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.
Liberal
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I feel that adding it at the beginning gives it purpose. It includes. It's right off the bat.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
My challenge is that we're basically saying that an impairment would include all these things, whereas I think flipping it around might change the intent.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I guess when they.... They're talking right now, so when they—
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
To Ms. Falk's question, it is fine. It's not an issue with the clerk, but if I may, I'll ask the department officials.
Does changing it to “disability includes any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive...” change the intent in any way ?
James Van Raalte Director General, Accessibility Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't think it changed the intent. It is a way of drafting definitions. If you go back to the legislation and the interpretation section, you see “Accessibility Commissioner means”, “barrier means” and “broadcasting undertaking has the same meaning....” It is an interpretation issue from a drafting perspective, from the use of the word: a definition “means” something and includes the following list.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We have to first vote on the proposed amendment from Ms. Falk, which is that disability “includes” instead of “means”. I'll call the vote on that amendment to the amendment.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Barlow) Now we'll go to the vote on LIB-2 as it stands.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Barlow) CPC-2 now cannot be moved.
We'll now move to LIB-3. I do have to say that conversation with the clerks suggests that LIB-3 does feel inadmissible; however, since it has been put forward by almost everyone on the committee, I would be willing to open the discussion on LIB-3.
Go ahead, Mr. Morrissey.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
By adding the definition of “Indigenous peoples of Canada” we're providing the clarity. That was one of the issues from the testimony that was given before the committee.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I'm not sure from what I remember with regard to the testimony that they were asking for a definition. They were asking to be in the bill, which they weren't at all. I don't know if they were necessarily asking to be defined. They were just asking to be placed into the bill or to have some type of recognition in the bill.
I don't know. Does just adding a definition of indigenous people suffice for that? I don't think so. I guess it depends what comes after this, because I really don't believe that adding a definition was what they meant by their testimony.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Mr. Morrissey, if I can add before further discussion, the reason that it was felt to be inadmissible is that there's no context to the definition of aboriginal people anywhere else in the bill.
It is much broader than what is—
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Yes, “Indigenous peoples of Canada”. There's nothing else in what is a broad bill that would address that. I'm passing that on to you.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
The definition is added to support the amendment that comes later to the preamble.
Conservative
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
The definition is added to support the amendment coming later to the preamble. There's a further amendment later on.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
If it's okay with Mr. Morrissey, I'll read the ruling on LIB-3.
Amendment LIB-3 seeks to add a definition of Indigenous peoples of Canada in the interpretation clause. The expression is not used elsewhere in the bill or in other amendments, except in a proposed amendment to the preamble, LIB-69.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 773:
The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause.
Regarding the amendment to the preamble, the same book states, on page 774:
In case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
If there is no further discussion, we will withdraw amendment LIB-3.
(Amendment withdrawn)
We'll move to the Green Party amendment, PV-1.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I first want to put on the record, although it was very polite of you to welcome me to the committee as though I enjoyed the invitation, the motion that was passed by this committee is identical to motions passed by every committee. It uses a backdoor method to deprive me of my rights that I would otherwise have at report stage.
I don't hold any of you personally responsible for this. It's top-down. It happened in the 41st Parliament and it happened again in this Parliament. It means that my only opportunity to present amendments is by coming here at clause-by-clause consideration, where my amendments are deemed to have been moved. I don't have the right to exercise the rights I would otherwise have to put them forward at report stage.
I have to put that disclaimer on the record. I plan to continue to ask for these motions that were passed by every committee to be lifted at some point, because they operate in a way that is onerous and unfair to smaller parties.
In any case, the amendment I'm putting forward, Parti vert 1, deals with an issue that certainly you heard about in witness testimony. There is at this point the possibility, although I would admit it's unlikely, that a Governor in Council will fail to appoint a minister responsible for this legislation.
In the definition section—and I come back to this in another part of the bill—I propose an amendment that allows for a backstop,so that if the Governor in Council hasn't appointed a minister, the Minister of Justice will fill that role to ensure that there is a minister responsible for the implementation of this bill.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thank you, Ms. May.
I'm just going to ask you to slow down a bit for the interpreters again.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Shall I start over with the reason that I wish I wasn't here?