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.
11:10 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
(Clauses 107 to 110 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 111)
On clause 111, the first amendment is NDP-33.
Ms. Hardcastle.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Just for the record, this section deals with the appointment of the chief accessibility officer. It says, “the Governor in Council may appoint”. We propose to change the wording to “must appoint”.
(Amendment negatived)
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Bill C-81 must include timelines for when the chief accessibility officer is to be appointed. The amendment proposes to add:
The Chief Accessibility Officer is to be appointed no later than six months after the day on which this subsection comes into force.
I think that by agreeing to this amendment, it's not only going to show our stakeholders that this is something the government cares about, but also that it's something the government will take action on immediately after it receives royal assent.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I think it's important to note that, throughout our amendments, we've been talking about the chief accessibility officer based on the premise that this officer exists. With the previous motion being defeated, we don't have decisive language that says “must”.
I would hope that my honourable colleagues would at least consider a timeline. This chief accessibility officer isn't going to exist without that language. We're discussing based on the fact that the officer does exist. Let's give it a timeline. The way it stands now, if the Governor in Council doesn't have to appoint a chief accessibility officer.... They may, but there's no timeline.
It's too precarious for this legislation. This is foundational legislation
11:15 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)
(Clause 111 agreed to)
(Clause 112 agreed to)
(On clause 113)
For clause 113, we have LIB-53.
Mr. Ruimy.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
In effect, this motion would create an amendment to the existing duty to the chief accessibility officer. It will provide the officer with the authority to give information and advice to the minister.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 113 as amended agreed to)
11:15 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Is there any discussion on PV-11?
(Amendment negatived)
I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to group the vote on clauses 114 to 116.
11:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:15 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
(Clauses 114 to 116 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 117)
We have several amendments on clause 117. I will begin with LIB-54, which was submitted by Mr. Long.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
This is consequential to amendments already discussed: LIB-15, LIB-37.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:15 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We now move to CPC-48.
Whatever the vote is on CPC-48 will also apply to CPC-53, which is on page 136 of your package. The vote is consequential and it deals with both clauses.
Ms. Hardcastle, on this one, your NDP-33.1 is identical.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
We are suggesting with CPC-48:
That Bill C-81, in Clause 117, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 15 on page 61.
These should be omitted from the bill. This section permits the government to exempt certain organizations or undertakings from producing and publishing accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports.
This is just another opportunity for transparency and accountability.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
As we heard again and again from our witnesses, there is simply no good reason why any parliament or obligated organization should be exempted from these requirements or any requirements imposed under the bill.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)
11:20 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We now move to Liberal amendment 54.1, submitted by Mr. Ruimy.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Again, this is just referencing back to the timeline to making regulations in the consequential amendments of LIB-16.1, LIB-27.1 and LIB-54.1.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, last night in our discussion I believe the timeline described to us was that it would be the summer of 2020. Is this the same timeline? No?
Okay. Never mind.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:20 a.m.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
With this proposal from the Conservatives, Parliament would see every regulation to be made under paragraph 117(1)(c) providing more oversight. We suggest amending clause 117 by adding, after line 28 on page 61, the following:
(5) The Minister must table in each House of Parliament every regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make under paragraph 117(1)(c). (6) Each House may refer the proposed regulation to any commitee that is appropriate under the rules of that House and, if the proposed regulation is so referred, the committee may review it and report its recommendations to the House. (7) A regulation may not be made before the earliest of (a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation is tabled in both Houses; (b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation is tabled in both Houses; and (c) the day after the committee reports its recommendations or, if the proposed regulation was referred to more than one committee, the day after the last report. (8) For the purposes of subsection (7), sitting day means a day on which either House sits. (9) The Minister must take into account any report of the committee of either House. If a regulation does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee of either House, the Minister must table before that House a statement of the reason for not incorporating it. (10) A proposed regulation that has been tabled in Parliament need not be tabled again before the regulation is made, whether or not it has been altered.