Evidence of meeting #123 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was discussion.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
This is going to be a long night if you give me free rein all the time.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on CPC-7?
Mrs. Falk, go ahead.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Yes.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)
We'll move to PV-3.
Ms. May, go ahead.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
This definitely has the same spirit to it as the CPC-7 amendment that was just defeated. As we heard from numerous witnesses and groups advocating for the rights of the disabled and calling for a barrier-free Canada, there is tremendous disappointment in this bill for its lack of timelines and for the notion of progressive realization of a Canada without barriers.
I'll remind you of some of the testimony. As Dr. Paré, a contributor to the United Nations “Handbook for Parliamentarians”, mentioned, a term like “progressive realization” has its place in international law to facilitate consensus, but she says, “I find that reference to progressive realization is acceptable only if it is tied to a timeline or something else tangible. ”
Of course, David Lepofsky, from the AODA Alliance, has been very clear that progressive realization within this bill could mean that we don't see a barrier-free Canada for a very long time.
My amendment here, PV-3, is to insert, under the mandate of the minister, after the proposed subsection on powers, new proposed subsections 11(3) and 11(4). This is to ensure that the minister must prepare a plan to set out these objectives, that the plan must be ready within 10 years after the section comes into force, and that the plan must be prepared within one year after the day on which the section comes into force.
Again, it creates a one-year timeline to develop objectives so that they are achieved within 10 years of the bill coming into force.
Thank you.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Mr. Chair, I just have a question for the mover of the motion. Just to confirm, as of today, in what decade will we reach a barrier-free Canada?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This would depend on when the bill enters into force, but assuming it entered into force in 2019, the barrier-free Canada objectives should be met by 2028.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Without your amendment, is that still the case?
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Just to be clear, we don't have a defined timeline on when we're trying to reach the goals this bill is advocating.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
As it now stands—and this was one of the consistent criticisms of the legislation—there's good intention but without a timeline. As I recall one comment, progressive realization of a barrier-free Canada could be one disability ramp installed somewhere in Canada once a year. That would get us a barrier-free Canada sometime in the next few centuries.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I just wanted to add for the record, too, that without having a timeline, how do we measure? How do we hold either the department or the government accountable, because there's no way to measure that? We heard this countless times throughout testimony.
I think that it is so important, and we've heard from our stakeholders loud and clear that it is important to have timelines in this bill.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
Yes, I would certainly concur with that. It's a bit of an insult to all the people who testified here and called out for timelines that we wouldn't adhere to such a very basic thing as to include a timeline when Canada would become accessible. It's an absolute must.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
We actually heard quite a few different things. We heard different types of timelines. In speaking to Ms. May's “progressive”, we're actually removing the word “progressive” from “progressive realization”. We're removing that anyway.
There was a lot of testimony that also spoke to an evolution to get to where we need to go, because it's ongoing. That's part of the challenge right now. Lots of people talked about timelines, but they weren't specific, and they were for both sides.