Human Resources Committee on March 30th, 2023

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

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, the Liberals had the opportunity to hear from the witnesses when I put forward the motion to listen to them right away and to leave this for committee business. Now it is on me to ensure that we have this discussion so that all voices are heard, because you're pushing through something that needs to be thought out well so that all children are cared for and this bill includes everyone. Right now, it has winners and it has losers.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

I ask if my colleague could stick to discussing the work plan so we can—

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

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

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

I'd argue relevance, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Ferreri, keep your comments to the motion.

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

Thank you.

To the motion of ensuring that we get everything in on time, that we are listening to all of these families and all of these people who didn't get a chance to come testify, because we already compromised, quite frankly, on the number of meetings, I can't rationalize what the rush is from the other side if these agreements are already in place. We actually want to ensure that this plan, as they say in their words, is going to enshrine a national universal child care plan. If that's the case, then what are we rushing through here, Mr. Chair? We have to listen to all of the voices to ensure that there are no losers.

The number one thing in the bill is flexibility and accessibility. Right now, based on the witnesses we've heard, there isn't accessibility. We don't have that, so how are we supposed to solve something, a piece of legislation that's going to live on and help children—

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Let's come back to relevance here. We're not debating the bill. We're debating the timeline. I don't think that this is relevant.

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

But that is it.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I don't agree. I simply don't agree.

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

I don't agree that you didn't just let witnesses, who have come here to do their job, speak.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

It's not me who's holding up the witnesses, Mr. Chair.

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

The motion that we have—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I understand what my colleague, Madam Ferreri, is saying in terms of holding up witnesses. I feel like we are holding up witnesses sooner.

I have to be honest, Chair. I do feel rushed to get this legislation through. I know how much it would have meant to me as an early childhood educator and certainly a single mom, and I'm hoping that we can stop filibustering—everybody in the room stop filibustering—so that we can respect the witnesses and we can get care to families. I like working with everybody in the room. I work with other members on other committees, but I really want to get to this legislation. It is critical legislation that I think we all want and we could all agree on. Let's move forward and get it done. I think we can work together.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

What my colleague is talking about is very relevant. What we have to remember is that the NDP and the Liberals voted to not leave this until tomorrow.

It's a little disingenuous for anyone on that side to be saying.... That's what the motion was. That was the motion that my colleague made and they voted it down. That was the motion, so I think what Ms. Ferreri is talking about is very relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Gray, we already....

The discussion is on the motion of Ms. Saks.

I would remind all members to keep your comments in relation to the motion, which was about the two days.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion, as I have it in front of me, 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 11 2023; 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—

Mr. Chair, can I have clarification on what you mean by, “the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

It's standard procedure, but I'll ask the clerk to comment.

[The Clerk]

Yes, there are a number of members who are not part of a caucus. We write to them, on top of everybody else, to inform them of the study of the bill.

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

Okay, so it's the independent—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

This is standard procedure on all committees when you notify for clause-by-clause.

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

It also continues here:

—which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill; and the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill on April 18, 2023.

Why is losing two meetings...? This was the reasoning brought forth on the floor. They said that we had the President of the United States visit, so we lost two meetings in our regular committee. I'm not understanding how that would mean that moving the deadline sooner rather than later makes any sense. There's no logic there. I'm just confused about that as well.

To go back to what my NDP colleagues said, and as I've been saying repeatedly, why are we rushing a lot of what we need to do to make it right?

That would be my question. It just doesn't seem to make any sense why we would move a deadline sooner or what the difference would be. Originally, as I believe it was proposed—and if I could confirm with you—it was supposed to be the 13th.

Is April 13 correct, Clerk?

[The Clerk]

There was never an agreement on that. It was a suggestion in the calendar.

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

Okay. It was never agreed upon.

We lost two meetings, so I'm not sure I'm understanding why we would move the deadline sooner and not later when we've actually been pushed back. I'm not understanding that. What we really have to come back to is what I've been trying to say in terms of this motion: How are we supposed to have everything done?

Also, if I could, Mr. Chair, the clerk had said this already, but what about the translation of all the documents? Do we know how many submissions we've had to the committee at this point?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I just want to clarify what I was sharing, since it was mentioned.

I'm just encouraging us to work together. I think we all have good intentions. We certainly have different opinions on what that looks like, but I think we all have good intentions.

I'm just encouraging all members of this committee—I'm a guest for this bill—to work together, collaboratively, to get to work on the bill. I feel that, as this conversation goes on.... It's been 40 minutes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.