We have three amendments proposed, which we have seen previously. Again, LIB-38 and/or LIB-39, if they are adopted, CPC-38 cannot be moved due to consistency.

We will begin with LIB-38 submitted by Mr. Long.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Mr. Chair, this one is as previously discussed with Liberal amendments LIB-17, LIB-22, LIB-28, and recently, LIB-32.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

9:45 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

Mr. Ruimy, you have LIB-39.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Once again, this is regarding publication of the rationale for exemptions, consequential to LIB-18, LIB-23, LIB-29 and LIB-33.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

9:45 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

Is there any discussion on clause 64 as amended?

Ms. Falk.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Chair, we believe that clause 64 in Bill C-81 should be voted down. We have heard from our witnesses over and over in the briefings that we have received that this bill as is allows for regulated entities to be exempted from complying—exempted from complying—with accessibility requirements. There is no principled reason—no principled reason—why some organizations should be exempted at all. Again, we don't believe there should be any exemptions.

We would request a recorded vote, please.

9:45 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

Ms. Hardcastle.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Chair, I too want to specify that my stance was that clause 64 should be omitted from the bill. Just in the order of the process, where we express those exemptions comes after....

I've seen a pattern of what's happening now in the meetings. I'm trying to keep myself engaged so that I don't become cynical. In reality, I did vote for the amendments to clause 64 because my colleagues across the way did propose some time limits on exemptions, and publication in the Canada Gazette, which is important transparency that I do support. It's the lesser of two evils.

I just want to clarify that for anybody else who actually is paying attention to how we are voting today. We actually have to move forward and make the best of this. I will continue trying to be engaged and put forth the amendments that I think will make this meaningful, but indeed clause 64 should be omitted entirely.

9:50 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

We've had a request for a recorded vote.

(Clause 64 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)

(On clause 65)

We have several amendments proposed to clause 65.

We will begin with LIB-40, submitted by Mr. Morrissey.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

I move it as it is.

9:50 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

Perfect.

Oh, Mr. Long. We were so close.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

I know.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose a subamendment, please. It's to address a drafting error.

I'd like to strike out the number “20” in line two of subparagraph 65(1)(a)(ii).

9:50 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

Okay, so in “passenger 20 trains”, you want to take that “20” out.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Yes, please.

9:50 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

You have a good eye.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is CPC-39.

Mr. Diotte.

9:50 a.m.

Edmonton Griesbach, CPC

Kerry Diotte

We'd like clause 65 to be amended by adding after line 25 on page 33 the following:

(1.1) The accessibility plan must include a statement on how it will contribute to the realization of a Canada without barriers.

Basically, the rationale is that part 4 should include an additional provision requiring accessibility plans to relate to the purpose of the act, and to be prepared and implemented in accordance with the principles of the act.

Plans should address how they will contribute to achieving a Canada without barriers by the date specified in the act. These changes would strengthen the effectiveness of accessibility plans and help ensure that barrier identification, prevention and removal address issues of intersectionality and poverty. That's why we Conservatives believe that should be changed.

(Amendment negatived)

9:50 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

Next is NDP-27.

Ms. Hardcastle.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Chair, once again, the employees of the regulated entities of, in this case, the Canadian Transportation Agency, need to have the bargaining agents of those employees included in the preparation of its accessibility plan.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

9:50 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

Now we'll have the final amendment to clause 65, which is LIB-41, submitted by Mr. Long.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Mr. Chair, I'm being repetitive and I apologize for that. This is consequential to amendments LIB-14, LIB-21, LIB-25, LIB-31, and recently, LIB-35.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 65 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 66 agreed to)

(On clause 67)

9:50 a.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow

We have one amendment proposed, NDP-28.

Ms. Hardcastle.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Once again, Mr. Chair, in the preparation of a progress report, a regulated entity that has employees who have bargaining agents, those bargaining agents need to be included. It's pretty straightforward.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 67 agreed to)

(On clause 68)