Evidence of meeting #98 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was air.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada
Certainly, as I said in my opening comments, our objective is to provide a positive experience for all customers with disabilities.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Would you say that Air Canada is in compliance with the Accessible Canada Act and the Canada Transportation Act?
5:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada
I can't respond to that question at this point in time. I'd have to speak to our—
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
As the CEO for Air Canada, you cannot say if Air Canada is in compliance with the Canada accessibility act or the Canada Transportation Act?
5:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada
I believe we are in compliance.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada
Your question is a broad one, and I would have to—
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I don't know how it's broad. You're either in compliance or not in compliance.
5:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada
We are compliant with every regulation that impacts Air Canada.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
The fact that this is what air travel looks like for persons with disabilities, when an airline is in compliance, points to major flaws in the legislation and regulations.
When this committee studied the Accessible Canada Act, we heard from witness after witness that this bill lacked clear and consistent requirements, that it used permissive language and that it lacked any teeth for enforcement.
Conservatives brought forward more than 60 amendments to address the concerns raised by the disability community and advocacy organizations, and the Liberals rejected amendments that would have strengthened this bill. Without rectifying holes in the Accessible Canada Act, it's impossible to have confidence that we will achieve the goal of a barrier-free Canada. Because this committee is tasked with the status of persons with disabilities, I hope that all my colleagues around this table are equally gripped by this.
Madam Chair, I move:
That the committee express its concern about the progress made towards the goal of a Canada without barriers by 2040, and that it report its opinion to the House.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tracy Gray
Thank you, Mrs. Falk.
Since a motion has been tabled, we do have to address this, and the clock does stop.
We can nod with consent. I'm getting a lot of nods around the table.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
It is:
That the committee express its concern about the progress made towards the goal of a Canada without barriers by 2040, and that it report its opinion to the House.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Madam Chair, can we suspend for a couple of minutes?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tracy Gray
Now we have resumed.
We have a motion on the floor. We'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I think the member raises a very good point. I would, from our side, put forward an amendment that we extend the rationale of the motion and turn it into a focus for the committee to do a study over three meetings. We could bring in witnesses, get to understand the issue in a very thorough way and think about it from various perspectives.
I think that would be much more beneficial than simply passing a motion. If we're going to truly understand where we are, we could do it in the way that Mrs. Falk has proposed, but why not have a study and go a little deeper over three meetings?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I have a question for the amender of the original motion.
Is the purpose of the study to listen to witnesses in order to get some more information that speaks to Mrs. Falk's intention behind moving the original motion, and using that document to report back to the House with our findings and recommendations?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It is exactly as my colleague describes. We want to understand the issue in its various aspects. These are really important and substantive matters. For the committee to just agree to a motion is not something that I think aligns with the seriousness of the issue.
That is the amendment that we are putting forward. It would be for three meetings.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tracy Gray
Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.
Just so that we are clear, could you read the amendment? Do you have it, clerk?
We are talking about the amendment. Could we clearly have what the amendment would be?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Sure. Because the motion was just presented, I'm happy to work with Mrs. Falk on wording. I know that there is still an interest in talking with the witness from Air Canada—
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It was that we have three meetings. You can easily add three meetings in there, however you wanted to word it—