Human Resources Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Committee members, we have a quorum and we have the timeline from the end of the last vote in the House of Commons.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. There will be members appearing virtually in today's meeting.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Those appearing in the room or virtually have the option of choosing to participate in the official language of your choice by using the interpretation icon at the bottom of your screen, and in the room the headset will provide interpretation services for you. If there's an interruption in interpretation services, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it's being corrected.

As I said, unless there are exceptional circumstances—which we do not anticipate—in order to participate verbally in the meeting, you have to have a House of Commons approved headset. Those members of the committee appearing virtually can participate in all votes in the House by simply indicating yes or no by thumbs up or thumbs down.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Today we're resuming a clause-by-clause meeting. As the name indicates, this is an examination of the order of the bill. We're now into our third committee hearing on the bill.

The proceedings are the same. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved, which is where we're at when we resume, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been done, we will adopt the title of the bill, and an order to reprint the bill may be required. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House.

I would like to welcome, again, representatives from the department who are available to answer technical questions related to the bill. They have all been introduced and are the same departmental experts who were with us from the start of the clause-by-clause review.

To begin, let's go back to where we were when we adjourned the last meeting. We had circulated the language for clarification of the subamendment of Madame Saks to the NDP amendment 5. It's the subamendment to NDP-5. That's where we had closed on Friday when the committee adjourned. We're at the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

Is there any discussion? If not, I will go to a vote on the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

Ms. Ferreri, you have the floor on the subamendment.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to pick up where we left off.

The Conservatives have been pretty open that we want to ensure that everybody is included in this bill and that children and child welfare are at the forefront of this discussion.

The pillars of Bill C-35 put forth by the Liberals were quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness.

The NDP amendment asked for an assessment of the progress being made respecting that system, including information on the “quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of early learning and child care programs and services”. That was the amendment they put forth.

The Liberals put forth a subamendment, and it removed two key pillar words: “availability” and “accessibility”. Then we recessed, and it was brought to my attention that they would put these words back in because they were caught for not having them in there.

Mr. Chair, I guess I'm asking why these two words around this bill were taken out in a subamendment. What was the reasoning to remove two of the pillars, availability and accessibility, when we're looking at this legislation? These are the two biggest issues that we see in child care in this country.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Chair, my recollection from the last meeting we had is that there was a submission that we would hear all members at this table on what needed to be in the subamendment to this clause. At that time, I asked for unanimous consent, and I believe that's where we rest in terms of this discussion. Thank you.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, for clarification, are we not going to get an answer on why those two words were removed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I think the matter has been addressed. It's a matter of debate.

Is there further discussion on the subamendment that's currently on the floor?

Ms. Gray is next, and then Madam Gazan.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this subamendment, where now the words “availability” and “accessibility” have been re-entered, yes, we unanimously agreed to add those words back in, but I guess the point for reference here is that we never had justification from the government, from the Liberals, for why they removed two of the pillar words, “availability” and “accessibility”, from their subamendment.

Yes, we know they're back in and that's what we're voting on here now, but during the time of asking for unanimous consent, there was no opportunity for debate, so here we are, debating the subamendment now, and when we have unanimous consent, we can't get into discussion.

The question now, through you, Mr. Chair, is on why those words were removed from the subamendment at this 11th hour. We're in one of the last clauses that we're looking at for this child care bill. Why did the government, at the very end of this stage, take out the words “availability and accessibility”, which were two of the five pillars of this legislation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The chair simply recognizes the speakers who want to participate in the debate. It's not for me to answer questions as they relate to how we got there. Anybody is open to participate in the discussion and debate on the subamendments currently on the floor.

We'll go to Ms. Gazan and then Ms. Ferreri.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a procedural question.

I'm hearing that we're still on the subamendment. We haven't voted on the unanimous consent. Is it still on the floor? I don't remember whether we voted on that. Are we going forward after that?

I don't think we voted on the unanimous consent. Did we?

[A voice]

Yes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay, we did. That's my fault. We voted on it. Sorry; that was my fault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Ms. Ferreri.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, what I would clarify here as the critic to this bill is that in following up on the emails that I've been given, it is my job to ask why this was taken out. I appreciate that you may not want to answer, but if we don't know that there is another agenda here.... Conservatives have been fighting from day one, saying that this is not a universal child care bill because it excludes tons and tons of families, and the wait-list, the accessibility, the affordability are huge issues.

It is benefiting those who are in the system tremendously. I will not dispute that. However, as the critic, and from the emails I've received after watching this committee, I see these two pillars of availability and accessibility as basically the two biggest issues in accessing child care.

On the record, I just want to understand why those two words were removed in a subamendment put forth by the Liberals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Through you, Chair, I will say this: In my job as the parliamentary secretary moving this legislation through, it is my role to hear all the members of this committee when there are issues we can agree on and to move legislation forward on behalf of families, children and Canadians.

The will of this committee was to give unanimous consent for the language that is in the bill at the subamendment time. Through you, Mr. Chair, I think if we can debate on it as amended under consent, it would be far more productive in moving this legislation along.

Thank you.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

We have it on the record. It's fine if that's what you want your answer to be. I was giving you another opportunity to say it.

Of course we gave unanimous consent to put these words back in; I was just giving an opportunity for you to explain, because now there is a lack of trust from the public on why these two words were removed when we've been very vocal that we are trying to represent all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Gray is next.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this subamendment, which does now have “quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness” back in it, it's just very interesting and telling that the government hasn't been forthcoming in explaining why they took out the “availability” and “accessibility” part of their subamendment.

We know that it's back in, but I think for context we need to understand why, as we vote on this subamendment, it was taken out. We haven't had any rationale from the government. We have the parliamentary secretary here. It's really telling that the government does not want to disclose why they initially took out “availability” and “accessibility”. We've had silence over there.

It's really concerning, especially considering that we're talking about a government bill. As we move forward with the implementation of this bill—as we know, the provinces have signed agreements—it's concerning to know that perhaps “availability” and “accessibility”, in the back of the government's mind, aren't really two important pillars, which they originally had at the forefront of this bill. The government is not willing to make any comment, which I think is saying a lot without saying anything.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Seeing no further debate, I will call for a recorded vote on the subamendment of Ms. Saks.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Given that NDP-5 was adopted, the Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-3 cannot be moved because there is a line conflict.

Shall clause—

[An hon. member]

Chair [Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Because NDP-5 was adopted, the amendment put forward by the Bloc Québécois as BQ-3 cannot be moved, because there is a line conflict.

[An hon. member]

You said BQ-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, it's BQ-3. It cannot be moved, so it cannot be put into debate. Once you adopted NDP-5, it nullified that part because of the line conflict.

Shall clause 16 carry as amended?

Do I see that clause 13 as amended carries unanimously?

Clause 13 is carried, then, as amended.

Shall clause 17—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, just to clarify, I believe you said clause 13, but we're on clause 16. Just for the record, I wanted to make sure you....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you for pointing that out. I was thinking 16 and I don't know why I said....

Let's go back again. Shall clause 16 carry as amended?

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There is unanimous consent. Clause 16 is carried as amended.

Shall clause 17 carry?

(Clause 17 agreed to)

Thank you, committee members. That concludes our clause-by-clause consideration.

We will go to the preamble. Is there any amendment on the preamble?

Madame Bérubé, do you have an amendment on the preamble?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Yes. Amendment BQ‑4 moves that Bill C‑35, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following:

care, while respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces;

The purpose of this amendment is to enshrine in the preamble the importance of respecting provincial jurisdiction over family policy and early childhood education. It's important that this be included to guide decisions made based on the bill.