate and this government for having been courageous enough and intuitive enough to do this. So let’s hope and pray that this legislation is passed. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you all for being here. Ms. Lamba, you commented on the overlapping and confusing interplay of various pieces of legislation. I wonder if you or others are able to comment on the confusion that may be created by overlapping and conflicting federal/provincial jurisdictions in relation to a barrier-free Canada. And how are we best advised to deal with those?
Ms. Lamba: I note that you said federal/provincial. I know this legislation can only have jurisdiction over federally regulated public sectors, so the private and public sectors in the federal realm. But I will note that even that will cause confusion.
For example, in the Employment Equity Act there is a federal contractors program that is often provincial entities under that act. That captures hundreds of thousands of workers where they are required to have employment equity plans, and it might cause some confusion. But otherwise, this legislation won’t have any impact in the provincial jurisdiction because it is not for that. Is that what you mean?
Senator Omidvar: I understand that, but I wonder if the Honourable David Onley would comment from his review of the AODA and his long years of experience in Ontario. As an Ontarian, I lived through that. Is there clarity or interplay or confusion? And how should we best be advised to deal with that?
Mr. Onley: Like everything else in Canadian politics, is this a federal or provincial matter? The answer is yes.
As long as people see that legitimate efforts are being made within the respective spheres of influence or responsibility, any of the overlapping that could inevitably occur will be seen with a real sense of goodwill as opposed to confusion.
It is fairly clear as to what areas are covered, insofar as federal responsibilities are concerned, and fairly clear as to what areas are provincial in this particular area. So I think pressing on with considerable vigour, in terms of its implementation, will be a great encouragement.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I believe there are no more questions, so I do want to take the time to thank our witnesses. As we’ve said before, this is the last meeting on Bill C-81 until tomorrow, when we will process and conclude with clause-by-clause consideration. This has been very valuable.
Thank you for being here and for the years of advocacy for which we truly owe you and for the impact that you are making, not only on the lives of persons with disabilities but all Canadians.
Unless there is any other business, I will say that we will meet tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)