Human Resources Committee on Nov. 7th, 2018

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

It reads:

That Bill C-81, in Clause 6, be amended by

(a) replacing line 4 on page 4 with the following:

“of their disabilities;”

(b) replacing line 7 on page 4 with the following:

“wish to have regardless of their disabilities”

(c) replacing line 12 on page 4 with the following:

“disabilities;”

(d) replacing line 15 on page 4 with the following:

“desire, regardless of their disabilities; and”

(e) replacing line 17 on page 4 with the following:

“must take into account the disabilities of”

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Go ahead, Ms. Falk.

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

I'm just wondering what the purpose is of taking out “abilities”.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

We want the preamble to ensure that the focus of the bill remains on persons with disabilities. We think it's clearer that way.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair—

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Go ahead, Ms. Hardcastle.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much. I just want to point out that this is the same as the amendment I have proposed. One way to look at it is that when you have the words “abilities” and “disabilities” in there, it creates problems from a disability perspective in that somebody with no disability can, under the act, claim to be entitled to certain kinds of accommodations. It just makes it less clear when you say “abilities” and “disabilities”. In a disability act you just need to say “disability”.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Nuttall.

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

Can I, through you, ask James to provide us with a rationale?

I did speak with you and the minister, and this was brought up in our conversations regarding focusing on, as a whole, not just the disabilities but also the abilities of the individuals who are being helped through this bill. Could you provide us with a little bit of background on why the words “abilities” and “disabilities” were put into the bill?

[James Van Raalte]

There's a consistency issue with the definitions of “barrier” and “impairment” that have been adopted. This becomes far more consistent with the issue of defining “impairment”.

People with abilities, by definition, do not have an impairment. I would defer to the member who raised the previous comment that the legislation focuses on disabilities. I would also add that during testimony, both written and in person, there have been, I believe, concerns over issues around “ableism”, which I think is a cause for concern within the stakeholder community.

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

Mr. Chair, my question was about the thinking involved in having it in there in the beginning.

[James Van Raalte]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The intention from the very beginning was to be as inclusive as possible, recognizing a full range of abilities and disabilities, but as has been pointed out through witness testimony, that's not necessary.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Is there any further discussion on amendment LIB-7?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Chair, I want to suggest to you that amendment LIB-8 is still movable if we pass LIB-7. All we're doing is adding paragraph 6(f) and substituting the language in LIB-7.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

I think we can proceed with LIB-8. I think we could just do some work on the amendment. We'll keep LIB-8 on the books right now and we'll get through LIB-7 first.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Is there any further discussion on LIB-7?

(Amendment agreed to)

We'll move on to LIB-8.

Mr. Long, is there any discussion?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I'll read it out.

I move that Bill C-81, in clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 20 on page 4 with the following: “desire, regardless of their abilities”—

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Sorry, Mr. Long.

The issue is on LIB-8. Your goal in the previous LIB-7 was to remove the word “abilities”. It is still in LIB-8, which causes a bit of a conflict with your previous—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

We'll strike “abilities”, right?

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

It will be “structures must take into account the disabilities of persons”. Do you want to take out “the abilities and”?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

We want to make it “desire, regardless of their disabilities”, so we'll take out “abilities or”.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Right.

Mr. Long, we're going to go to paragraph (e) as well. You have—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Yes, it will be exactly as the other, except that we're removing “abilities and”.