Evidence of meeting #60 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
—I wrote it down. Just for clarification, I think it's Ms. Ferreri and then I'm after her. Is that correct?
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
That's right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we're talking about this date, just to clarify for the witnesses we have here today, at the very beginning of the meeting, the government side put together a motion to amend when they wanted amendments from the committee. Basically, what it did was.... Conversation happened, and we realized that we would not have all the written testimony before we were able to write whatever amendments we wanted. We heard from the clerk that we've received only half the written submissions. They didn't have a timeline as to how long that was going to take.
The motion was dropped at the very beginning of the committee. There was no written notice, as is the usual precedent, and there were no conversations with us. It was literally dropped. We heard that we wouldn't even have the written submissions, yet we as members of Parliament were then to go away and potentially write up amendments.
The government wanted to move that deadline closer. We would actually be writing amendments without having all the information from Canadians who have written in submissions. They're sitting with the clerk's office right now. They do great work, but it takes time to translate. We put in an amendment to say let's discuss this when we had the committee time scheduled to do this.
Just so you're aware, the NDP and the Liberals voted against that, which is why we're here. We actually wanted to push it ahead for when we had time allocated. Now we're dealing with a situation where we have another amendment, when we're looking at our timelines here, in order to be able to do what's called clause-by-clause. We think we've made a very reasonable request by giving a little bit of extra time so that we can properly review things. That's where the discussion is.
This is all just so that our witnesses who are here are aware of what's going on. It's the reason we're in this place here.
Talking about the timeline, I know that the government representatives made comments about missing days. I just want to note that one of the reasons we missed some committee time was that the government tabled their budget. That's all in the government's timeline. That was their choice when they tabled the budget. That is why we had a committee meeting cancelled.
Here we are now, sort of pushing everything ahead, but still, with the original motion we had, there were no specific dates given. There were discussions, but there were no specific dates as to when, specifically, we would be doing the amendments and then the clause-by-clause. Having this new information is why we're discussing the amendment. It's in order to have proper time to review all the potential amendments that might come from different parties, to be able to have the time to review them and to then start the clause-by-clause within a more reasonable time period.
As I mentioned earlier, but it is applicable now, when we were doing Bill C-22, we had members not on this committee who put forth amendments. All of that takes time. We need time to go through them and prioritize them. The clerk needs time to prioritize them and see what similarities there are or if there are duplications.
Moving ahead, based on the amendment my colleague moved, to literally just give us a few more days is very reasonable. In terms of the amount of time it takes to potentially go through whatever amendments might be presented, we don't know. There could be one or there could be a hundred. We need time to do that. I think the request to just give a little bit more time is very reasonable.
I think the date my colleague gave was very reasonable. It's not like she gave a date that was at the end of May. It was literally just a few extra days so that we would have time to go through whatever amendments might come forward.
The date that she's—
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
Respectfully, through you, Chair, my colleague Mrs. Gray has said the same thing about three or four times now. It's been quite repetitive. She has shared her thoughts on the volume of submissions. She has shared her thoughts about the time. She has shared her thoughts about reasonableness and about the date.
If she has nothing new to add to the discussion, her points have been well taken. I'm sure there are others who would wish to comment.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Madam Saks.
Mrs. Gray, it is a point of order. Your comments cannot be repetitive.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to clarify, I was referring to the amendment and how it's applicable. When I was talking earlier, it was to the general motion. I'm talking about the amendment. Even though I might have made reference in a different form, it's very relative to the amendment. My comments at that time didn't have anything to do with the amendment, because we didn't have an amendment before us. Therefore, those comments are very relative. Even though I'd made maybe similar types of comments earlier, they weren't with the context of the amendment we're dealing with.
Anyway, I'll move on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Just so we're clear, Standing Order 11 states that you cannot be repetitive in the comments. You have to expand your subject matter.
Mrs. Gray, you have the floor.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The other thing I want to mention is that we actually don't know how many written pieces of testimony we have waiting for us to see. The clerk made a comment that we've received about half of them. I'd have to go back to actually count how many have come in. It's been quite substantive. I've spent quite a bit of time going back and reading all of them. I archive them and then go back.
We don't know how many are coming—
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
Mrs. Gray has said this statement several times during this filibuster, which they continue to discuss. Her points have been well taken and noted. I'd like to see her move on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Saks.
Mrs. Gray, I'll remind you again that the standing order states you should not be repeating the same comments.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Going back to look at the date we're looking at, if we look at the calendar, we are basically giving this a few more days.
The other thing, too, is that we're staying consistent with how many meetings were originally planned to look at this piece of legislation. Originally when we were looking at this, we wanted more meetings so that we could have a little more time, because it's so important. However, we agreed to the six meetings. We're still staying within that. This is not an extension of meetings.
I think I'll leave it there. I think Ms. Ferreri is up next. I think her motion is very reasonable. I definitely support it, based on what we have before us today and the new information that we received today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I just have to acknowledge the witnesses.
I'm sorry you are part of a parliamentary procedure that is painful.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Yes, I'm on the amendment. I just think it's important that we acknowledge the witnesses, who are critical because that's actually what we are debating when we talk about the amendment.
It was brought forth by me. There was a motion on the floor to close amendment submissions and clause-by-clause. I said we would discuss this later. I said we could discuss this during committee business and not during witness testimony, which chews up their valuable time. The Liberals and NDP voted no, so here we are, trying to ensure that all voices are heard so that we can ensure that Bill C-35 is done correctly.
I have also put forth an amendment to further this, so that we can actually get to the crux of what we're trying to do as elected officials, which is make sure that legislation is not set up to fail, but that it is set up to serve Canadians.
Witnesses, I will definitely ensure that we can get you back as soon as we can.
The amendment I put forth is, “That amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than 1:00 p.m, EST, Tuesday, April 20, 2023”. It's not far, when you think that we have two weeks of constituency work
It continues, “that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-35 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-35 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the bill”.
The way we're looking at this is that we need amendments. Then we have to go through clause-by-clause to ensure that everybody agrees or disagrees and to strengthen this bill to its absolute strength. It concludes, “and the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on April 25, 2023.”
We're back in the same round and round discussion of why we need these dates. The reality is that, as we've heard already, half of the submissions are in. We need to translate all of that. We need time to listen to all of it.
Mr. Chair, through you, the other issue is that we cannot write and create amendments until we have listened to every witness. We have to listen to every witness, listen to every submission and read every submission, so that we know we are listening to what they are saying and we can put forth amendments that strengthen the bill.
Even when we look at one of our witnesses, who never even got to testify tonight because of this circus—
Liberal
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
This is on the amendment.
Less than 25% of Ontario children are accessing licensed child care. The new Canada-wide early learning and child care—or CWELCC, as many people know it—excludes more than 75% of Ontario children and families. That's just Ontario. If we're looking at those numbers, we need those submissions to strengthen this bill.
We didn't vote against this. We are here to work with you.
Through you, Mr. Chair, we are in this nonsense and it's ridiculous. If we are really here to serve people, we need to strengthen this bill. The reality is that we have so many wait-lists. This is actually setting the provinces up to fail, if we do not do this properly.
To go back to the amendment, if we do not have this extension.... I'm not asking for years of extension, Mr. Chair—
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we're really wandering from the discussion of the amendment. Let's get back to the amendment.
I'm challenging this on relevance.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I'll ask members to keep their comments to the relevancy of the amendment, which—
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I think we may have a different definition of what the relevance of the amendment is. If we need time to listen to people and to write good amendments—
Liberal
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
How is this not relevant? The amendment is to increase the time so that we can listen to the witnesses.