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.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
No amendments were proposed for clauses 73 and 74. Do I have unanimous consent to apply the vote? Is everybody okay with that?
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
(Clauses 73 and 74 agreed to)
(On clause 75)
We have amendment CPC-42.
Ms. Falk.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
This would just change some language, so it would be “must” instead of “may”. This would ensure that the accessibility commissioner makes a compliance order every time there is reasonable grounds to believe that an organization is not complying.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Absolutely, Mr. Chair. Throughout the bill we have language such as “may” where we need to have the word “must”.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
As we saw last night, and as we heard from our officials, it's more that the language is consistent throughout.
November 8th, 2018 / 10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Chair, I would like to respond.
With something like this, even though it has always been, sometimes we need to evolve if we're trying to shift a culture and make a statement and show we care about this. We have expectations and want to add accountability. I think the language we use is very important.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Since clause 75 was not amended, I will ask for unanimous consent that the vote be applied on clauses 75 to 92 inclusive.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We will start with clause 75.
(Clause 75 agreed to)
We will try that again. Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote to clause 76 to clause 92 inclusive?
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
(Clauses 76 to 92 inclusive agreed to)
Great, thank you.
(On clause 93)
We have amendment CPC-43.
Ms. Falk.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I have the same argument as before. The language used in this bill is going to set the tone for compliance and for people with disabilities to know we are serious about having this whole process be transparent and about keeping the accessibility commissioner transparent and accountable.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
We have all heard the expression, “words matter”. These words very much matter. “May” should be changed to “must” so we can have some teeth in this bill.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes, Mr. Chair. I want to reword for the sake of stakeholders who are listening to the debate between the words “must” and “may”. Right now we're talking about the accessibility commissioner and enforcement, so the fact that the accessibility commissioner must make public certain notifications of violations and if a penalty were imposed on other information that's already been specified, it is extremely reasonable to expect in any kind of legislation that they have to do it, which means we will be using the word “must”, not “may”.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 93 agreed to)
(On clause 94)
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-81, in clause 94, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 51 to line 3 on page 52 with the following:
(2) For greater certainty, complaints in respect of a contravention of any provision of regulations made under subsection 117(1) may only be filed with the Accessibility Commissioner in accordance with subsection (1), and in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the Public Service Employment Act or any other Acts of Parliament, the provisions of this Act prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
This amendment is to designate the accessibility commissioner as the one body to handle compliance with accessibility standards and adjudication of complaints. This bill as it stands does not designate one central agency to oversee compliance with accessibility requirements and adjudicate accessibility complaints. Instead, if this amendment is not passed, enforcement will be done by multiple agencies. These would include the accessibility commissioner, CRTC, CTA and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.
As we've heard from stakeholders, they requested that the process be simplified and that we have just one body to which complaints would be directed. Stakeholders testified that it would be easiest and more accessible for them if this was achieved through the accessibility commissioner.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Seeing no further discussion, I will call the vote on CPC-44.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Could we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)
(Clause 94 agreed to)
(On clause 95)