Evidence of meeting #26 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Scott.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're moving on now to page 4 in your handout. There is a government amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have just approved your amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, Mr. Chair. It is simply an administrative issue. My understanding is that the French version--which I don't read very well--has the terminology “the best use of all modes of transportation”. The English doesn't have it, and the French does. I think that's the situation.
(Amendment agreed to)
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
We're moving along here very well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This restores the issue of persons with disabilities. As I mentioned before, the current national transportation policy refers to people with disabilities a number of different times, including the following:
It is hereby declared that a safe, economic, efficient and adequate network of viable and effective transportation services accessible to persons with disabilities
It goes on later on:
is essential to serve the transportation needs...including persons with disabilities
This is an extremely important element to keep in a national transportation policy, particularly when we're talking about five million Canadians with disabilities across the country. So I don't think there will be any disagreement with that.
This amendment would simply ensure that we are including that in clause 2.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I just read the amendment in proposed paragraph (d) that deals with the mobility of persons with disabilities. I am wondering why it needs to be recited twice, making more paperwork and killing more trees and hurting more beavers and all that kind of thing.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, the intention is certainly not to hurt beavers--
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
--or kill trees. It's simply reinforcing the initial clause 2. As I mentioned, there are a number of references in the current national transportation policy. It is true that in proposed paragraph (d) there is a reference to “without undue obstacle to the mobility of persons”. That is a negative definition. We would like to counterbalance it with a positive definition as part of clause 2, talking about serving the needs of its users, including people with disabilities. It's stronger language.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, my understanding is that most of the acts I've referenced in the past have included this type of wording. I'm wondering if maybe the department could give us something. I think duplicating is not of any help to anybody, but if it does give it more effort and more effect, maybe it is.
4:20 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
Again, I refer the committee to the current policy statement. The wording used is “persons with disabilities”, “shippers”, “travellers”, “carriers”. Again, in an effort to make the policy statement concise, the drafters used the generic term “users”, which includes everyone who uses the transportation system, which includes persons with disabilities. Hence, this is why the “persons with disabilities” was removed from the opening paragraph. It was in an effort to avoid redundancy.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My question is along the same line. Yes, there are persons with disabilities, but there are also pregnant women, children, seniors. Therefore I don’t really want to exclude other persons with special needs by adding the words “with disabilities.”
What you are explaining to me is that there is already, in the proposed clause 5(d), a specific reference to persons with disabilities. To a certain extent, that’s it, right?
4:25 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
That is the gist of it. The currently existing policy gives details on the groups and tries to list the people favourably affected by the policy, but it is impossible to list all those people. In an effort to group them together using a single word, the term “user” has been used, and that includes everyone, including persons with disabilities and the persons you are referring to, whether it may be a pregnant woman or any other user, even the transporter’s employees.
It's a generic term that essentially includes everyone who uses the transportation system. That was the intent of that provision.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chair, I guess I could go either way on this. I would agree with the thinking of Mr. Julian, that simply all too often transportation systems do forget to include persons with disabilities. Maybe it's the general conclusion that most of us draw, as members of Parliament who serve the public. It's a serious problem in the country. We have an aging population. Roughly 13% of the Canadian population today has a form of disability. In the next 15 or 20 years, we're going to see that increase to roughly 20%. S
o I'm torn, and I don't know whether there's a significant difference or not. As Mr. Jean rightly points out, proposed paragraph 5(d) does speak specifically to persons with disabilities. So I don't know.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I think the key is the last sentence: “Those objectives are most likely to be achieved when”. And then it goes on to say “including persons with disabilities”. I don't see the purpose of it, and quite frankly, it keeps it very straight in my mind having it this way--I don't know about everybody else's. So if Mr. Julian wants to put some more emphasis on proposed paragraph (d) in relation to people with disabilities, I can understand that. But I don't see the purpose of doing it there. I don't think it accomplishes anything. In fact, it really derails the intent of the clause.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It's not to hurt trees, and it's not to derail the clause. It's a simple enunciation of what is already in the national transportation policy, which refers to the needs of people with disabilities three times. So what we've gone from is a national transportation policy that refers to people with disabilities on three occasions--in the initial paragraph twice, and then later on it talks about “an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons, including persons with disabilities”--to a national policy statement that only refers to it once. I think that would be a mistake. I think there is probably more understanding of the needs of people with disabilities now than when the former national transportation policy statement was adopted. So I think it would not show well for this committee to water down what is an important component of the national transportation policy as it exists now.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Does it water it down?
Mr. Chair, I just wonder if we could hear from the legal counsel, or in fact from Ms. Borges, as to whether or not it does water it down.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
In our view, in fact, it highlights it more than in the previous bill. In the previous bill, as Alain said earlier, it enumerates all of the entities that are considered users in this bill. So you have shippers, and you have communities; you have everybody. In this one, all the users are categorized as one, and the one that stands out is enumerated in proposed paragraph 5(d), which is including the persons with disabilities. So in terms of highlighting it, I think this one gives it more emphasis, more priority. And everybody else is grouped together so that we don't have to enumerate everybody else who is a beneficiary or included in the provisions of this bill.
I can tell you now that if we do that, when it gets to the Senate I'm going to have a whole lot of angry shippers coming to see me asking why we didn't include the word “shippers” in there or why we didn't include the others? Trust me. We have another bill to come.
It is a concern, and we believe that paragraph (d) does give it the emphasis that it merits. And we agree with you, it's very important, and that's why it is in paragraph (d).