Evidence of meeting #2 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Then we don't even have reference to children at all.
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
You could just say, “under their care”.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Let's just leave it the way it is and not have any amendments.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
We were talking about a specific situation and now we have broadened that to include the entire family.
At what age do we become older people? If we want to include a definition, we have to know what that means. Could it be a 45-year-old aunt, for example?
We are discussing a specific motion, and I imagine that there were also specific problems with respect to grandparents. I understand the cultural nuance.
Should we now study all family members who are more or less older and who might become a guardian of the children? Some people volunteer to become guardians in sad cases of domestic violence that result in the children becoming orphans. There are yet other situations where the family takes care of the children.
Is that what we want to study? This Conservative Party motion would study a very specific situation. It is important to have clarification. Otherwise, we would be studying a fairly broad phenomenon and I am not sure that this is the objective of our efforts.
Thank you.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I think you need to have the word “children” in there. I think we should probably say “of minor children”, if we're not leaving it the way it is.
In general, I agree with Ms. Chabot.
If we're not leaving it the way it is, we need to have “of minor children”. Otherwise, you could become a guardian of an adult who's under curatorship. You could become a guardian of a parent with Alzheimer's. This is not the point of the motion. At the very least, if we're not sticking with grandparents and grandchildren, we should say “of minor children”. That's for sure.
I would like to hear from Mrs. Falk if there was a reason why she originally mentioned grandparents. I think there's a specific context to grandparents in our society becoming custodians of minor children, as opposed to any other relatives who might take over.
I'm happy either way, but for sure we need to reference “minor children”.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Absolutely. I think this conversation proves that this isn't black and white but very grey. Even on MP Vaughan's point about seniors, some people are becoming grandparents at a very young age. They're not necessarily seniors.
The other thing is that, even just leaving the motion as it is, we could have a study and recommendations that come out of this. If there are future studies that need to happen or whatnot, it can also be looked into at that point.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I was thinking of some additional wording that we could consider around “who become guardians of related and non-related children”, just in case we want to include people who are not relatives in the study as well. Or you could just consider “of related children”.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Let's just leave it the way it is. It would be a lot simpler.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Again, we don't need to have everything perfect. Let's not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
What I would simply suggest is that, as Mr. Vaughan has pointed out, if we need to change some language around grandparents so that we recognize there are other arrangements, we could say, “the well-being of Canadian grandparents”, or whatever term, “such as who become guardians of their grandchildren”. It doesn't include every single opportunity. What it says is the primary: “such as those who are looking after their grandchildren”. This way, it has the spirit of it.
Really, I'm going to submit “grandparents”, because I have two cases in my riding. In one case, the mother was killed by her husband and the grandparents have had to take over two completely shell-shocked children. Those are the kinds of people I'm going to be suggesting. This doesn't mean that other members can't invite someone else, but I would just ask us all to work within the intention of it. Again, let's not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Chair.
I was just trying to wordsmith that a bit. I thought that maybe it could be “economic impacts and overall well-being of Canadian families who have, other than their parents, guardians of grandchildren”. Is that too...? I tried.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
Well, I've changed a number of times, but I think I'm back to the original. I think MP Falk has given us an understanding of what she's trying to get at here. I do appreciate what MP Albas was saying. Let's not change it too much, because then we get away from the original idea here.
The only thing that concerns me is putting in the number of meetings. If that were taken out, I would certainly be in favour of the motion, keeping in mind what MP Gazan said about the differences in families, which are just a matter of fact at this time.
February 25th, 2020 / 5 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I want to thank MP Falk for bringing this forward.
When I first saw this motion, it completely resonated with me. Having been in politics for many years, I look to my parents to look after my kids. They are 10 and 12. It's great support. That allows my wife and me to do the things we want to do.
Then, when I started reading the words, I understood that there is perhaps a more narrow scope that you're looking at. You're looking at grandparents becoming legal guardians—in the absence of their parents—to look after the children.
I wondered—and maybe MP Falk can clarify this for me—why we wouldn't look at the social and economic impact and overall well-being of all grandparents who are providing this invaluable support to their families in looking after their grandchildren. Or are we speaking specifically to guardians?
