Evidence of meeting #124 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 clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
I will call the vote on the new reference 10151430.
(Amendment agreed to)
Now we move to LIB-51.
Mr. Hogg, that was submitted by you.
10:50 a.m.
South Surrey—White Rock, Lib.
Despite the principles and brilliance of the original intent, it has been pointed out to me that it is not consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
I would recommend that we withdraw and replace.
10:50 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Does everybody have a copy of the replacement amendment, reference 10151332? No.
Mr. Hogg, I'll get you to read your new amendment, please.
10:50 a.m.
South Surrey—White Rock, Lib.
It would be subclause 106(1.1):
An appeal shall be on the merits based on the record of the proceedings before the Accessibility Commissioner, but the member or panel of members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal shall allow oral argument and, if he, she or it considers it necessary for the purpose of the appeal, shall hear evidence not previously available.
That is wording to put us in alignment with the CHRT.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
It says, “allow oral argument”. What about deaf persons?
10:50 a.m.
South Surrey—White Rock, Lib.
My belief is that sign language will be accepted within that, as part of that.
10:50 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Mr. Van Raalte, I know it's not your amendment.
Does that stipulate other options being used, or is it being very specific that only oral arguments—
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
Director General, Accessibility Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development
Mr. Chairman, may I have a moment to confer?
10:50 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Yes, absolutely.
While they're conferring, we'll have Ms. Falk.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I was just assuming that it would be written, and then say, “including oral”.
If this is coming from the tribunal, have they used an accessibility lens? Are they already using an accessibility lens? I don't know if that makes sense, but it would be a shame to take something, and then if somebody comes who is deaf and has to sign....
It would be unfortunate if in the bureaucracy they're not able to—
10:55 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
It seems that the focus of the amendment is new evidence not previously available. If that is the focus, maybe we can play with that oral part, that it's being overly specific.
Mr. Sangha.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, the word here is, shall “hear”. It's not just to hear with the ears. It's the word used technically for the term, legally, to give them an opportunity to represent. It's to give him, her or it an opportunity to represent.
10:55 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
I see what you're saying, but the concern here is that it's very specific with “oral” arguments and I don't think that's necessarily the goal from the discussions on the Liberal side.
Mr. Van Raalte, do you have any input?
10:55 a.m.
Director General, Accessibility Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chair.
From an inclusion perspective, I believe “oral” would be better, more inclusive, if it were “in person”, which can be by video conference or by telephone. The person doesn't have to appear physically. The words “in person” would facilitate the accommodation necessary for anybody who was appearing in person.
10:55 a.m.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
When I hear “in person” that means a person with disabilities has to appear in person, so I think “or by video conference” should be spelled out. That's very specific.
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Can't we just change “oral” to “appropriate format”? “Shall allow alternate”....
“Appropriate formatted arguments” sounds wordy. How do they word that? “Braille and alternate formats in oral and alternative formats”.... “Accessible”.... Yes, whatever is accessible to the person. Maybe we should change “shall allow”.
What happens if you take out the word “oral”? I think the chair mentioned that. “Shall allow argument”.... If “oral” limits us, in saying “argument”, does it then imply sufficiently in the context of accessibility legislation that all appropriate accessible formats are acceptable?
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
There are technically two ways to express yourself in the courts or in the tribunals: written and oral. Written is a written presentation. Oral can be speaking directly to the court or presenting where you want to present to the court. I think “oral” is technically for every other thing except the written representation.
11 a.m.
Liberal