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
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay.
Do you just have just a point of clarification, Ms. Folco?
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Yes, I do, Chair, through you to Mr. Martin. Is Mr. Martin asking to keep everything that he has in those two lines or is he just asking to keep “a commitment to providing solutions with a high probability of success”?
I would certainly be in favour of keeping the second possibility, because the first one is really in the hands of the committee as we move along anyway.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay. That's good.
Mr. Savage, did you want to speak very briefly to the motion as amended?
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Yes, just in clarification. One of our key goals should be to make sure that we are able to bring people with disabilities into the labour market, but there are many people with disabilities who will never be able to fully participate in the labour market and who will require social supports and income supplements that will allow them to live a life with dignity without ever being in the labour market.
I want to make sure that we understand what we're saying there. I'm not very keen on suggesting that only people who can fully participate in the labour market are worthy of study and support.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
That was precisely the kind of point I was going to make, too. I have a son who has mental health issues and so on. Maybe I'm being pessimistic at this point and just bracing myself, but I doubt that he'll ever be fully involved “in the labour market and economy”.
But that doesn't in any way diminish his personhood, his value, or any of that, so I would be concerned if this last piece circumscribed it as people with disabilities only if they can engage in the labour market and economy. He will probably not be able to in the future, in that sense, and I would have a concern, as would my colleague Mr. Savage, in respect of that limitation or narrowing of a definition of quality of life for people with disabilities.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I don't mean to exclude what has been said when we're looking at barriers that impede the quality of life of persons with disabilities. It can cover a whole range of things, including the kinds of things that Mr. Vellacott talks about, but it ought not to exclude the portion that I specifically referred to. I think those two together would cover the gamut; if not, then I guess we should expand it.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I wonder if I could make a suggestion in terms of the language so that we can include Mr. Vellacott's and Mr. Savage's point, as well as Mr. Komarnicki's.
I just wondered about this: “That this Committee, following its study on adoption issues, conduct a major study on topics specific to barriers that impede the quality of life of persons with disabilities or”—instead of “and”—“full participation in the labour market and economy”. It's not very grammatical, but would that be suitable? It's just a one-word change so that you'd see this in?
Conservative
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Yes. I'm also concerned about the point raised by Mr. Savage and Mr. Vellacott, which is that we not leave people out, although I have to say that my read of it initially was that when we said “impede the quality of life of persons with disabilities”, that was covering everybody. Then we zeroed in on a specific piece, which was, at the end, “participation in the labour market and economy”, which is something that Mr. Savage raised previously as well.
I thought we had it covered. I would say that probably “or” instead of “and”, which is what I hear Madam Folco suggesting, would make it a bit more inclusive.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay. I'm going to read the motion, and hopefully we can be in agreement on it: “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 or their full participation in the labour market and economy, and a commitment to providing solutions with a high probability of success”.
Does that sound good to everyone?