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.
10:25 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We have a few amendments.
Again, Ms. Hardcastle, amendments CPC-45 and NDP-32 are identical.
We'll start with amendment CPC-45.
Mr. Diotte.
10:25 a.m.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
Mr. Chair, again, it's very similar. We Conservatives believe that in order to give this bill some teeth, the word “may” should be changed to “must” in clause 95. This change would ensure that the accessibility commissioner does investigate all complaints that fall within its purview. There is no justification for the accessibility commissioner to decline to investigate if all the criteria described in the bill are met, since there would be no other legal mechanism available for pursuing the complaint.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to reinforce that this language change to the more assertive use of the word “must” is under investigation under the section for investigation when there is no other recourse. We're saying that the accessibility commissioner must investigate when someone has no other recourse under the provisions that are outlined in this section.
10:30 a.m.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
We'd like a recorded vote on this as well.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)
10:30 a.m.
Edmonton Griesbach, CPC
We Conservatives believe that clause 95 must be amended to make it clear that the one-year limitation period to file an accessibility complaint begins from the time the complainant became aware of the act or omission that caused them to suffer a loss.
This change will ensure that people are not prevented from filing an accessibility complaint because they were not aware of the organization's failure to comply with that act that occurred more than one year ago.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 95 as amended agreed to)
10:30 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
I will now ask for unanimous consent to group the votes on clauses 96 to 102. No amendments were proposed.
10:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
10:30 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
(Clauses 96 to 102 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 103)
We will now move to clause 103 and amendment CPC-47.
Ms. Falk.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We propose:
That Bill C-81, in Clause 103, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 56 the following: The review must be conducted by a different officer or employee than the one who made the decision under review. The complainant must be given the opportunity to make representations to the officer or employee conducting the review in a manner that is accessible to the complainant.
With this amendment we are asking to require that the person who reviews the decision not to investigate or to discontinue an investigation of a complaint is not the same person who had made the original decision. Part 6 must include a section that provides that complainants who request a review of the accessibility commissioner's decisions will have an opportunity to make submissions in a manner and form that is accessible to them.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
We'd like to propose a subamendment where we will remove the text in subclause (1.1) and replace it with the text currently in subclause (1.2), so subclause (1.2) becomes subclause (1.1).
10:35 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Is there any discussion on the proposed subamendment to CPC-47?
Ms. Falk.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Subclause (1.1), as it is, states:
(1.1) The review must be conducted by a different officer or employee than the one who made the decision under review.
That seems like common sense to me. That's keeping impartiality. There is no conflict of interest in this. What is the reasoning for this amendment? I feel that this subamendment would actually weaken what is trying to be accomplished with this amendment.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
We want the Human Rights Commission to keep its independence. It's just a suggestion. If you would strike (1.1), we would support it.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Do you guys have a comment down at the other end? I thought yesterday that the Human Rights Commission already had that right. They're above this. I don't understand, because yesterday, I'm pretty sure, unless I dreamt it in my short nap last night, I understood that the Human Rights Commission would already have the final say.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I understood that the Human Rights Commission was already immune to having its independence eroded, so I don't understand. I think it's redundant then.
10:35 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Because we have the interpretation, I'm asking you to go one at a time.
Mr. Long.
November 8th, 2018 / 10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
We don't want to bind the Human Rights Commission's hands, but again, we can certainly go back to your proposal if you want.