Evidence of meeting #54 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 discussion.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Philippe Méla  Legislative Clerk

May 2nd, 2017 / 11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Good morning. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 26, 2016, Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act regarding maternity benefits, we're here today to go through clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and the preamble will be postponed.

Does clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

Is there any discussion around clause 3?

Mr. Robillard.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Good morning everyone. I went to the trouble of jotting down a few notes, which I will read to help you better understand why the amendments I am proposing today are fair and appropriate.

My first amendment pertains to clause 3, line 22, on page 2 of the English version.

In the French version, that would be clause 3, line 29, on page 2. I'll introduce my amendment in both languages, since it appears earlier in the English version.

I'll begin with the French version of the amendment and explain the rationale behind it. Then, I'll introduce the English version. I will proceed that way for the other amendments as well.

My first amendment seeks to amend the French version of Bill C-243, in clause 3, by replacing line 29 on page 2 with the following:

d'autres fonctions. Les consultations devraient porter notamment

The amendment would change “portent notamment sur” to “devraient porter notamment sur” in the French version. That would make the consultation measure less prescriptive and more flexible. The purpose is to not restrict or limit the minister. The minister shouldn't be limited to the specified list of considerations should he wish to broaden the scope of the consultations.

The author of the bill is of the view—and I am sure my colleagues would agree—that new and pertinent considerations could conceivably arise and need to be added to the list of consultation issues mentioned in clause 3.

In English, my first recommendation is that clause 3 be amended by replacing line 22 on page 2 with the following:

sultations should include an assessment of

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Is that “consultations”?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

No, I'll explain why. “Sultations” is half of the word “consultations”, of course, which is being cut up by the change of line. What we're doing here is just replacing the word “must” with the word “should”. You had my reason in French, so that is my first recommendation.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Is there any discussion?

Madam Sansoucy.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

What bothers me about this amendment is that it makes the entire bill merely a suggestion. In other words, the minister would be free to consult on the topics listed or disregard them. As I see it, that's what the word “should” means. If the minister wants to broaden the scope of the bill, great. He has the flexibility to do that.

What I don't like about the word “should” is that it gives the minister the flexibility to do it or not, for better or for worse, as the case may be. To my mind, the consultations “must include”, not “should include”, an assessment of certain considerations.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Robillard.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

My second amendment seeks to amend the French version of Bill C-243, in clause 3, by adding after line 3 on page 3 the following:

f) les différents types de milieux de travail au Canada relativement à l'égalité des sexes et l'incidence d'un programme national d'aide à la maternité sur l'égalité des sexes en milieu de travail.

My reason for putting forward the amendment is that a strategy for a national maternity assistance program has to take into account different types of workplaces and the program's impact on gender equality in those workplaces.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you, sir.

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

Thank you.

Mr. Robillard, you're on a roll.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

My third amendment seeks to amend the French version of Bill C-243, in clause 3, by replacing line 6 on page 3 with the following:

ministres fédéraux, tient des consultations auxquelles il invite les repré-

The keyword in this amendment is “invite”. We prefer language that is more encouraging, rather than binding. The original clause indicated that the minister had to hold consultations with the representatives and stakeholders listed.

What my amendment does is give the stakeholders in question greater flexibility. Given the importance of the issue under consultation, I am confident that the players concerned will accept the invitation.

In English, I would like that the bill in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 6 to 8 with the following:

comes into force, hold consultations to which representatives of the provincial and territorial governments responsible for employment and other relevant stakeholders are invited to participate, for the

Here it's essentially the same as in French. We switch the word “with” with “to which” at the beginning of line 6 and add, after the word “stakeholders” on line 8, the words “are invited to participate”.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you, sir.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4)

Now we are on to clause 4.

Mr. Robillard.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

My fourth and final amendment seeks to amend the French version of Bill C-243, in clause 4, by replacing line 12 on page 3 with the following:

4 (1) Dans les trois ans suivant la date d'entrée en vi-

I am proposing that the minister be given three years to lay before each house of Parliament a copy of a report setting out the conclusions of the consultations. That would give him ample time to consult the stakeholders specified, as well as those not yet considered. The extra time would be especially useful when it comes to compiling the information and writing the report to be laid out before each house of Parliament.

Finally, in English, my last amendment is that Bill C-243, in clause 4, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 3 with the following:

“House of Parliament within three years after the day on”

It's the same as in French. I'm suggesting that we give the minister three years, rather than two, to report the conclusions of the consultations on a national maternity assistance program to each House of Parliament.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Any discussion?

Mr. Zimmer.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

I respect the honourable member's amendment, but I have a simple question. Why?

You said to give more time. Certainly, two years is more than enough. Your own member put forward the bill. Is your own member in agreement with your request to extend the time that this is actually going to be implemented?

One of the concerns was that this really won't get going until after this Parliament is over. This just pushes that puck farther down the ice. I want to know why it is necessary. Two years is lots of time.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

We discussed that. We are all for the three years in order to give more time. Maybe we'll still be there in the second part, so we can continue.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

To answer your question, though, Bob—

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Actually, it's his amendment. That's why I'm asking him.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Fair enough.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

I'm asking you to explain, why? It's obviously your amendment. You thought it up, so why?

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

I thought that two years was not enough. That's it.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

With respect, did you talk to the minister and have a conversation?

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

No. It's for him now to go on. He's the minister. I'm just suggesting—

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Is the three-year idea your idea, or is it somebody else's idea?

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

It's my idea.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

It's interesting that you put forward an idea whereby you're asking to extend it, but you haven't consulted with the minister to ask if that's sufficient time. To me, this just looks like stalling, the stalling of a really good policy that your side supports. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why the stall.

If we want to implement a good strategy for this maternal health care benefit that you all say you agree with, why are we making this and the people who are affected wait even longer?