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

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

It's a moot point then. If you don't move it, you don't move it.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Okay.

With respect to clause 5, I would like to move that we strike clause 5.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Take it out all together...?

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Take it out all together.

Any discussion?

Mrs. Vecchio.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Could Mr. Long explain to me why he would like that struck?

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

As a group we did meet and we went through these clauses, clause five and a few others to follow, and just thought from this perspective that this is a new bill. and there are going to be some unknowns moving forward. We thought that some of these issues in clause 5 would somewhat handcuff us with respect to timelines. Again, it's a new bill. It's a new motion moving forward. We felt that what we wanted was as much flexibility as we could have on that.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Any further discussion?

Mr. Zimmer.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

Was the mover of the bill consulted on this?

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Yes.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

We talked about stalling before and I just see more ability to stall. I think what Ms. Sansoucy referred to is that it just gives the ability for this to be stalled.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Explain—

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

There's a defined timeline right now and even then, it's long. To open that wide open, to me, it takes the teeth away from getting this implemented. The potential is there for it not to be implemented. It could be 20 years before it's finally studied enough that it's implemented. I see your reason why there should be three years, but even that is too long. Removing that, to me, is problematic.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Thank you for that, Bob.

I don't see it as a stall at all. It's a reality that this is something new. Again, for maximum flexibility for us moving forward, we feel that some of these requirements handcuff us. We did meet, we did discuss it, and we would like to strike it.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Madam Sansoucy.

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

My wish is for all Canadian women, everywhere in the country, to have access to a program like the one Quebec has had since 1983. I sincerely hope that the conclusions of the consultations confirm what a positive measure the program has been for women in Quebec and how unfortunate it is that such a program has not been available to Canadian women since 1983.

Keeping clause 5 means that the government could not hold consultations and simply move on to something else. It means creating the framework so that the focus does not shift until the desired outcome is achieved.

The witnesses we heard from were clear. The need is clear. The purpose of the consultations is not to determine whether this is a good idea. The bill clearly gives every Canadian woman access to preventative withdrawal in relation to the health and safety of her pregnancy.

I don't understand the reason for removing the clause because all it does is keep the focus on the issue until the various recommendations are implemented. That's all the clause does.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Yes. I'll just close that off. This is a member's bill. We've met, consulted, and discussed it with the member. We're also moving the member's wishes forward.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

Seeing that there is no further discussion, shall clause 5 carry?

(Clause 5 negatived)

(On clause 6)

Again, we'll have Mr. Long, please.

Noon

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

After consultation, debate, and discussion with the member, and respecting his wishes, we would like to strike clause 6, please.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Is there any discussion? There is a lot of discussion.

Go ahead, Madam Sansoucy.

Noon

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a comment.

I'm going to vote in favour of this clause, but once a bill is passed in the House of Commons, to my mind, it becomes the House's bill, legislation that we, the committee, are studying. It is no longer the bill of its proponent, whose wishes we should respect.

I'm very glad that the member introduced this bill. Now that it has been passed in the House, it belongs to all of us. It is from that standpoint that I am approaching this.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

Yes, Bob.

Noon

Conservative

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

Just for clarity—I think I might have an older document—which clause are you referring to? You said clause 6. The original document that I have is referring to EI. What is the clause 6 that you are referring to?

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

EI is right.

Noon

Conservative

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

Just for clarity then, clause 6 states, “despite subsection (2), benefits under this section are payable to a major attachment claimant who has obtained a certificate completed by a medical doctor attesting....” This is stuff that is integral to the bill. Again, I'm curious why.