Human Resources Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I just want to make sure we're not going to get into circumstances where a friendship centre or different organization would have trouble meeting the criteria for whatever reason and would therefore be exempt from funding, or that it would affect the ability to support those organizations to actually get to where they need to be.

We didn't really see this amendment ahead of time. It's kind of important to get a feeling for how this works within the whole piece of the legislation.

[Shawn Tupper]

In an aboriginal context, it would certainly depend on the organization you were looking at. In some cases, you may well be looking at a fairly small service organization that's providing a small amount of programming in a small community, where indeed reporting could be onerous. That is an issue that I think officials are trying to address in the context of looking at whether we can create single windows for reporting with respect to programming that relates to early child development and early learning and child care programming that is delivered across a number of federal departments.

That has been an issue in the context of those discussions, trying to improve the capacity of organizations and agencies to meet the demands of the federal system with respect to reporting on how they expend the funds.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

That's my concern. We've talked a little bit, in terms of some of the non-profits and some of the rural areas and so on, about that onerous reporting standard. What we don't want to do is restrict funding for child care for the people who need it. In any situation, I would think particularly in the first nations situation, we definitely don't want to be hurting or working against what we're trying to accomplish, which is helping families.

So that would be my concern here. Again, we haven't really had a long time to consider this, but I would think that might be a unique situation because of this insertion that we might not have anticipated in the discussions thus far or have had the opportunity to question witnesses on.

[Shawn Tupper]

It would seem to be a reasonable concern.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to move to Ms. Dhalla, followed by Mrs. Yelich.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

We can all go into the explanation of why these amendments are important, Mr. Chair, but for the amendments that have been brought forward that are similar, would it be possible to have a vote for all of the amendments? That way we don't have to go through this process of having a discussion and a debate over each particular motion.

We've had about two hours at this committee, and we're now on the third or fourth particular amendment. There are a number of others to go. We still have to go through clause-by-clause. No one on this committee, I would hope, is filibustering. This is an important piece of legislation. We need to move forward.

So I would really request that we put a vote to the entire committee to ensure that all of the amendments that have been brought forward and that are similar in nature are voted on together instead of our going through them individually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I certainly think that's not a bad idea. However, that does require unanimous consent.

We're getting close to 5:30, which is when we're going to end today. We're going to have to relook at this issue. Maybe we could have some discussion amongst the parties to determine whether that would make some sense.

You will need unanimous consent to be able to do that, though, as we move forward on that.

On my list I have Ms. Yelich, Mr. Merasty, Mr. Lake, and Mr. Lessard.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

She made a motion, though. Don't we go to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We already have a motion we're dealing with right on the floor.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Can we go to a vote on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, not as long as there are speakers at the table.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

By no means are we filibustering.

I'm taking this bill quite seriously. This bill could become law, and I think we have to have the people who can define exactly what we're voting for. We do not know. This definition has been everywhere.

Ms. Dhalla just said that she had many motions on the table. She feels that she can lump them together. Well, she wouldn't have put them separately if she felt that she could lump them together. They're separate motions. They all must have certain language or specifics.

One thing that does distress me this afternoon is the suggestion that we are against any sort of child care for aboriginals--far from it. So I would like to see no press releases saying that the Conservatives have voted against something that we believe in and care very much about.

I have met with aboriginal groups. I have some in my riding. I'm very proud of them, and I like what they're doing. They have asked me for child care too. I would like to go back to the riding and ask them what they think of this bill. They would like early learning and child care too. But I don't know if this bill is capable of delivering it.

Furthermore, we should find out what the aboriginal leaders in Quebec think, because Quebec is exempted. I know they're governed by federal law, so there's no confusion there. But now we have this broader definition that we're supposed to put. We will go through the bill very quickly—I'm certain we will—as long as we understand this, because this is huge. These are first nations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Ms. Yelich.

I have Mr. Merasty, Mr. Lake, and Mr. Lessard.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Lake and others have made the comment, and I think it's a valid concern, about how the delivery of the aboriginal child care program, whether it's for first nations, Métis, or Inuit, would be done.

In the first nations context, it would be determined by the relationship in those contribution agreements. I remember writing one of the first child care acts in Saskatchewan when some of the initial child care funding came down.

There would not be any compromise there. You would determine, as the federal government, how this would roll out, so nothing would be compromised. Knowing that, I would hope that the federal government, the Conservative government, understands this relationship well enough that they would not vote against something like this.

When it comes to a press release, they're listening and watching. And I know they're watching it very closely, because they want to be included. They know there's a direct federal and first nations relationship here. So to bring in the province on some of the regulations and something like that is not a decent argument. It's actually straying from the reality a little too far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Merasty.

I have Mr. Lake and Mr. Lessard, and I'm going to cut off debate at that and end the meeting.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I have a point of clarification, sir, before you move on to Mr. Lake.

You're saying that we want to end at 5:30. On Tuesday, which is our next scheduled meeting, we have both ministers scheduled to appear at the committee. When would this bill be heard?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We will have to meet as a subcommittee to decide that. So we'll either have to push some other business back or do whatever we decide. We can talk about that on Tuesday.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Otherwise, we're willing to stay past 5:30 to ensure that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We need to talk about that on Tuesday. We'll make sure there's time to talk about that on Tuesday.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

On that note, I believe it's responsible for us, before the adjournment of this meeting, to make a decision as to when we would return, because there are hundreds of people--well, probably thousands--who are interested in seeing this bill get through this committee. And we're not that far away from getting this finished. So may I request that perhaps at the next meeting—I know the minister will be here dealing with the estimates—we spend half an hour and get this piece done?

I'm slightly optimistic. I know you can do it, Mr. Chair. So could we do so? Can we make a motion here, before the end of the meeting, that we would come back to it next Tuesday for half an hour and deal with this bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Another suggestion is that if you want to stay tonight, we can certainly do that. Once again, I have a commitment, so I must go. I know that Mr. Savage had to go. So if you guys want to continue, I'm sure Ms. Dhalla would be happy to get in the chair and we could move forward in that respect.

You're going to have to catch your flight, though, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

That's why I was going to say this is too important not to get right. I resent the implication that there's any filibustering going on. We want to get this right. I will call my wife and my seven-year-old daughter and my eleven-year-old son and I will tell them that we're dealing with important legislation. I will change my flight if I have to, and I'll go back on Sunday if it takes us three days to go through this, but we have to go through this properly. It's too important not to do this properly. I will stay till it's done.

This notion that we would go through and vote en masse for all the Liberal amendments, I think, is very ill-advised. There may be the same words in a lot of these cases, but of course there is a different context in every case. We have to look at the context every time and address the questions as to whether the change is appropriate, whether the usage is appropriate in each individual case. It speaks to the lack of forethought in planning this bill in the first place, and the fact that we're even having to toss all these amendments into the bill to address the first nations, which I cannot believe would not have been part of the thinking on this bill in the first place.

So once again, if we have to stay to get it done, let me know now so I can change my flight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Once again, I'm going to mention that I have Mr. Lessard, followed by Ms. Dhalla, who are both in a conversation right now so aren't listening to a word I say, so I can just say blah, blah, blah, they won't even know. Anyway....

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

May I ask this? Do we have a legal expert here who can address this? As Mr. Tupper said, there are lawyers who—