Evidence of meeting #145 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Deputy Clerk, Administration, House of Commons
We have the House leader, who is on the board, and also right now Mr. LeBlanc. We also have the whip.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
I'm sorry, Chair, but I want to come back to this. If I'm too far off, I'll of course follow your guidance to get back, but I am really disturbed to hear this. I understand the practical reasons why. I accept that, but here's the thing. In this day and age, not only a government building but the premier government building on Parliament Hill, one of the buildings used for spouses—meaning the public—is not accessible. We deliberately designed, built and designated a room for Canadian citizens to use. In this case it's a spouses lounge, but it could be anything, and if you have any kind of disability regarding mobility, you can't get in there.
I'm sorry, but I find that unacceptable. Either we bite the bullet and spend the money that it takes to make it accessible or we don't use it for a public space, and we use it for some other capacity. To say that we had no other choice but to go ahead and create a space that disabled Canadians can't get to.... In this case, it might even directly be a member or a member's spouse, partner or parent, which is what the room is designated for, and if they aren't perfectly able-bodied, they can't use it.
I have trouble with it. Maybe that's just me, but I am having trouble with that. Again, I understand the practicality. I am not faulting anyone per se, but in allowing a space for the public or for anybody, any person at all—visitor, worker, member, family, whoever—that is not accessible, we've made a major blunder. All it's going to take is one spouse or partner to make an issue out of it, and we have no defence. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if that happened we'd quickly shut it down and find another space.
Again, I'll just leave with colleagues one of these forward headaches that won't be mine.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
I urge all of you to give some thought to the idea that we've done something and allowed something—and now we're aware of it—that makes no sense given current laws and attitudes, especially around equality.
Thanks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you.
Are there any more questions for our witnesses before we go to committee business?
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I have just a quick observation. I'm sure there were defensible reasons—we might not agree with them—for the space not being accessible, reasons that relate to honouring the heritage of the building and not being able to adjust floor levels without intruding upon materials that are a century and a half old. It's also conceivable that parliamentarians, who tend to be very sensitive to this kind of need, if they were in a position to say so, would have said that on this occasion we were going to override the heritage consideration for the sake of accessibility.
Looking forward, I think this is a good example of the kind of thing where you hit some kind of line, and where it would be helpful to have people and parliamentarians to say that in this case something overrides another normally absolutely solid line, and that a red line is actually not a red line in this case.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you all.
If you could stay, I want to do a little committee business here.
First of all, on the elm tree, I'm suggesting that we do two things. I think most members are aware of the issue. We should have an emergency meeting, bringing in Public Works or whoever, plus the people who wrote us the letter, and scope it out and learn more about it. Second is to write a strong letter to Public Works, the BOIE and the Speaker that there be a moratorium on cutting it down until we have that meeting so we can make our recommendations.
I don't know what people think of that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, we'll schedule that.
Second, our next meeting on Thursday may or may not occur, because we may be voting all night on the supplementary estimates. But if it does, for the next two meetings, just to give the Speaker some ability to work, on this study we're doing now on the dual chambers, we could have Samara, for one, and maybe the Clerk, for another, give us input, if people think those would be valuable witnesses. Would that be good?
Mr. Reid's motion may be after the break week. Hopefully we'll have room for that. It's the one about us carrying on this work into future PROCs and parliaments.
Minister Gould suggested that April 11 would be the best day for her on election and security intelligence threats. Here I speak of Ms. Kusie's motion. Is April 11 okay with people?
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Mr. Chair, I have a reminder. We mentioned it at our informal luncheon. I mentioned it at our formal meeting. Again, I just want to remind members that public accounts is still very interested in getting a couple of standing order changes to improve and beef up the ability of public accounts to do their oversight. I just want to put it on a future list that at some point in the near future I'm hoping that we'll receive a report from public accounts in terms of a couple of standing order changes that, in an ideal world, would get unanimity and get through the House quickly. As you're thinking through things we want to work on, there's at least one meeting there that I'm hoping will happen in April or in May at the latest.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
People may want to get any feedback they need from their parties on that, and we'll add it to the schedule, if we get that request from Public Works.
Ms. Kusie.
Stephanie Kusie Calgary Midnapore, CPC
She's coming on April 11. What is our schedule until that time?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
If not, there are things we've agreed to. First of all is an emergency meeting on the elm tree; then on the dual chambers, we would have Samara and the Clerk as witnesses; and then possibly this Public Works request, if we get it. Those are the things we've talked about.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Also, in order to have Australia as a witness on the dual chambers, we'll have to have an evening meeting, because that's early in the morning for them. I assume everyone—