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.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
This is to ensure consistency with similar motions related to the mobility of persons, with a subamendment.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
The same subamendment, yes.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Clause 120 of the bill should also be removed. It is another one of those provisions in the bill that limits federal regulations under this act. It limits them from reaching all aspects of all obligated organizations.
(Clause 120 as amended agreed to)
11:35 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
(On clause 121)
I'll move to clause 121. Again, there are two amendments proposed, beginning with LIB-59.
Mr. Long.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Again, exemptions can't be unlimited, so we propose what we proposed in 17, 22, 28, 32, 38, 42 and recently 45.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Again, it's just referring back to publication of rationale for exemptions, consequential amendments to LIB-18, 23, 29, 33, 39, 43 and 46.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Clause 121 of the bill should be removed, and any other similar provisions in the bill should be removed because they limit federal regulations under the act. They limit these regulations from reaching all aspects of all obligated organizations under this act.
(Clause 121 as amended agreed to)
11:35 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We have two amendments, PV-12 and PV-13.
I will begin with PV-12. PV-12 is identical to CPC-54, page 137. If the decision on PV-12 will impact CPC-54, it would not be admissible.
11:35 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
It's the same amendment. It's being added to a different part of the bill, but because it's the same amendment, the Green Party has put theirs ahead of the CPC. Therefore it's dealt with first. So any decision on PV-12 will be reciprocated on CPC-54.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm going to speak in support of this amendment as put forth by the member from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I know that she wanted to be here today but can't be, because she had an important event in her riding for Kristallnacht.
I do concur with my colleagues in their similar amendment. It is extremely important that we have accountability and transparency worked into this bill in a more substantial way and that we have timelines. This does help us do that, and it rolls in the independence aspect in answering to Parliament rather than to the Governor in Council. I think it's a very significant amendment and an improvement that I welcome.
11:40 a.m.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
Mr. Chair, we Conservatives agree, for instance, that if no regulations are made under paragraph 117(1)(c) within 12 months after the day on which this clause comes into force, the minister must cause a report to be tabled before each House of Parliament, on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the expiry of that 12-month period.
Two, if no such regulations are made within 12 months after tabling the report referred to in subclause (1), the minister must cause a report to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 10 days on which the House is sitting after the expiry of the 12-month period, and at least once every subsequent 12-month period, as long as no regulations have been made.
Three, the reports must include an explanation for regulations not being made and must establish a schedule for the making of such regulations.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I just want to add, too, that I don't believe that this is partisan legislation. I think we should all have the best intentions for people who need accessibility. That being said, I want to somewhat repeat my colleague's comments yesterday. We don't know who the government is going to be in 10 or 20 years, and this ensures that accessibility is going to be a priority and that it's not going to be something that is overlooked. It holds that level of accountability and transparency.
We request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:40 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We now move to PV-13.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
No amendments were made to clause 122, so I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to group the votes on clauses 122 to 130. Do I have unanimous consent to do so?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
I'll give it one more try and ask for unanimous consent to group the votes on clauses 123 to 130.