Human Resources Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Yes, we agree.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

LIB-17 and CPC-31 are quite similar. There's a difference in the timelines. The difference between the two is that the exemption is either five years or three years.

Ms. Hardcastle.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'd also like to clarify, Mr. Chair, there is nothing that says that the reasoning be made public.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

That is correct.

Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the member who made mention of stronger.... I was wondering if he could explain why their amendment is stronger.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

We're saying that you can't have unlimited exemptions and that there's an automatic trigger after three years. I think yours said five.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

There's no mention of making anything public.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

We'll address that in the next one.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

For Ms. Falk's benefit, if one of the next two—LIB-17 or LIB-18—are adopted, CPC-31 will be inadmissible. If you want to try to make an amendment to LIB-17 or LIB-18, you would have to do that before.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

We're on LIB-17.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Yes, but she can do it to LIB-18 as well. LIB-18 will be the same issue.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to LIB-18. If it is adopted, CPC-31 is inadmissible due to consistency.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Chair, as we were just discussing, there's always a need for additional transparency. This seeks to require and make public why the exemptions are there. This ensures transparency. We heard that if there were going to be exemptions, they need to know why they're there and the rationale behind them. The two together actually make it stronger. It speaks directly to it.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, we will be voting down clause 46 in Bill C-81. The bill allows for regulated entities to be exempted from complying with accessibility requirements. There is no principled reason why some organizations should be exempted. Any exemptions will weaken the overall purpose of the act.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Ms. Hardcastle.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

We don't believe in exemptions in this. This section needs to be eliminated entirely.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Is there any further discussion before I call the vote on clause 46?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Clause 46 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)

(On clause 47)

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

The first amendment is LIB-19.

Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, this is just a continuation of ensuring consistency with previous amendments.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

We're on CPC-32.

Mr. Diotte.

[Kerry Diotte]

Mr. Chair, we feel the bill in clause 47 should be amended by adding after line 21 on page 19 the following:

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

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

We now move to LIB-20.

Mr. Sangha.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, we prefer to withdraw this motion.