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.