HUMA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Conservative
Bloc Québécois
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 (short title) and of the Preamble was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
On Clause 2,
That Bill C-22, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 2 with the following:
“2 The following definitions apply in this Act.
disability has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Accessible Canada Act. (handicap)
Minister means the Minister of Employment and Social Development. (ministre)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Morrice and it was agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, carried.
On Clause 3,
That Bill C-22, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 2 with the following:
“support the financial security of persons”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 3 carried.
Clause 4 carried.
On Clause 5,
Bonita Zarrillo moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 3 the following:“(2) A benefit paid under subsection (1) must be sufficient to ensure that the person to whom it is paid does not live below the Official Poverty Line as defined in section 2 of the Poverty Reduction Act.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Bonita Zarrillo appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Louise Chabot, Chad Collins, Michelle Ferreri, Tracy Gray, Stephanie Kusie, Irek Kusmierczyk, Wayne Long, Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Eric Melillo, Tony Van Bynen — 10;
NAYS: Bonita Zarrillo — 1.
Clause 5 carried.
Clause 6 carried.
Clause 7 carried.
On Clause 8,
That Bill C-22, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 3 the following:
“(2) The Minister must make public any agreement entered into under subsection (1).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Morrice and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Louise Chabot, Michelle Ferreri, Tracy Gray, Stephanie Kusie, Eric Melillo, Bonita Zarrillo — 6;
NAYS: Chad Collins, Irek Kusmierczyk, Wayne Long, Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Tony Van Bynen — 5.
Clause 8, as amended, carried.
On Clause 9,
Tracy Gray moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 3 the following:“(c.1) cannot be recovered, in whole or in part, under any Act of Parliament other than this Act; and”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, Clause 9 was allowed to stand.
Clause 10 carried.
On Clause 11,
That Bill C-22, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 4 with the following:
“(d) requiring a benefit to be indexed to inflation and respecting the manner in which it is to be indexed;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Morrice and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-22, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 4 with the following:
“(f) respecting applications for a benefit, including regulations providing for an application process that is without barriers, as defined in section 2 of the Canada Accessibility Act;”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — To amend the English version of the amendment by replacing the words “Canada Accessibility Act” with the words “Accessible Canada Act”.
The question was put on the amendment of Mike Morrice, as amended, and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-22, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 5 the following:
“(1.1) The eligibility criteria, conditions and amounts provided for in regulations made under paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) must be determined on the basis of the net income of the person to whom an application for a benefit relates, not to the income of the person’s household.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(1.1) In making regulations under paragraph (1)(c) respecting the amount of a benefit, the Governor in Council must take into consideration the Official Poverty Line as defined in section 2 of the Poverty Reduction Act. ”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bonita Zarrillo and it was agreed to.
“(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.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bonita Zarrillo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Louise Chabot, Bonita Zarrillo — 2;
NAYS: Chad Collins, Michelle Ferreri, Bernard Généreux, Tracy Gray, Irek Kusmierczyk, Wayne Long, Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Eric Melillo, Tony Van Bynen — 9.
Clause 11, as amended, carried.
On new Clause 11.1,
Bonita Zarrillo moved, — 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.”
Debate arose thereon.
Louise Chabot moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding, after paragraph (2) the following:
“(3) A regulation may not be made if the House of Commons adopts a motion rejecting the proposed regulation.”
At 6:36 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.