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.
8:30 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
I think we're okay there.
Does everybody understand what we're amending with the amendment, before we go too far?
We will suspend for a couple of minutes so the legislative clerks can take a peek at it. We're in suspension.
We'll come back.
After some heated discussion with my legal counsel, I have proven them incorrect. No.
Mr. Long, we are able to vote on LIB-8 as is and they will make the change. It just makes it a little simpler.
8:35 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
If there is no further discussion on LIB-8, we'll go to the vote.
Mr. Nuttall.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a question for the mover of the motion. You've added on paragraph (f), right?
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Paragraph (f) is added to clause 6. What is the difference between...is there any change related to this in the bill?
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
The reason for paragraph (f) is it ensures the highest level of accessibility prevails in the event there are two standards. To us it clarifies the language. It tightens it up.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Can you give me an example? I'm trying to understand the need. In the preamble itself, the point is made.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
There could be a conflict between provincial and federal standards. If it's a ramp versus the lift, or what have you, this will ensure the highest level of accessibility would prevail. That came out of our conversation.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
But who defines that, and what does it mean? It's not between federal and provincial. We're just talking about federally regulated marketplaces where the provincial standards don't matter.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
We discussed this internally and we felt that this was the best language going forward.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
It may be that it's good and needs to be there; just help me understand that. Is this clause changing anything in the bill?
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
It ensures the highest level of accessibility is the standard that's used. It's pretty straightforward.
8:35 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Could you guys go one at a time and a little slower for our interpreters? I will give you the floor when it's your turn.
Go ahead, Mr. Nuttall.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm trying to drive home the understanding behind the amendment. I think it should go without saying, but it doesn't. Then does it get covered in the preamble? I'm just trying to understand why we're adding this in here at this point in the bill. It feels as if we could add this in almost every clause, because that's the point of the bill.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I think I've said it, but the intention is to define that regulations need to be made to the highest standards. CASDO would be compelled to accept the highest standard if there's a provincial or a federal standard. I think what we're trying to do here is pretty clear.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Just to clarify, because I'm going to work with it—
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Sorry about that, Mr. Chair. I'm a repeat offender at this point, and I'm probably going to continue to be.
What you're trying to say is if there are multiple sets of standards governing any organization or sector of the marketplace or government building, the higher of those two standards needs to be enforced. Is that correct?
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I think it can be more clearly defined than this.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I can give you an example as it relates to the building code. At one point the highest and best standard for elevators was to have Braille on the buttons. Since then, it's Braille, and the audio announces floors.
In an evolving environment around universal design, with input from people's lived experience, standards elevate—if I can use the elevator analogy again—and as they elevate, they're saying if the newest, highest and best standard has two dimensions as opposed to a single dimension, that prevails.
The standard that constitutes accessibility in accommodation migrates to the highest possible standard at all times, and that's the goal of the legislation. Instead of having to constantly revisit the standards and constantly detail the standards piece by piece and change by change, when a new benchmark is achieved, that is the new benchmark—