Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Speaking to my main motion, on Ms. Rempel's question, what are some of the examples where a person with a disability would require some form of accommodation? It was pointed out by Jennifer Stone, one of the witnesses from CCR, that those with cognitive or learning disabilities can currently ask for a waiver from the language or knowledge eligibility criteria on compassionate grounds, and they feel this is a framework at odds with well-established human rights principles as it pertains to citizenship.

Often in the case of disability some of it is visible and other aspects not so much, and those individuals whose disabilities are not visible often run into all sorts of barriers. This is meant to accommodate those individuals.

The examples that were outlined by the officials clearly speak to the disabilities that we can all see and identify with, but it does not address others who may have hidden disabilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Is there a definition of a disabled person?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I believe that's a question best put to the department officials.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Sinnamon.

[Suzanne Sinnamon, Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

I'm not aware of a definition of “disabled person” in legislation. There certainly is not in the Citizenship Act.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Is there a definition as to what “accommodation” is?

[Suzanne Sinnamon]

There is a reference to “accommodation” in the Canadian Human Rights Act. As was mentioned by Ms. Hubers, that already applies to many parts of the Citizenship Act process.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Just to clarify Ms. Rempel's question, creating a legal obligation on the minister to this effect would strengthen the rights of those people who face disabilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

My colleague noted there wasn't a definition for certain terms in this bill. Perhaps that makes this particular subamendment and the amendment overly broad. Would the government consider clarifying or defining some of those terms so it can be very clear, especially in applying throughout the public service, what those accommodation needs would be, as well as the scope of what sort of persons this would be applied to, again understanding the need to be compassionate and whatnot?

Sometimes we put forward amendments here without the correct legal context or definitions and then see difficulties in application within the public service. That would be my concern on the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the question of the subamendment, I'm wondering, as we're talking about definitions, what is considered “reasonable”? I guess that's my main question to Ms. Zahid. If the member could clarify, that would be helpful.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Disabilities can take different forms. I think the officials are in a better position to explain what adjustments you do for people who request special consideration based on their disabilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Hubers.

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

I've outlined some of the things we do—providing access for people who have mobility issues, providing sign language interpretation for people who are deaf, providing personal assistance where it's required. In terms of the requirement to meet language and knowledge, and those who may have a cognitive impairment, there is an ability to waive that requirement on compassionate grounds, which is used in those types of circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Hubers.

Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The concept of reasonable accommodation is well entrenched in case law, particularly in human rights case law. We've already heard the department officials say that the Canada Human Rights Act applies to this legislation. The word “reasonable” is a modifier in the context of what accommodation is required. Without the word “reasonable”, it could purport to require all manner of accommodation, including all manner of costs. “Reasonable accommodation” in an employment context, for example, is used to modify the requirements placed on an employer, based on means, resources, and so on.

As to whether “disabled” or “accommodation” is defined, since we're interpreting this legislation under the lens of the Canada Human Rights Act, the words “disability” and “accommodation” would be interpreted from that perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

Seeing no further debate, we will deal with the subamendment first.

(Subamendment agreed to)

We will now move to the amendment as amended.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

To the parliamentary secretary, what was said by you and what was said by—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Is this on the main—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It's on the main amendment.

Ms. Hubers, in light of what you've both said, isn't this amendment redundant? You're both already saying, from what I interpret, that this is already looked after.