Evidence of meeting #69 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Sure. I'll see whether there's unanimous consent to go back to clause 3 to reopen it, in terms of a definition.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
If there is a ruling to be made, your option is to appeal. You did previously on a more fundamental issue, you didn't on this one, and that's your choice. There won't be any consent to change that.
Conservative
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Komarnicki was speaking, and I was looking to be recognized, hoping to appeal to members. This is something that hopefully is not about partisanship; it's simply about respecting the disability community. This was a workaround available for the bill, and therefore I was hoping the members opposite might recognize that in terms of drafting, this would improve the outcome in the eyes of people who are affected.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
We tried for about an hour to reach a bunch of your colleagues when you were away last week to say that the Speaker's ruling shouldn't have been appealed, because fundamentally you couldn't do what they intended to do and have this bill go through, and it didn't. So there's no point in prolonging--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We have a list going on here. I'm going to go to Mr. Jean.
Mr. Jean, you have the floor.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just wondering, Mr. Chair--and I'm just a stickler for procedure; I'm interested in it--can anybody challenge the chair, or does it have to be the proponent of the amendment?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
So in fact, Mr. Kennedy could challenge the chair on his ruling. Right, Mr. Kennedy?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
If you look at the record, I just mentioned that you could challenge the chair in relation to his ruling. It doesn't have to be the proponent of the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, hold on a second here. We have Mr. Kennedy, and then Mr. Lessard.
Go ahead, Mr. Kennedy.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Again, we're in a situation today where there's an opportunity to work on behalf of the people affected by mental and physical disabilities, to put in language that respects them better. Therefore, to the extent that it's still possible, Mr. Chair--I don't want to waste your or anyone else's time--I appeal to the members of this committee to see this as a non-partisan effort we could make in this narrow application, because I think it would be received by that community--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I'm actually going to go to Mr. Lessard.
As far as I am concerned, we're done dealing with amendment NDP-2, so we're going to move on to amendment L-1. There will be no more debate on this particular issue.
But I'm going to ask you if you have a comment or if there is a different perspective here.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
We are still dealing with amendment NDP-2, Mr. Chairman, are we not?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I made a ruling on NDP-2 and my decision stands, unless I'm being challenged. If not we'll move on to L-1.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chairman, our colleague, Mr. Kennedy, is perfectly right in saying that this is not a matter of partisanship. There is much wisdom, I suggest, in what he has brought forward. Once I am finished with this, I will not utter another word, I promise. Our colleague, Ms. Leslie, made a suggestion that is to my mind more appropriate. Age and disability are not factors that disadvantage a person; these are factors that create new challenges. Therefore, to state that a person is disadvantaged by age is pejorative, Mr. Chairman, and amounts to ageism.
My challenges, for example with regard to physical strength, are not the same as those of Mr. Savage, because he is a sturdier man. I am not disadvantaged; these are simply challenges. It is the same thing for an elderly person. In the case of a public building with a heavy door, accommodations must be made in order for the operation of the door to be compatible with the physical strength of the people who will be using it, because it is a challenge for them.
That is all, Mr. Chairman. I would respectfully submit to you that there is much wisdom in the suggestion made by our colleague, Mr. Kennedy. It would be much more appropriate to talk of challenges due to age, one's physical condition, etc.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I asked if there was unanimous consent to open up clause 3. That is not the case, so we're done with that issue.
We'll move to amendment L-1 on page 2.1.
Mr. Kennedy, would you like to speak to the L-1 amendment?
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This measure is necessary in order for the definition to fit with the change made in the other part of the bill. This motion adds education, recreational activities and health care services to the other definitions of basic needs.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Is there any discussion on this?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)