:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to the 57th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), the committee is meeting today to study report 1 of the Auditor General of Canada, Accessible Transportation for Persons With Disabilities, which is part of the 2023 reports 1 to 4 of the Auditor General of Canada.
[English]
I'd now like to welcome our witnesses.
From the Office of the Auditor General, we have with us Karen Hogan, Auditor General, with Milan Duvnjak, principal, and Susie Fortier, director.
Also, from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, we have Nada Semaan, president and chief executive officer.
I spotted a small error on your name card, Ms. Semaan. I'm terribly sorry about that. I apologize for that error.
Also from the authority, we have Louise Alberelli, general manager, operational programs, and Rhoda Boyd, general manager, communications.
From the Canadian Transportation Agency, we have France Pégeot, chair and chief executive officer, and Tom Oommen, director general, analysis and outreach branch. From Via Rail Canada, joining us by video conference, we have Marie-Claude Cardin, chief financial officer, and Catherine Langlois, senior adviser, universal accessibility.
Before I turn to our witnesses, I understand, Mr. Genuis, that you have a motion before us.
:
I'll read it into the record. That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is important that as a committee we're able to take up urgent issues of the day, therefore I'm moving a motion that I provided notice of, which is aimed at getting to the bottom of dishonest conduct and attempted foreign interference in the Trudeau Foundation.
The motion is as follows:
That, given that (i) the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation received a $125-million taxpayer-funded payment in 2002, when the Foundation was created, by a former Liberal government, (ii) the President and CEO and a majority of the board of directors of the Foundation resigned recently, (iii) the Foundation was reported to be incapable of repaying a large donation received from a wealthy individual connected to the CCP regime in Beijing because the donor's true identity is not known, (iv) the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had uncovered a plot by the CCP regime in Beijing to donate to the Foundation, and (v) it has been reported by media that some Foundation directors had considered calling in the Auditor General, the committee undertake a study concerning the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and its governance and funding, as well as the management of its taxpayer-funded endowment, provided that the committee hear testimony from (a) Morris Rosenberg, former president and CEO of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, (b) Pascale Fournier, former president and CEO of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, (c) the Auditor General of Canada, (d) the Minister of National Revenue, (e) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, (f) Bob Hamilton, the commissioner and chief executive officer of the Canada Revenue Agency, (g) Sharmila Khare, director general of the Canada Revenue Agency's charities directorate, and (h) other witnesses as deemed necessary by the committee.
Mr. Chair, as you know, Conservatives have been working hard to get to the bottom of the serious problem of CCP interference in Canadian democracy. It is becoming clear that there was from the beginning a concerted effort by the Xi Jinping regime to co-opt and shape the direction of this Liberal government, and that those efforts targeted Justin Trudeau even before he took office. It could be, in certain cases, that efforts at influence were rebuffed by the intended target, but in this case it is becoming clear that the and those around him were aware of this attempted interference and accepted it because they benefited from it. They benefited from it in the form of dollars for a family foundation and in the form of electoral support.
This is an urgent issue because Canadians and their representatives on this side of the House are deeply concerned about threats to Canadian sovereignty and about the reality that hostile foreign actors with interests contrary to Canada's are trying to capture our leaders and subvert our institutions.
In response to these pressing concerns about foreign state-backed interference and threats to our national security and our sovereignty, Liberals have been desperate to bury the story. They and their proxies have attacked journalists, attacked CSIS, attacked the opposition, stonewalled studies through extended filibusters at various committees, and refused to answer basic questions during committee appearances.
Conservatives continue to push, as we have from the beginning, for a full public inquiry into foreign interference, an inquiry led by someone who is truly independent of the government and of the organizations implicated in this scandal, so my motion today is about the role of the Trudeau Foundation in attempts by the CCP to interfere in Canadian democracy.
The role of the Trudeau Foundation in this scandal is particularly important. As soon as a prime minister also named Trudeau took office, foreign donations to the foundation skyrocketed. It does not take a Trudeau Foundation scholar to figure out that there was some relationship, at least in the minds of these foreign donors, between the foundation and the , such that they had a reason to donate to the foundation after 2015 that they did not have before 2015.
Again, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
In fact, Le Devoir recently reported that the Trudeau Foundation began actively soliciting these foreign donations. Again, they can't have been ignorant of the implications of having a Trudeau prime minister and soliciting money from foreign donors to this family foundation who also wanted to have an influence over the direction of the Canadian government.
This was quite obvious and was, in fact, the subject of repeated questions by our party in question period in the early days after 2015. These questions were blown off by Liberals at the time, who continued to praise and defend the Trudeau Foundation.
Since that time, though, the leadership of the Trudeau Foundation has faced further scrutiny, promised to return a donation to a CCP insider, claimed that it had returned the donation, failed to return the donation and then resigned en masse. Through these events, there has been a great deal of bluster from senior Liberals, Liberals who want to blame the media and Conservatives for the problems of the Trudeau Foundation and the Trudeau government.
In response to some of this misinformation, it's important to put the facts about the Trudeau Foundation on the record. The Trudeau Foundation is not a normal charity. It is defined in law as a government institution. The Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act define the Trudeau Foundation as a government institution. In fact, the Trudeau Foundation's privacy policy says as much on its website. The Federal Accountability Act also specifically names the Trudeau Foundation and empowers the Auditor General to follow the money that it spends.
Importantly, though, the Trudeau Foundation was not directly set up by government. It was created as a family foundation, with a preferred position in governance given to members of the Trudeau family, including the current . It was a family foundation that was subsequently turned into a government institution through the injection of $125 million of taxpayers' money.
Regardless of the merits of its work, this is an extremely odd governance structure for any organization. You have a family foundation that is a registered charity but that also has many of the characteristics of a Crown corporation, insofar as it has been heavily subsidized and insofar as it is defined as a government institution in various statutes. In effect, it has the freedom of a private charitable organization while benefiting from the 's name and taxpayers' money, even while members of his family continue to shape its future.
Liberals have claimed that this Frankenstein had bipartisan support, but that does not appear to be the case, based on my review of Hansard. John Williams, a former chair of this committee, said in the House on March 19, 2002, when the appropriations for the Trudeau Foundation were being discussed, “Mr. Speaker, could the President of the Treasury Board confirm that the bill is in its usual form for an appropriation bill and that the $125 million donation to the Pierre Trudeau foundation and opposed by the opposition is actually in order?”
On the governance structure specifically, the governance of the Trudeau Foundation is invested in the foundation's membership, which in turn selects the board of directors. These are clear facts, and you can find them on page 53 of the foundation's latest annual report. There are 30 members of the foundation. Six seats out of 30 seats are set aside for members appointed by the Minister of Industry, and three are reserved for “liquidators of the succession of the late Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau”, effectively members of the Trudeau family or family appointees. Nine of 30 spots of those who control this organization are selected by either the Trudeau government or the Trudeau family.
Both Sacha Trudeau and are members of the foundation. The identifies as an “Inactive Member”, although he continues to be a member of the foundation with, apparently, the associated powers and privileges. This is an even more curious relationship, that a sitting prime minister retains membership in a foundation, along with his brother and up to six members that his government directly appoints, and along with David Johnston, who is apparently responsible for investigating this whole mess. Claiming non-involvement is a bit odd, given that he maintains membership in the foundation.
The members of the Trudeau Foundation select the Trudeau Foundation's board of directors—up to 18 directors—with two seats reserved for representatives appointed by the and two seats set aside for members or reps of the Trudeau family. At the time of the last annual report being published, Sarah Coyne, the 's half-sister, was one of the family representatives on the board, so the Trudeau Foundation had the Prime Minister as one of 30 members, though he identifies as inactive, another sibling as an ostensibly active member, and another sibling as a member of the board of directors. About one-third of the membership spots and one-third of the director spots are reserved for appointees of the Trudeau government or the Trudeau family.
Whatever the 's ongoing involvement in the Trudeau Foundation is or isn't, the CCP were not incorrect in their calculation that this family foundation is close to his heart. Allan Rock said as much when he announced the Liberal government's massive injection of funds into the Trudeau Foundation in 2002. He said, “Two people deserve particular credit. Without Sacha and Justin Trudeau's determination, idealism and, yes, their father's famous stubbornness, today's announcement would simply not have been possible.”
Liberals like Allan Rock know that the Trudeau Foundation is close to the 's heart and subject to his potential influence. That reality is evident from even a cursory review of the Trudeau Foundation's governing documents. When, today, Liberals like Allan Rock whine about how we shouldn't criticize a charity, they are being highly misleading, and they know it.
Government institutions such as the Trudeau Foundation should be held accountable by parliamentary committees. The Trudeau Foundation was supported by Allan Rock and others to be able to use taxpayers' money and created to be subject to the ongoing influence simultaneously of the Liberal establishment and the Trudeau family.
When the good book says to build one's foundation upon a rock, it wasn't referring to Allan Rock. Unfortunately, the governance of this foundation is not on anything solid, but is on the shifting sands of politics and the preferences of the Trudeau family.
The Trudeau family has rightly been subject to significant criticism over the fact that they cashed cheques from foreign entities that were clearly trying to use those donations to curry favour with the Government of Canada. It appears now that they solicited these donations from foreign sources. Further, it is now very clear that the Trudeau Foundation lied to Canadians about its decision to return a donation.
On March 1, the Trudeau Foundation issued a statement, which included the following:
The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation has learned in recent days through the media that there was a potential connection between the Chinese government and a 2016 pledge of $200,000 to be received by the Foundation.
It went on:
In light of these recent allegations, the Foundation has refunded to the donor all amounts received with respect to the donation pledge.
On March 1, the claim was made—past tense—that “the Foundation has refunded to the donor all amounts received with respect to the donation pledge”. It did not say that they were thinking about or planning to or intending to. It said, “The Foundation has refunded to the donor....” That was a lie. The statement did not say that they were intending to. It said that they had, but they hadn't. This failure contributed to the governance crisis that we have since seen at the Trudeau Foundation. This government and this Trudeau family institution were subject to a sustained campaign of foreign interference. They accepted the money and then lied about when they were returning it.
The Trudeau Foundation has now asked the Auditor General to investigate, and we need a thorough investigation by the House of Commons audit committee of where the money went and what governance problems at this government institution led us to that point.
That's why we have put forward this motion. It is squarely within this committee's mandate as the committee responsible for the audit function of Parliament to study this issue, to understand what auditing processes were involved and could be involved, and to look at the appropriateness of a CRA audit and a review by the Auditor General—things that of course we support—along with a fully independent public inquiry into the whole mess.
This government has commissioned two different people to investigate the foreign interference issue: Morris Rosenberg and David Johnston, both from the Trudeau Foundation. Liberals should not investigate Liberals, and Trudeau Foundation members and directors should not be investigating the Trudeau Foundation.
Honestly, Mr. Chair, sometimes this government behaves as if this country has only a dozen families in it. They keep recycling the same people who are part of the same well-connected Laurentian insider circles, from the same families related to themselves, who have served them in the past—Trudeau Foundation members investigating foreign interference, 's sister as Ethics Commissioner.... I could go on.
In this massive country of almost 40 million people, with immigrants from all corners of the world, they nonetheless keep recycling the same insiders from the same insider families. This Liberal government is a government for their friends, for the connected corporate insiders who work for McKinsey and volunteer at the Trudeau Foundation. If you were born into or if you married into one of the 30 or 40 families that hold the cards, then no problem: You get the government contracts, the foreign donations, the ethical cover—whatever it is you're looking for. But I say that this is a big country. Let's act like it. Let's have proper parliamentary oversight. Let's call in the truly independent actors to get to the bottom of this ethical mess and get to the bottom of this corruption that is undermining trust in our institutions.
Conservatives would never dream of even trying a thing like this. Can you imagine if Conservatives started a Stephen Harper foundation, put all of Stephen Harper's heirs into leadership positions in the organization and then pumped $125 million from taxpayers into that foundation? Can you imagine the extent to which Liberals would lose their minds over such an arrangement? Conservatives would never do such a thing, because we will stand with the common people.
Liberals like Allan Rock, Gerry Butts and do not want to see powerful people and institutions held accountable. It's clear from their comments, but Conservatives will continue to speak truth to power on behalf of the common people, and we hope that other opposition parties will support us in passing this motion and helping us get to the bottom of this mess.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleague for presenting this motion. I think it's an important motion and I think it's in line and in spirit with what many Canadians would expect from this committee, so I think it's an important motion that members of this committee should take seriously.
The parts I don't necessarily agree with within the motion are related to some of the intent of the motion. It's my understanding that the Auditor General's office has received a request from the Trudeau Foundation to audit it, so it agrees with the member in this case that it should be audited. I agree with that point from both perspectives. It's my goal—and, I think, our goal at this committee—to find a way to best account for what's happened here, and I think the person who's best able to do that is the Auditor General. The member remarked that the most important piece to this would be an independent investigation and that an independent investigation should be conducted by independent offices, and I agree. The Auditor General is an independent office and an independent officer of this place and could and should investigate this as a matter of perception for Canadians, because, of course, the conflict is there.
I don't think, however, that members of this committee should undertake a study that would involve many of these members when the Auditor General has the tools and capacity to do that work. We have many things to do in this committee, and I think this motion would be best served by this committee if all parliamentarians here could find a way to come to a consensus to have the Auditor General do this investigation. That would be my hope. I feel that many of the aspects contained within the motion, however, are not necessary if we're trying to find a way to make the independent piece of this accountable.
I would suggest that we find a way to create either an amendment or a process that would clarify the willingness of this committee to, one, see the Auditor General conduct an investigation; two, do so in a way that's transparent and independent; and three, come back to that report, because we always study the reports of the Auditor General. I would await the report of the Auditor General so we could actually conduct that investigation properly and according to the goals of this committee.
I would seek advice from my committee colleagues as to what they think about that process and if they're amenable to seeing this amendment be more consistent with the goals of this committee, which is to ensure that the work of the Auditor General—in this case, the work of auditing the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation—be conducted. However, I don't think it requires members of this committee to summon witnesses before that audit is complete.
:
Thank you. That is put aside for now. I'm sure members will come back....
Mr. Genuis, I'm going to move on to another issue. This is done for now. You're welcome to bring it forward to another committee.
Again, I apologize to the witnesses, but I want to bring committee members up to speed on the COVID-19 contracts. This is a matter of business that is before us.
The committee received, from Public Services and Procurement Canada, two of the seven contracts on Thursday, April 13, 2023. They were from Johnson & Johnson and Medicago.
We have correspondence, which you've all received, from the assistant deputy minister of policy, planning and communications on behalf of Public Services and Procurement Canada on Thursday, April 13. This correspondence was distributed to members on Friday, April 14.
I won't summarize.... Actually, I will. The summary is as follows:
on behalf of Public Services and Procurement Canada...regarding the Committee's March 23...motion to request access to contracts entered into between the Government of Canada and manufacturers for COVID-19 vaccines.
Based on the measures taken by the Committee, through its motion, to limit public disclosure and safeguard the confidentiality of information, PSPC, following consultations completed with two companies, is providing [the] first tranche....
I'm just summarizing the letter.
The letter referenced the fact that we had taken steps to keep these documents confidential and the department would hopefully—there are no assurances—endeavour to deliver the remainder of the contracts this week: “a second and final tranche of documents in response to the motion.”
I, as chair, sent correspondence back to PSPC, requesting the documents without further delay. That was done on Friday, April 14.
I want to just raise this. We will not deal with any vote on this, because that will require a motion, but I want to get a sense of the room on this issue.
I'm going to turn first to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, as the motion's sponsor, to address this question. I'll then turn to others if they have comments, and we can pick this up, as I'm sure a motion will be coming for Thursday.
Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor, please.
:
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our report on accessible transportation for persons with disabilities, which was tabled in the House of Commons on March 27.
I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Joining me today are Milan Duvnjak, the principal who was responsible for the audit, and Susie Fortier, the director who led the audit team.
This audit looked at whether Via Rail, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and the Canadian Transportation Agency worked to identify, remove and prevent barriers for travellers with disabilities.
In 2019 and 2020, more than one million persons with disabilities who travelled on a federally regulated mode of transportation faced a barrier. We found that all three organizations had identified some barriers in taking steps to improve accessibility. Via Rail held consultations with persons with disabilities while designing its new fleet. It also consulted on its accessibility plan and training programs, as did the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
However, improvements were still needed in many important areas. For example, online information was not fully accessible. According to Statistics Canada, this is one of the barriers most frequently experienced by travellers with disabilities. Poor accessibility means that information is difficult to find or is incorrect for someone using a screen reader. This makes it difficult for persons with disabilities to plan or book a trip by themselves.
[English]
We also found that staff and management did not always complete accessibility training. This can affect the service provided to travellers with disabilities and their companions.
As the organization responsible for enforcing accessibility regulations in the transportation industry, the Canadian Transportation Agency identified accessibility barriers through its inspections, and it worked with transportation service providers to remove some. However, we found that the agency conducted few inspections, and it could request complaint data from service providers only in certain circumstances. Consistent access to this data would help the agency improve its oversight. Meanwhile, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and Via Rail focused on resolving individual complaints, and they missed opportunities to use complaint data to better understand travellers' lived experiences.
Every person has a right to participate fully and equally in society. If access to these rights is delayed or denied, the impact is that some members of society are excluded or left behind. To further improve the accessibility of trains, planes and other federally regulated modes of transportation, responsible organizations need to broaden their consultation with persons with disabilities, make their online content fully accessible, and use complaint data to identify, learn about and prevent barriers. This work is necessary to achieve the federal government's goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We'd be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you.
:
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak with you today.
My name is Nada Semaan, as the chair mentioned, and I am honoured to be appearing before this committee for the first time as the new president and CEO of CATSA. I'm joined today by my two colleagues, Rhoda Boyd, who is the general manager of communications, and Louise Alberelli, general manager of operations programs.
As you are aware, the Canadian Air Transportation Security Authority is responsible for securing specific elements of the air transportation system. We have four mandated activities: pre-board screening, hold baggage screening, non-passenger screening, and restricted area identity cards. We deliver the mandate of security screening at 89 designated airports across the country through a third party screening contractor model.
Our goal is to provide professional, effective and consistent security screening across the country, combined with a focus on service excellence, and I can assure you that accessibility is a key priority in achieving that goal.
We are pleased that the OAG audit acknowledged the efforts we have already made to identify, remove and prevent transportation barriers for persons with disabilities.
[Translation]
CATSA is proud of the work it's done in this area. We strive to provide a barrier-free security screening experience for those who work at or transit through Canada's designated airports.
Ongoing improvement is always at the forefront of CATSA's efforts. With this in mind, we saw the Office of the Auditor General's audit as an opportunity to look at what additional steps we could take to better meet the needs of those we serve.
[English]
We agreed with the recommendations made as a result of the audit, which provided additional measures we can undertake to remove barriers for persons with disabilities.
Specifically, the report highlighted three areas for improvement for CATSA. One is to meet web accessibility standards. The second is the timeliness of accessibility training and further consultations with persons with disabilities related to that training. The final one is to develop and implement a strategy to better analyze complaint data.
In response to the first recommendation, we have taken critical steps towards ensuring our online content meets web accessibility standards. I'm pleased to announce that on March 29, 2023, CATSA updates the online content management system for its website to a new, fully accessible version. We have now turned our attention to the manual work required to update forms, visuals and other aspects of our website, with each step contributing to an incremental improvement level of accessibility as we move forward.
The second recommendation made to CATSA was with regard to the timeliness of accessibility training, and I am pleased to confirm that all screening officers and additional management and decision-makers identified to receive disability awareness training have now done so. Going forward, we have implemented a process to monitor and ensure that all screening officers receive accessibility training prior to starting work with the public, that CATSA management and decision-makers are immediately offered accessibility training upon joining the organization, and that they complete it in a set time.
This second recommendation, on training, also highlighted the importance of consulting persons with disabilities with regard to our teaching methods. CATSA has been consulting persons with disabilities since 2014, with the goal of improving screening processes, operational procedures and training material for screening contractor personnel. However, consulting on teaching methods has posed a challenge with regard to the disclosure of security-sensitive information. That said, while the challenge still exists, we are committed to finding an approach that meets the recommendations given to us while ensuring we also respect the regulatory constraints surrounding the disclosure of this information.
In response to the final recommendation, on improving analysis of CATSA's complaint data, work is under way to develop and implement a strategy in consultation with various teams within CATSA, as well as with persons with disabilities. We will also ensure that the strategy aligns with the federal data measurement strategy for accessibility of 2022-27.
[Translation]
As noted by the Office of the Auditor General, we currently evaluate and process complaints individually. This allows us to review complaints in real time, share information and feedback with our frontline operations team and provide training to determine immediate action.
We agree that we could improve the ways we analyze complaint data. We've already begun work in this area. We're currently exploring how we categorize complaint data as well as which processes we can adopt to support trend analysis and reporting so we can enhance our current real-time approach.
[English]
CATSA remains committed to aligning with government priorities and listening to and engaging with passengers, airport workers, screening officers, the CATSA workforce and, in all honesty, all who wish to work with us, to identify, prevent and eliminate accessibility barriers, both current and future.
The actions we are taking today are working toward a more accessible and barrier-free tomorrow.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here and to present to you today. We will be happy to take questions after.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to appear today.
With me is Tom Oommen, director general of the analysis and outreach branch at the Canadian Transportation Agency.
The agency's mandate is based on the Canada Transportation Act and contributes to the national transportation policy, which strives for an accessible, competitive, economic and efficient national transportation system that serves the needs of participants and communities, and in which people trust.
We have three main roles. We help ensure that the national transportation system runs efficiently and smoothly in the interests of all Canadians, particularly in the areas of rail and marine. We provide consumer protection for air passengers. Finally, we protect the human right of persons with disabilities to accessible transportation.
The agency has a dual role. First, we are the economic regulator of the transportation industry. We make and implement regulations. We issue determinations, for example on Canadian ownership of airlines; and we monitor and enforce legislation and regulations.
Second, we are an administrative tribunal. As such, we provide access to justice by resolving various disputes, informally and formally through adjudication, between regulated industry and its users.
Accessibility has always been and continues to be a priority. I would like to start by acknowledging that barriers do still exist for persons with disabilities in the transportation sector and that there is still work to be done. With that being said, I believe that progress has been made.
Following two years of consultation, the accessible transportation for persons with disabilities regulations came into force between 2020 and 2022. These regulations integrated two previously existing regulations and six voluntary codes of practice and cover large transportation service providers. The agency is currently working on proposed regulations that would apply to small ones.
[English]
The agency also developed the accessible transportation planning and reporting regulations, which came into force at the end of 2021. These are designed to ensure that the various members of the transportation industry plan how they intend to improve accessibility, in consultation with persons with disabilities, and demonstrate how this translates into concrete results.
To ensure continuous communications with persons with disabilities, we have established an accessibility advisory committee. This group, which meets at least twice a year, brings together members of disability rights groups and also industry. This forum lets us get input on projects, priorities and regulations, and provides us with an opportunity to share information on our activities.
The agency encourages everyone to bring forward complaints if they believe that a service provider hasn't respected its accessibility-related obligations. In most cases—97% of the time—the agency is able to help resolve those complaints through informal processes such as mediation. All accessibility complaints are prioritized, and I am pleased to inform you that we currently have no backlog with respect to accessibility complaints. We monitor compliance with the regulations and investigate all incidents involving people with disabilities that are brought to our attention, whether it be via media, for example, or other sources.
Beyond the specifics of our regulations, I believe it's also crucial for transportation service providers to instill a culture of accessibility at all levels of their organizations. There is an opportunity currently to ensure that new and existing staff are provided quality training on accessibility, and that each and every individual is imbued with a culture of respect. I emphasize this at all my meetings with industry executives.
We are proud of the work we're doing at the agency, and we recognize that action must be taken beyond our authority to eliminate barriers in transportation. Therefore, we have taken a leadership role on the international stage. For example, to improve the handling of mobility aids, we have led three research projects in collaboration with the National Research Council and Transport Canada. Our work has been an important contribution to recent International Air Transportation Association guidelines on mobility aids.
Additionally, the agency, representing Canada, is chairing an ICAO—International Civil Aviation Organization—initiative to develop a compendium of the accessibility statutes, regulations and best practices of various countries. The compendium can be used as a reference for countries looking to develop or improve their regulations, and it will inform ICAO's direction on improving accessibility.
Throughout the audit, we have collaborated fully with the Auditor General's representatives, and we welcome their findings and recommendations. We're committed to implementing the plan of action identified in the report.
Thank you very much. I will be pleased to answer questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to committee members, for allowing us to present to you all the work that Via Rail is doing to provide a barrier-free travel experience for our passengers, from booking to destination.
We are proud of our efforts to date, as recognized by the Auditor General, and our teams will continue to carry out our many initiatives in this area with dedication and professionalism.
With me today is Catherine Langlois, senior advisor on universal accessibility.
[English]
Via Rail is committed to being the most accessible national and intercity carrier in Canada. That is why we have undertaken several major initiatives over the past few years to create an environment in which every person with a disability can travel independently and with confidence. This means we are working every day to improve our services so that all of our passengers can enjoy the same quality experience for which Via Rail is so often recognized.
Today, I want to share with you the plans we have in place to remove any remaining barriers and to make Via Rail a fully accessible mobility option for Canadians. Please allow me to explain some of our initiatives.
[Translation]
First of all, Via Rail benefits from a unique expertise since the establishment of a universal accessibility advisory committee in 2021. This committee is made up of organizations representing a wide range of people with disabilities. Their advice is invaluable and helps to better determine the needs of passengers and identify the criteria for success so that Via Rail can continue to be the most accessible carrier in Canada. When Via Rail launches a new project, the members of this committee are informed and, depending on the nature of the project, are invited to become involved to varying degrees.
Via Rail recently began marketing the first trainsets of our brand-new fully accessible fleet of trains to serve the Quebec-Windsor corridor. I am personally proud of the inclusive approach we have taken to provide an experience that best meets the needs of people with disabilities and their companions. Some of our advisory committee members have already been invited to experience it.
[English]
In addition, Via Rail has developed and launched a comprehensive accessibility training program. This training is offered to both senior management and frontline staff. To date, all members of our senior management team have completed this training, with the exception of two new executives who began their roles in April 2023. This training will be updated on a regular basis to ensure that our entire workforce has a good understanding of how our organization operates to provide a fully accessible experience for our passengers. Training material will also be reviewed in collaboration with representatives from partner organizations to address any gaps in the teaching methods used.
As for the management of complaints lodged by our passengers, since last February we have been the subject of an extended review by all of the business units concerned, which are in the best position to make the required changes. We are also committed to developing and implementing a strategy to improve the analysis of complaint data on an annual basis. Detailed quarterly reports on accessibility complaints will be produced and forwarded to our experts, who will work to remedy the situation. Progress reports will then be presented to our advisory committee members.
With the ultimate goal of providing a fully accessible experience at every stage of the customer journey, the accessibility of Via Rail's digital assets—such as our online presence and reservation system—has also been upgraded to provide significant improvements to our passengers.
[Translation]
Via Rail is excited to launch a new reservation system in the near future. This new system will be a critical step in the fully accessible experience we are committed to providing to our passengers. At the same time, we are modernizing other important information systems, including the content of our web pages. We are committed to ensuring that our content meets accessibility standards in this area, and to that end, we will have our digital assets evaluated by an accessibility specialist and will implement all recommendations from that annual review.
I am confident that the measures presented today will address the issues raised by the Auditor General so that Via Rail can better understand and meet the needs of its passengers.
In closing, I would like to reiterate Via Rail's commitment to being the most accessible carrier in Canada. We are proud of the work we have done and are committed to continuing all efforts, as we work with the government and all our partners to create a barrier-free society for Canadians.
We will be pleased to answer your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses as well, for being present with us this morning. Again, I apologize for some of the business we often have to deal with in this committee. Thank you for your patience in ensuring that we're able to get through some of the important business while also being able to conduct the review of the audit that has been presented by the Auditor General.
I am, of course, often displeased when I see the reports from the Auditor General. Most of them highlight the deficiencies that are found within our civil service and within the programs and services offered by the government or paid for in part by it.
It's no secret that persons with disabilities have significant barriers in our society writ large. However, particularly in a country like Canada, one of the largest in the world, a country where our charter and our constitution protect their mobility, the institutions that are responsible for delivering that do not.
It is a concern to me, and I would hope to parliamentarians from all benches, to find ways and means to ensure that we fix this problem and ensure that transport services like Via Rail can accommodate persons with disabilities in a way that centres on them and their experience.
I understand that the departments have in fact worked closely, in some part, in consultation phases with the community to find better ways of finding points of accessibility that make those barriers less significant. However, it's clear from this audit that they persist.
I want to find a better way to understand why they're continuing to persist. It's noted in the audit, for example, “In 2019 and 2020, nearly two thirds of the 2.2 million persons with disabilities who travelled on planes, trains, and other federally regulated modes of transportation faced a barrier.”
They're not happy to hear that this huge population—this huge number of Canadians—were unable to access the beauties of this great country, whether to see their family or to get to services elsewhere.
Here's another quote:
While VIA Rail and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority—as transportation service providers—consulted with persons with disabilities to gather feedback on projects such as accessibility plans and the design of VIA Rail’s new fleet, some ongoing issues that persons with disabilities regularly face remained.
It continues:
For example, websites for planning and booking trips were not fully accessible despite this being one of the most frequently experienced barriers in transportation for persons with disabilities.
This tells me that the Auditor General found you were able to identify the issue yourselves. Whether it was by consultation with persons with disabilities or by other means, the community offered themselves in the consultation to have that barrier identified, and then that barrier persisted.
I hope you can understand how unsatisfactory that is, not only to me but to the millions of Canadians with disabilities who have to rely on these services. It's a massive issue.
I want to start now with my questions to the Via Rail representative, who I believe is maybe online.
What are the remaining challenges that disabled Canadians face in terms of Via's online presence and its reservation system?