Human Resources Committee on Nov. 7th, 2018

[Gordie Hogg]

You're saying that if changes are occurring in terms of more effective responses to the needs of people with disabilities, a policy would allow you to adapt to those going forward, whereas legislation would require a change in legislation. Is that correct?

[James Van Raalte]

That is correct, Mr. Chair.

[Gordie Hogg]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Go ahead, Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to reply, through you, to my colleague across the way.

This particular line doesn't have timelines. It doesn't have anything that really is controversial at all. It's just stating that the head office would be without barriers, so I really don't understand what the push-back is to making the statement in the legislation that this is what it's going to be. Then it's in the legislation.

I could never see this in the foreseeable future needing to be amended, especially if the CASDO board has a minimum of 50% plus one members on it who have some type of disability. I'm really struggling to understand why this is such a complicated issue. We don't have timelines, which we know aren't happening. It's literally just making a statement that the head office must be without barriers, and it literally sets a standard, because what happens if we do have an older building and it doesn't need to be retrofitted, depending on building codes or whatever the case may be?

I'm just trying to understand.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Thank you, Ms. Falk.

Go ahead, Mr. Ruimy.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

This is my two cents, and then I'm done with this one.

First of all, how do you even define what is barrier free? You want to put “barrier free” in legislation, but we don't know what that means, because that definition is always changing, right?

The proper place for that to be is in the regulations. If somebody has, as James mentioned, an allergy to perfume, or a problem with wireless, and they have the electromagnetic piece, these things haven't even come to the table yet.

If you're putting in a statement that head office must be barrier free, what does that mean?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

That can be decided in the regulations.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

That's why it's in regulations.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Nuttall.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

To be fair, Dan, you started this off by saying that this was already covered in ESDC, which basically was interpreted as building code—

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Yes—

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

—and now you're saying, “Oh, it can actually be covered in regulation changes.” Before; it wasn't needed; now, in the same conversation, you're saying it can be put into regulation and let's deal with it there.

At the start of this conversation, there was actually nothing to be dealt with.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I said at the start of the conversation that it shouldn't be in legislation. That's what I said.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Right, and it's already covered—

[John Barlow]

Sorry, guys; speak one at a time.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Sorry.

You said it's already covered by...I can't remember—

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

ESDC policy.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

It was ESDC. Thank you.

I think the intent that the mover is trying to push here is that the space should constantly be at least at the standards of the day. Further, it scares me that the standards of today would not be retroactive to a historic building or an older building.

You're basically saying that we're going to leave it to the organization to go out and find the space and make sure it's all done, but without delineating the goals in the legislation and then the actual details in the regulation.

The legislation outlines the broader picture, as you're saying, and then the regulation you're saying outlines the details, so it's “Here's the broader picture, and then come back with the details.”

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Nuttall.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I have nothing left to say.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Is there any further discussion on CPC-13?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, can we have a recorded vote?

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is denied.

We'll be hopeful that the CASDO building doesn't just meet standards but is the trendsetter of those standards when it comes to accessibility.

All amendments to clause 17 were denied, so I will call the vote on clause 17 as is.

(Clause 17 agreed to)

Okay, we're cooking with butter.

[An hon. member]

Is that good?