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.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
—that it's measured against. There's no retroactive requirement, but if you're putting in a new elevator and you say that's the highest and best standard, that's what we do.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Mr. Chair, I do completely understand why you're being very definitive on who is speaking. It's because when they're doing the interpreting, we want to make sure it's the right person saying the right thing.
On that, I'm 100% supportive of that measure and I can't even vote, but I'm not sure that's captured in this exact wording. If that is the intent, can we get wording that captures that intent?
It's not very clearly communicated; maybe that's a better way to describe it, or perhaps it's just me.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
We've certainly batted this around our table, and we feel that the language is appropriate. We think it is clear, and I think we should vote on it as is.
8:40 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Mr. Nuttall, do you mind if I ask the department officials?
Have you seen the discussion on that? Is there any input on the clarity of that clause?
8:40 p.m.
Director General, Accessibility Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development
No, Mr. Chair.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Without being combative, I'll say that the mover had a difficult time explaining it, so it can't be that clear. If he's unable to actually explain it, then that makes it very difficult.
I do understand what they're trying to achieve—and I support what they're trying to achieve—but the language can't be very clear if not even the mover can explain it.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Chair, I think that's an unfair comment. That's just his interpretation. That's just cause for further debate.
Again, let's vote.
8:40 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Is there any further discussion on LIB-8.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Because LIB-8 was carried, PV-2 cannot be moved due to conflict.
We move to CPC-6.
Mrs. Falk, go ahead.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
The amendment reads:
That Bill C-81, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 4 the following:
“(2) For greater certainty, in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the provisions of that Act prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.”
We believe that Bill C-81 must clarify that nothing in the act lessens the existing human rights obligations of federally regulated entities under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that where a conflict arises between the act and another law, the law that provides the greatest accessibility for persons with disabilities will apply.
As the bill is currently written, our fear is that the CTA and the CRTC—more so the CTA—would create standards that wouldn't live up to the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Even though the CTA could create standards that meet the low bar set by this legislation, it might not meet the high bar of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
8:45 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thank you very much, Mrs. Falk.
Is there any further discussion on CPC-6?
Ms. Hardcastle, go ahead.
8:45 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd also like to point out that this is the same substance as my amendment, which follows, and the theme is very similar to what we just dealt with. It means that in no way can already existing human rights be taken away, that they prevail, in terms of the discussion we had earlier. Nothing can supersede the Human Rights Act.
8:45 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Is there any further discussion on CPC-6?
(Amendment negatived)
NDP-0.3 is identical to the previous amendment, which was denied.
Ms. Hardcastle, go ahead.
8:45 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Can I just have clarification? We don't vote on mine when the two are the same. Is that right?
8:45 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Is there any way that we can still comment or come back to it?
I'm just asking for a suggestion. How would you suggest that we ensure language so that the Human Rights Act does prevail?
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
To answer that, it actually does do that. If you put it into this bill, you're setting a precedent that it needs to be put into every single bill. It already does, in fact, do what it's supposed to do.