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
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have to respectfully disagree with my honourable colleague. When people were presenting the idea of how this was going to evolve, it was because we know, just by the very nature of it, that there are going to be innovations and new ways in which we're increasingly removing barriers to participation for people living with all these different abilities, and we're going to find them. That was the whole point.
Without some kind of a timeline here, there's no impetus for this to actually move forward. Unless there is an amendment coming from my colleagues on the governing side further on, this is our chance right now. Ten years is extremely reasonable to reach certain objectives or mile markers, and that's what we need. For this bill to pass, to be tabled, we have to hit the ground running for certain markers to be hit by a certain timeline. Otherwise, we know what will happen—nothing. We'll just keep moving without a deadline. The deadline doesn't have to be a stop-dead, drop-dead deadline. This is a marker where you hit certain objectives and then you move forward from that.
I understand the conundrum about having realization, but if we use the word “realization” rather than “progressive realization” it still doesn't do the job for us that we need, which is something that is more defined in terms of where we're going to meet certain objectives in a certain period of time. This is a very reasonable period of time. A decade is very reasonable.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think there's a fundamental issue here that I believe Ms. Ruimy has heard me talk about in a different committee, which is targets and goals and measurement. The problem right now is that, if it's left as is, the only measurement we will have in place is actually the amount of money spent. If a plan doesn't have a threshold, in terms of the timeline of when it should be achieved, it will keep going on for ever and ever.
I would actually ask my Liberal colleagues around this table to really consider this. Those measurements are not actually in place for you as Liberals. They're in place for the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada can comprise many different iterations. We don't know what the next government will look like, and we don't know what the government after that will look like. In six years, it could be the Communist Party of Canada that could be forming the government.
At that point, maybe there won't be a continuation of the good will that's sitting in your caucus, but you do want that good will to be legislated so that work is actually continued. If it's not going to be met and not going to be continued, then they should have to change it legislatively and then report back to the people of Canada and be held accountable for that change in direction. Right now, they could just walk away and not do anything, throw their hands in the air, and nothing will have been actually achieved. Then what was the purpose of the bill in the first place?
That's actually the problem we've heard about from stakeholders over and over again. I wasn't at committee the whole time, but I definitely met with quite a number of stakeholders who were all saying that there are just not enough teeth. There's not enough detail. There's not enough telling us when and how this is going to be instituted. There are not enough teeth to determine when and how everything that's outlined in this bill is actually going to be achieved.
If it's not 10 years, then when? I think that's the question. If it's unreasonable that the Green Party, the New Democrats and the Conservatives are all saying 10 years—if that's not a reasonable thing to vote for—then how long is it? Is it 15, 20 or 100 years? What's the number? There has to be one in order to ensure accountability, not just for this government but for every successive government in the future.
Liberal
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
Thank you.
I just wanted to remind the committee of what Minister Qualtrough said when she appeared before the committee at the very beginning of this discussion. She was very concerned about setting timelines. One of the reasons is that if there's a 10-year timeline, it tells people they don't have to do anything for nine years.
The fact of the matter is that we want this to start immediately, once the law becomes enacted. Timelines should be part of the regulations, not part of legislation. I think that will determine any timelines moving forward.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I have a quick question for Ms. Young. Will your regulations then be brought back to Parliament, in order for us to vote on the timelines related to each of the regulatory changes that will be taking place?
Conservative
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I appreciate the chance to engage again, Mr. Chair.
In response to Kate's points, that's why I have a double-barrelled amendment here. The 10 years doesn't hang out by itself in the abstract. It requires a plan prepared within one year. That plan speaks to achievables over time, with a 10-year deadline.
I don't think it would be possible, without a great deal of political risk, for a minister to design a plan that didn't start until year nine. You'd have to design a plan that's going to meet that objective. It's a 10-year objective. You have measurables that you're going to develop for years one, two, three and so forth.
I think that is not uncommon in legislation at all. Otherwise, we have something just hanging out there that could fade into the background.
Waiting for regulations.... This is just one example, but Vanessa's Law, which was passed in the last Parliament, still has no regulations attached to it. We're waiting to make sure we're reporting symptoms from pharmaceuticals that might be killing people. We still have no regulations, and it's four years later.
I don't want to wait for regulations. Honestly, I think members around this table could make a huge contribution to a barrier-free Canada by accepting my amendment, which is then reviewable by Parliament on a regular basis.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I'd like to say a couple of things.
We heard from the Province of Ontario, which has a 10-year time limit. We heard directly from the witnesses that it was woefully inadequate. They're nowhere close to being barrier-free.
Speaking to other specific timelines, we actually do have deadlines that we will be introducing as we move further down.
Thank you.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
Further to that, we heard from David Lepofsky, the chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. Here are some quotes from him: “Timelines are needed.... [T]he bill is lacking an ultimate deadline for achieving full accessibility.... We need an end deadline. Without it, progress will be slower.”
Mr. Lepofsky goes on to say:
You've heard from many groups that have said we need that, and I don't know if you've heard from any groups that said we don't. The only person who's come before this committee, I believe, to make a case against doing that, and correct me if I'm wrong, is Minister Qualtrough, who may have said, or someone may have said, “Well, we don't have a timeline in the Criminal Code to be crime free.” It's a wrong comparison.
We have a criminal code because we know that unfortunately in our society, there will always be violence and so on. We need laws to protect us when that happens. On the other hand, we can achieve full accessibility by a deadline if we set the deadline.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thank you very much, Mr. Diotte.
Is there any further discussion on PV-3?
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Chair, can we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 12)
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We move to NDP-2.
Is there any discussion on NDP-2? Ms. Hardcastle, go ahead.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment is proposed for the purpose of ensuring that there is independence for the entity created in the bill—reporting to Parliament, not to government.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thank you, Ms. Hardcastle.
Is there any further discussion on NDP-2?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 12 agreed to)
(On clause 13)
We're on lucky 13.
I feel like a bingo caller.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
No one's called bingo, though.
We now move to CPC-8.
Mrs. Falk, go ahead.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
The amendment reads:
That Bill C-81, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 6 the following:
“(2) Priority should be given to ensuring that any information, product or service that he or she provides is without barriers and that any document he or she creates is in an accessible format and in plain language.
(3) The Minister must not refuse any document that is in an accessible format or in plain language.”
Basically we're requesting that the focus be on making all government documents accessible—documents coming to government and those available from government. I know we heard a lot, especially in terms of intellectual disabilities, with regard to having a simplicity of plain language and more accessibility for people with intellectual disabilities.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thank you very much, Mrs. Falk.
Is there any further discussion on CPC-8?
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to)
Yes, Mr. Nuttall.