Evidence of meeting #11 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adoption.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Yes.
So we'll thank our witnesses for being here and hopefully bring them back again.
Merci beaucoup.
We'll begin committee business. We have two motions to deal with. Both motions have been brought forward by Tony Martin.
Mr. Martin, would you like to begin with your motion that has to do with a study on disabilities?
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I thought there was consensus around the room a couple of meetings ago that once we finished the adoption study, and once the report on poverty was tabled, we would move on to a fuller study on disabilities. We've been talking about this for quite some time.
Most of the people at the table were here during that period, and I don't think there's any question in anybody's mind but that this subject needs to be addressed. It's been a long time since we've done anything of any substance with it, so I simply move the motion that's on the piece of paper you have in front of you.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not sure that we actually... I guess we do need a motion to do a study. I mean, we had a pretty solid consensus that we were going to do the disability issue next. I don't know what the specific angle is that we should take on that. I think we need to discuss with people in the community what specific issues they would like to see addressed.
Other members of the Liberal group have been on the committee when they've done issues of disability, but it has been some time since we've done it, and it's a hugely, hugely important issue when you look at the number of people who are not able to take part in the great wealth that is Canada. We need to do something on this, so absolutely, let's get on with it.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I think you have general consensus about the fact that we should do the study. The only issue I might have is that the last part of the motion states as follows: “...determining at the outset the exact parameters of the study to ensure a clear focus with specific goals and a commitment to providing solutions with a high probability of success”. I'm not sure how we get there, but it seems to me that we really need to study two things: the specific barriers that impede the quality of life of persons with disabilities and their full participation in the labour market and economy.
That would cover, I think, the range of possibilities, so I would like to move a friendly amendment to omit those words that are less than clear and substitute the part that would read “quality of life of persons with disabilities and full participation in the labour market and economy”. That, it would seem to me, would cover the breadth of what we need to talk about. Then it would be up to the various players, I suppose, to add witnesses to those areas.
Conservative
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Yes, I am, although when I get a chance I'd like to speak to it as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay.
Mr. Komarnicki, could you just let us know clearly what your friendly amendment is?
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Okay.
I would strike everything after the word “disabilities”, so it would read, then: “That this Committee, following its study on adoption issues, conduct a major study on a topic specific to barriers that impede the quality of life of persons with disabilities”, and then I'd add the words “and full participation in the labour market and economy”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I will just check with the mover of the motion first.
You're willing to accept a friendly amendment?
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Yes, I am, and I would argue that the last part that Mr. Komarnicki has asked to strike out will actually--if we do it properly--keep us on track and focused and looking at things that are realistic in terms of what can be delivered, both in the short term and the longer term.
As often happens in studies of this sort, we could get off into all kinds of places and issues that we may not be able to do a whole lot about, frankly, and that don't fall under the purview of the federal government in terms of recommendations that we might make. We might make recommendations that we know in our heart of hearts the government just isn't going to accept or is not going to be wanting to take any action on. All we're saying here is that we need to be clearly focused.
I like “full participation in the labour market and economy” and the first piece here. Those are certainly two areas that we could do a lot of very valuable work on. I would leave the last part in to make sure that's what we study, and that at the end of the day we come up with solutions that, as we say here, have a “high probability” of being successful.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Just so I'm clear, if it's a friendly amendment, we can look at the motion with the friendly amendment in it.
Mr. Martin, are you agreeing, then, to Mr. Komarnicki's friendly amendment? We'd be looking at the motion with his amendment. I need some clarity on this so I know exactly what we're debating.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I'm suggesting that I could accept Mr. Komarnicki's contribution as long as we leave the last piece in, which in his mind is not clear and in my mind is. It will keep us focused and hopefully get us to a place where we'll actually be able to make some recommendations that will indeed happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
So if that's acceptable... If not, we'll have to have a formal amendment.
Madam Folco.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I'm sorry, Madam Folco. I called on you out of order. I have Mr. Savage next to speak to this.
But I do need clarity before we continue. I need to know if this is a friendly amendment that has been accepted as proposed. If not, if Mr. Komarnicki wants to present it as an amendment, we would then debate the amendment.
So will you accept his friendly amendment as proposed, which would strike out the last part--
