Evidence of meeting #99 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 seniors.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:50 a.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I disagree with this amendment for two reasons.
First of all, I think we began this study with the intention of expressing our concerns. We just voted twice; the first vote was on the Liberal member's amendment, which was clear about asking the committee to express its concerns. We passed subamendments to fix it, but we never changed that part. So it's probably in order at this stage, but it's not consistent with what we just voted on.
Second, I think what we want to express is our concerns. If we weren't concerned and everything was going well, I don't think we would do a study.
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I'll just add on to this.
I think what's actually kind of remarkable is that every party, every member from every party, was united when we had this witness forward, the CEO of Air Canada. These are not allegations; these are not opinions. These are facts printed in newspapers; these are ongoing lawsuits. People.... Their own Liberal member from Milton told the horrific story of his constituent. There was great news coverage from this committee about all of us taking this CEO to task, and so he should have been. It was absurd to hear what was said.
I think saying that these are opinions doesn't make any sense. These are facts of people being abused and mistreated by Air Canada. Those are the facts, so I don't support Mr. Coteau's amendment.
February 8th, 2024 / 8:50 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Thank you for the comments. I think we'll just address a couple of them.
Yes, we did agree with the original amendments, the changes to the original motion, but at any given moment we, as a committee, can revisit any type of amendment or motion that's on the floor to make improvements.
My suggestion was to make an improvement, and I'll tell you why.
I agree with the criticism that was applied to Air Canada. I agree with the criticism, there's no question, and there's a lot of criticism that's out there.
MP Roberts said that there was good progress provincially. I'm sure there's also good progress federally across the country.
What we're doing is we're taking one incident on which we've taken a witness on this Air Canada issue and we're applying it towards the entire progress of the legislation.
My suggestion is to keep an open mind. Let's bring in witnesses. You can put in the actual legislation that we have concerns about what happened with Air Canada, or name anyone else, but to take the entire legislation and all of the initiatives that have taken place over the last few years and to put them into one category as expressing concern, I think, is not fair when you're studying the actual progress. It doesn't make sense. It's a contradiction.
I'm not going to die on this hill, but I think if we're going to be fair, if we're going to have an open mind, we bring in witnesses, listen, and then we make a determination at the end. You cannot predetermine a study on the progress and then go ahead and study the progress. It doesn't make sense.
Express concerns for what we've heard, not for the entirety of the legislation and the initiatives as a whole.
Thank you.
8:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Coteau.
Before we move on to further debate on this, I have to advise the committee, and you, Mr. Coteau, that the amendment as worded is not admissible. It's inconsistent with the language of the main amendment that was already voted on.
The amendment with your wording is not admissible.
I will go to the vote on the main motion by Ms. Gray as amended.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
8:55 a.m.
Jacques Maziade Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When you read it, you want to delete “express its concern” and change it to “study”, and it goes like this, “the committee to study about the progress made towards”.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
So it would read, “the committee study the progress”. Is that fine?
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Come on. We know the spirit of what I was saying, that the committee study the progress.
Is it because of one adjective?
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Mr. Coteau, we cannot change what was adopted. Mr. Fragiskatos' amendment was adopted, and the advice I'm getting from the clerk—
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
—is the minor wording change that you are moving is inconsistent and I have to rule it as inadmissible.
The only debate I'll entertain is on.... No, I'm not entertaining any because I moved to a vote.
We're calling the vote on the main motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now move to the order of the committee study.
I would like to welcome Madame Larouche.
Madame Larouche is appearing as a witness on Bill C-319.
Do you have an opening statement?
Yes?
You have the floor for five minutes.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
On a point of order, we have two rounds of witnesses, correct? We're going to 10:15. Do we have a hard stop at 10:15?
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Yes. Does that mean that we're not listening to the second round based on the timeline now?
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
We will start the second round of witnesses at roughly the same time as is on the schedule.