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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I have two concerns with this motion. One is “Canadian grandparents”. We know of complicated families. I won't even get into my grandmother with her five husbands and her complicated life in Australia. It's a long story. I'm named after one of her boyfriends.
4:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
It gets worse on my father's side.
It's not just grandparents; it's also aunts and uncles who quite often are called in, or older relatives. I think what the motion aims to get at are seniors who may be outside of being able to earn EI because they're on pensions. I would strike out “Canadian grandparents” and put as an amendment “older relatives, in particular seniors, who become guardians”. I would just change that one phrase to make sure we capture the real dynamic of the complexity of Canadian families.
The second one is that none of the other motions sets the number of meetings. I think it's pre-emptive and a little early to start carving out certain weeks and certain meetings. I would just strike “the study comprise no fewer than 4 meetings”, that phrase between the semi-colons. Once we have set which motions we've accepted, then we can set a calendar that marries itself with the parliamentary timetable, the committee timetable and the number of sitting days we have. We may find that if we start allotting days now, we have no days for the priorities we set later.
We'll come back to it in good faith once we have all the components of the agenda on the table, and then we can apportion the calendar as we move forward.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The amendment is in order, and now we have debate on the amendment.
Madame Chabot.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
What I understood from the interpretation is that you want to broaden this to include all family members.
I would agree with including grandparents. There are some lovely stories about grandparents. First, there is the issue of well-being. There are also situations where grandparents freely agree, but other situations that are created by deplorable events. I have reservations about broadening this to include other family members who could find themselves in this situation.
I agree that grandparents may find themselves with the obligations and responsibilities of providing support. There are also legal and social issues. You will have to convince me of the merits of your amendment, which would broaden the scope of this motion to include other family members.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do support Adam's amendment. It takes into consideration cultural diversity in terms of different definitions of family. I'll give you an example. In indigenous communities, there are no aunts. Everybody is a mother. What that does is take into consideration diverse understandings of family.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I'd just like to respond to the amendment.
I think that's fair. I just want to make mention of the four meetings. In the past, with this committee, that is definitely how motions were structured, and I just want to make sure this is something that doesn't get overlooked or maybe receive less attention than what it deserves.
Thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I appreciate that, and I said that we would come back in good faith to set the timetables and make sure that the appropriate days are set aside. I have no problem with it. Four is not an overreach by any stretch, but we haven't even looked at the full calendar in front of us—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
We'll do the math later, but I appreciate the point you're raising.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
I just wanted to ask.... If the amendment changes “Canadian grandparents” to “older relatives...who become guardians”, then it can't be “of their grandchildren”, so we're taking out the word “grandchildren” as well. I just wanted to make sure that we have the wording right.
I wasn't sure, Adam, if you included that. If it's “older relatives” and if we're including anyone other than their parents, then we can't use the word “grandchildren”.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
No, we have to vote on the subamendment and then the amendment and then the motion as amended. That's what's coming.
Go ahead, Ms. Young.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
I would like to propose a friendly amendment that we take out the word “grandchildren”. I'm not certain that it needs to have a replacement. Am I right? Could it just be “children?”
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Could it be “related children?”
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
