Evidence of meeting #49 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This goes back to a conversation we very quickly had about “nothing without us”.
In much of the testimony, we did hear about the opportunity for co-creation. Although the preamble includes some language about “Nothing Without Us”, this is an opportunity for us here around this table to amend the bill to require the government to meaningfully involve and include persons with disabilities in the development and design of the Canada disability benefit regulations.
This provision should specify that meaningful participation must be fully accessible, ongoing, allow for two-way dialogue directly with decision-makers and be inclusive of diverse communities of persons with disabilities.
I will just say that this was also shared in the Maytree brief, the Disability Without Poverty testimony and brief, the brief from ARCH, Inclusion Canada's testimony and brief, and Lorna Aberdein's brief.
I will read the amendment, Mr. Chair.
This is what we're looking for as subclauses 11(3) and 11(4):
(3) The Governor in Council must ensure that persons with disabilities from diverse communities and a range of backgrounds are afforded a meaningful opportunity to collaborate on an equitable basis in policy development leading to the making of regulations under this Act.
(4) The development and making of regulations must enable full effect to be given to the principles set out in the preamble regarding engagement with the disability community.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is there any further discussion?
We're on NDP-4.
Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The meeting will reconvene.
We were on NDP-4. Is there any further discussion on NDP-4?
Go ahead, Mrs. Gray.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We really appreciate and like this amendment, but one is coming up shortly that actually is very similar and that we would be more apt to support just because the wording is a little bit more encompassing.
That's where we were thinking of going and that would be the rationale. If that other amendment wasn't coming up, then we would support this. Because there's this other amendment coming, it makes sense.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to appreciate the comments that MP Gray made as well. We're in total agreement. We support the spirit of this particular amendment, which is NDP-4, but we feel that PV-9 is more succinct and also more encompassing.
Again, we would prefer to support the amendment that's being brought forward by Mr. Morrice.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Okay. Seeing no further discussion, we will vote. I don't see unanimity, so we will ask the clerk to call a vote on NDP-4.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I just have one closing comment, which is on the wording around “meaningful opportunity”.
It was something that we heard in testimony over and over again, and that's why it is in part of mine. This is from Maytree, Disability Without Poverty, ARCH, Inclusion Canada and Lorna Aberdein.
I would also just like to say that “development and making of regulations must enable full effect to be given to the principles” was important.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Madame Zarrillo.
The clerk will call the vote on NDP-4.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)
On new clause 11.1 as proposed in NDP-5, we have Madame Zarrillo.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is in regard to transparency.
As I was mentioning earlier, we took very seriously here the “nothing without us”, but we did want to make sure that there was transparency and that there was in the process a good opportunity to have oversight. The current government is a minority government, and that needs to be respected. Other parties must be allowed to approve or disapprove regulations that we won't necessarily have any ability to see.
As an important component to Canada's democracy, transparency must live throughout these regulations. This amendment is providing the opportunity for other parties to have oversight on the regulation, to hold the government to account, and for the Liberals to have the best support to deliver a CDB from Parliament that's good for persons with disabilities currently living in poverty.
Based on the testimony that we received from Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Citizens for Public Justice, and Professor Jinyan Li from Osgoode and Kate Chung in correspondence, among others, the amendment proposes that the minister will make sure to table a regulation, before it is made, to this House.
If you don't mind, I'd just like to read through this amendment.
It is that Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 6 the following new clause:
Tabling of Regulations
11.1(1) The Minister must cause each regulation that is proposed to be made to be tabled in each House of Parliament.
(2) A regulation may not be made before the earliest of
(a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament,
(b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament, and
(c) the day after the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament has reported its findings with respect to the proposed regulation.
(3) 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 cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a statement of the reasons for not incorporating it.
(4) A proposed regulation that has been tabled under subsection (1) need not be tabled again before the regulation is made, whether or not it has been altered.
(5) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), “sitting day” means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.
Colleagues, one key thing here is that this amendment will allow other parties to see regulations that are proposed before they become regulations.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Madame Zarrillo.
Before we go into discussion, I want to clarify with the committee that amendment NDP-5 and BQ-1 both seek to have the minister table regulations that the government proposes to make. Members of the committee should keep this in mind when debating and voting on these amendments in order to be coherent in the bill. Just keep that in mind.
Do you have...?
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I believe Madame Chabot had her hand up first. Then we have Mr. Long and Mr. Kusmierczyk.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Zarrillo, thank you for having moved this amendment. If you were to read the Bloc Québécois amendment that follows yours, you will see that although the two are similar in some respects, there is a basic difference. As we are beginning with amendment NDP‑5, I'm going to propose a subamendment.
Madam Clerk, you said that subamendments had to be submitted in writing, so I will give it to you in writing.
The subamendment would add, after paragraph 11.1(2)(c), what would become the next paragraph 11.1(3):
A regulation may not be made if the House of Commons adopts a motion rejecting the proposed regulation.
I will not read the English version, because that would be too painful for anyone to hear, but you've received this subamendment in both languages.
From the outset, we've been saying that we want to comply with the process that strengthens the idea according to which the regulation should be based on the “nothing without us” strategy, meaning that it should be developed by and for disabled people. However, what is rather unusual, or even unheard of, in this bill—and other people have mentioned this—is that parliamentarians have a blank page in front of them. To be sure, the government has regulatory authority, but usually to address matters of a more administrative nature and not issues as fundamental as benefit eligibility criteria, the conditions under which they are to be paid, and the amount of the benefit. In a democracy, this is a matter for all parliamentarians, because it leads to expenses for the government.
We agree that the regulation should be developed the way you would like it to be, by persons with disabilities, but our view in terms of the next steps in the process is that the NDP amendment does not have enough teeth. Briefly, according to the amendment, a report would be required, and if the minister did not agree with the report, she would simply have to explain why. On the other hand, through my subamendment, we would be giving ourselves, as members of the House of Commons, the right to reject or adopt the proposed regulation. We would not necessarily have to do that for the entire regulation, but just those aspects of it mentioned in paragraphs 11(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the bill. However, the NDP amendment would apply to the entire regulation and we do not intend to amend that aspect, but we insist upon the House of Commons being able to review the proposed regulation carefully. That is the intent of the subamendment. If everything goes smoothly, that's all to the good, but I think it's up to us as parliamentarians to study the proposed regulation properly.
That never happens. It's unheard of to entrust a proposed regulation to others without the outcome being submitted to the House of Commons for approval.
I hope that was clear. Thank you.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Okay. Currently we have a subamendment that has been moved by Madame Chabot. I'm not sure if all members have a copy of the subamendment. It was just emailed to you, I'm told.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I was just going to ask for a copy of it. Was it just emailed to us? Can we suspend?
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Yes. You need to have time to consider the subamendment.
We'll suspend.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The suspension is over. We're now back in committee.
Clerk, bring me back to where we were.
We have a subamendment to NDP-5 on the floor from Madame Chabot. It was circulated.
We have Mr. Long and Mr. Kusmierczyk on the subamendment.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Chair.
Through you to the officials, time is of the essence here, and we heard witness after witness and submission after submission talk about how urgent it is for us to move this along. My question to the officials is this: Can you give us an opinion on timing and if this could delay delivery?
6:25 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Mr. Chair, if it helps, I'll remind members of the process.
Once both Houses have finished consideration of Bill C-22, if it is indeed passed, we will then do the regulatory process. That will take a length of time, particularly with the level of engagement that is built into the legislation now, but it's been expected by the minister and is consistent with “nothing without us”. When we get through that, we'll take time. The minister has talked about that time. That's counterbalanced with, as the member mentioned, a lot of pressure to get this benefit out the door tomorrow, if we could.
When we put another step into the process for whatever the rationale is, which I won't speak to, it naturally does delay it. A one-day consideration in the House would delay the benefit by a day. It's just the nature of that.
One of the areas I would mention is sitting days. Obviously we do not have any knowledge of how long Parliament will sit or what the legislative priorities will be, but it is possible that even 30 sitting days could slip the benefit by literally months if Parliament is not sitting. If there are other steps built into the process along the lines of the subamendment, that would be another step in the process, which would take longer.
I'm not offering an opinion on the merits of the amendments themselves. I'm just explaining that every single step does add time, and the steps that you're talking about, depending on Parliament's consideration, could conceivably add a significant amount of time until the benefit is delivered.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I guess the concern in particular would be the 160 calendar days. That could delay it in a major way. Is that correct?
6:25 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes. That's over five months, I think, of inevitable delay. It will slow it. Whether that's fewer or more than 30 sitting days, I don't know, but that is a real time that will—