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.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Chair, again, this is consequential to amendment LIB-15. We want consistency in language.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
The amendment, Mr. Chair, ensures the bill is consistent and clear in the language it uses, particularly in granting regulation-making authority to the different regulators under this bill. The amendment prevents any uncertainty as to the authority of regulators to make regulations in relation to feedback processes by specifically establishing this authority. Regulators must be able to define, adjust and adapt requirements for the feedback process, as necessary, to ensure that all Canadians, especially persons with disabilities, have an effective tool to communicate with regulated entities on accessibility.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Don't we want the accessibility commissioner doing this job?
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I am trying to get more rationale for this. Shouldn't it be the accessibility commissioner?
Just going back to some of my arguments and my amendments, what is the accessibility commissioner going to do?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I just want to follow up with that, too, because in almost all of the testimony that we heard from stakeholders who either came to us by video or flew across the country to come to speak with us, they had said how their....
We consulted with the stakeholders, but the stakeholders consulted with their people, and they had all said that they wanted this to be a simpler process and the accessibility commissioner to just be in charge.
Through you, Mr. Chair, I am also confused with my colleague. What is the reasoning?
Through you, Mr. Chair, could the Liberals please give an explanation for this amendment as to why we wouldn't have the accessibility commissioner in charge?
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Chair, we feel the sectoral approach is the best approach to move forward with this.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Through you, Mr. Chair, I feel that this actually goes against what stakeholder witnesses have testified to us.
9:20 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thank you, Ms. Falk.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now move to LIB-27.1.
Mr. Ruimy.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Mr. Chair, again, this is just a consequential amendment to LIB-16.
LIB-27.1 makes timelines for regulations.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 54 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 55)
9:20 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We'll start with LIB-28. If LIB-28 is adopted, CPC-34 cannot be moved due to consistency with LIB-28 and LIB-29. I just want to give the CPC members of the committee a heads up on that.
On LIB-28, we have Mr. Long.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Chair, again, it's consequential to LIB-17 and LIB-22. It's the same discussion.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Mr. Chair, again, it relates to the publication of the rationale for exemptions, consequential to amendments LIB-18 and LIB-23.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
We believe that clause 55 in Bill C-81 should be voted down. This bill allows entities to be exempted from complying with accessibility requirements, as Britain has regulated. There is no principled reason why some organizations should be exempted and not others. Any exemptions will weaken the overall purpose of the act, and we believe that there should be no exemptions in this bill.