Evidence of meeting #41 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Travis Ladouceur
Chantal Collin  Committee Researcher

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)) Conservative Candice Bergen

I call the meeting back to order. We're going to resume, committee members. You all have copies of the motions. To avoid confusion, we'll begin with the first one, which we actually were in the middle of discussing.

It was the motion that was moved by Monsieur Lessard, and it was: That the committee rescind the decision made on November 23, 2010 which figures in paragraph 6 of the report on page 3 and that the report be based solely on the testimony heard by the HUMA committee and on the briefs submitted to it.

We were in the middle of speaking and we had some speakers who were on the list, so we'll see if they still wish to address this.

Mr. Komarnicki, you were on the list to speak to this motion.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

I was.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

You were. Wait, let me just see who's on—

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Well, I will continue.

Before we left, I was certainly quite concerned with the motion. I would ask Monsieur Lessard to rethink his motion, at least in part if not wholly. I know in our past committees—and I've been on the human resources committee for quite some time, and on the immigration committee before that—it has not been unusual at a very minimum to take the reports of the other committees that have already studied a particular issue and, if nothing else, table them with this particular report and at times to make reference to it.

Now I know that we specifically said it should be also considered as part of the study. It would only make sense to do that, but to say that we would not append the evidence of the witnesses of the previous committee, whether or not we refer to it in the report, is an injustice, and it shouldn't happen. I think it's wrong. It clearly sets a wrong precedent going forward, and I would even argue so far as to say that if it's appended, then really, we should consider it as we would.

More particularly, I know that during the course of my examination of witnesses, I specifically referred to testimony given in the previous hearing in my questioning of the witnesses. One of the reasons I did that, among others, was that it played in respect of this report, and I quoted substantially from the various witnesses who gave testimony and questioned the witnesses who appeared here with respect to those particular pieces of evidence.

How do you extract that from this study? It would be nearly impossible. Obviously I'll argue that matter later, but it seems to me that I have every right to have that considered, because I brought it before the witnesses here, and they actually testified with respect to it.

Rather than getting into that kind of nicety, I think it would be well advised if Mr. Lessard would rethink his motion and allow it to be for what it is. As a very minimum if he can't go that far, he should at least go so far as to have the evidence appended to the report, even if he feels the analyst shouldn't refer to it. I'll argue that point later, because I don't know how they cannot, given that I used pieces of it.

Having said that, I would hope there would be reconsideration, and obviously I'll be opposing this motion. I think it's in wrong in principle. It's wrong in precedent, and it certainly strikes at the very heart of openness and transparency before committees and how we conduct business here and in other committees.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

Before we go to the next speaker, I just want to be prudent before we really get going in all of our committee meetings. In the last session we had some trouble when sometimes individuals would argue out against what someone was saying. They would be talking back and forth. I think we all agree we don't want to do that.

I want to remind everyone that if you're asking questions of each other on your side or you're asking your staff something, we absolutely have tolerance for that sort of activity, but when someone has the floor, I don't think any of us want to tolerate someone arguing from across the other side. I thought I would just clarify that at the very beginning of all of our meetings. I think we all agree with that, and that's what I will be enforcing.

Mr. Savage, you have the floor.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you.

When we left off, I was just about to wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Allow me to do that retroactively.

The issue we have here is that we did a report on the impact of the long-form census on those populations that are meant to be served by this committee and by the human resources department. There had been other studies done by the status of women committee and by the industry committee. This was about our fiduciary responsibility as a committee.

The problem was that when the report came back in draft form, it cited evidence from other committees in the report--not appended to the report, not attached to the report, but in the report, and not in the proportional way. In other words, almost all the evidence in the other committees was that we need the long-form census, but in a disproportionate way it was evidence supporting the decision of the government that made its way into the report. It just wasn't an accurate or sensible report that way.

Now we're at loggerheads. We got talked out through Christmas; here we are seven weeks later, and what are we going to do about it? Maybe we need to have a little bit of movement on both sides.

If it's the case that we could have a report that cites the evidence that was heard by us, which is appropriate and which is how committees work, I don't have any problem with a reference to the other committees or even inclusion of those studies at the end of our report, but the report that comes from the human resources committee should reflect what this committee heard. That's not new; that's how things are done. If you want to refer to the other reports at the end of it, I don't have a problem with that, but we can't pick and choose in a disproportionate way to bring evidence into our committee that is contrary to what we heard here.

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

We did have Mr. Martin on the list, but he's not here.

Ms. Davies, did you have anything?

No? All right.

Mr. Vellacott, you wanted to speak.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

I was a little puzzled in talking to our colleague Tony last week in the elevator, and I think he did concede that this could be the other approach. We would have not wasted all the time that we did if we had just simply got into it. If you want to extract as we go along the way, we do those votes and you excise parts or portions of it. You remove it, and we could be well on the way through the report already.

That would have been another approach, rather than dealing with this rather larger generic motion in respect to it. If this would waste too much more time, then I would certainly press back to that particular method or manner of actually getting into the report and excising it as we go along the way.

The other thing in respect to what my colleague Mr. Savagementioned is that as I recall the committee report--I don't have it before me right now--it's actually a reference. It's noted as to where that particular quote was from, and from what committee. Although I might partly concede that we colour the report by all of that, it's very clear that we're either citing testimony that was heard here in our own hearings or that was cited and quoted elsewhere, so you can make the distinction pretty obvious in that way.

My contention would be that it's water under the bridge, in part, but if this extends at any great length, I would suggest that we get right into it, and as we go point by point or recommendation by recommendation, we excise those parts that people are not happy with. The net effect would be the same as moving this kind of motion that we have here.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Mr. Watson, you're next, and then Mr. Lessard, because it's his motion. I'll let Mr. Watson speak first.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have just a couple of brief comments. I won't belabour this.

In principle, I think the motion represents a very serious mulligan, if you will, for the committee, and one that shouldn't be approached lightly. I agree with Mr. Vellacott that the committee, in a less serious way, can amend the draft report as they see fit before adopting it. That's another sensible way of doing it without using this rare type of motion.

Speaking more specifically to the legitimacy of including the testimony, I do recall—and I stand to be corrected, which is fine, because maybe my recollection's a little foggy in the new year here—at least one witness, if not others, who actually quoted from Minister Clement's testimony in terms of taking exception to some of the things the minister had said. I think that if witnesses have quoted it, then there's an argument that it's germane. In other words, they were rearguing, if you will, the bona fides, or lack thereof, of a voluntary survey. I don't see why it's inconsistent to include it in the committee's report when the minister's testimony is actually presented in its full context as well.

That's about all I have to add on it, but I will be opposing the motion.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Mr. Lessard is next.

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Madam Chair, no one here is taken in by this. The Conservative government unilaterally terminated the long form in favour of the short form, despite major objections from the civil society. With that in mind, we now see an attempt to impose the short form, contrary to the views of all concerned, including organizations, cities and individuals with civil responsibilities who have to make decisions based on these facts. Facts are stubborn. A fact is something that survives. There are also statistics. All the testimony we heard in this committee is along the same lines, as is also the case from what we heard from the civil society, through the media or in other ways. The long form is essential, in order for people to base themselves on actual facts when making decisions.

If, by some chance, a contrary opinion is expressed in front of another committee, it will be up to that committee to analyze it and make the relevant recommendations. However, that is not what we heard. We heard unanimous testimony to the effect that the long form must be reinstated for the reasons I just mentioned.

Our colleague, Mr. Watson, says that this type of motion is rare. That is true, but it's because the Conservative one is pretty well non existent. That motion passed accidentally, because Mr. Martin, who supported it, stated before the holidays that this was not his intention at the time he supported the motion. Unfortunately, Mr. Martin of the NDP is absent this morning. The Liberals and myself were opposed to this motion, because when you start incorporating testimony from another committee into your own report, you compromise the rigour that is needed.

When we refer to our work, to statements or to assertions that have been made, we are able to test them, ask questions, carry out an analysis and so forth. The Conservatives are seeking to introduce a virus into our report, because it contradicts all the testimony we heard here.

It's possible that it wouldn't be a virus for the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, because it reflects the testimony they heard. The fact remains, however, that it is only a partial result. I understand that Mr. Clement is in favour of this, because he is the one that made this decision. I would be the most surprised person in the world were he to say the opposite today. That is a well-known fact, but we did not actually have an opportunity to question him about this.

One of our colleagues, Mr. Komarnicki or Mr. Vellacott, said that someone had quoted Mr. Clement. That is obvious. We occasionally quote him as well when we are saying we disagree with him or when we are rebutting arguments as fallacious as claiming that asking a family how many bedrooms there are in the home is indiscreet and constitutes a violation of their privacy. It is important to put this back in the proper context.

Our motion is intended to reinstate a credible mechanism that will retain the rigourous nature of the process. Our report will not be biased by a reference we have been unable to test, and which happens to suit some of the people who are here today. There is something very troubling about that.

Mr. Komarnicki talks about transparency, Madam Chair. Well, if he is seeking transparency, then he should be carrying around with him the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Once it is made public, everyone will have a chance to read it. In my opinion, it should not be incorporated into our report, because it will bias our process.

I think we should come back to the essential condition to be met if our work is to be of high quality. We must base ourselves on what we heard, what we have tested and what has prompted us to reach a certain conclusion. That conclusion can be none other than maintaining the long-form census, because every person who testified before the committee was of that opinion.

I make this request of my colleagues and of my colleagues who are members of the opposition. If, by some chance, our Conservative colleagues have a moment of clairvoyance, they will show some common sense, pass this and get back to the matter at hand. I am asking them not to continue along these lines. It seems to me it a very poor way to occupy a committee. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has a reputation for using its time effectively. In my opinion, trying to force Mr. Clement's position down our throats — a position which makes no sense whatsoever — is not the right approach.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Before I go to the next speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments as chair of the committee, based on observations from Mr. Lessard.

I do think we have to be very careful. We have a staff here. We have analysts and clerks who are doing their job based on the instructions and the motions we pass. Mr. Lessard, you said that Mr. Martin accidentally adopted this current motion. I believe it's a dangerous precedent if one of our members does something accidentally, realizes it several weeks later, and then because of the majority is able to change it. In the House of Commons, if you accidentally stand up and vote, you cannot change your vote unless you have the consensus of the entire House.

I realize, ladies and gentlemen, that you have the majority and that you can overturn this. I would caution that we are setting a dangerous precedent, and I would think that for the sake of our analysts and our clerks it's something we really don't want to make a habit of. I would just make that comment. It has nothing to do with the content of this motion. It has to do with the precedent of accidentally passing something and then several weeks later, having the ability to overturn that accident, finding that everybody else has to pay the consequence. I will leave that with you and hope that you consider it.

We'll go on now with Mr. Komarnicki and the list of speakers. You are on the list, Mr. Lessard, so you'll be able to speak.

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

I'm sorry; is that a point of order?

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

I'm sure you will agree that I have a right to comment on this since you mentioned me by name, and referred to a specific term that I used.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Mr. Lessard, please. You are on the list, and I will absolutely give you your turn, but otherwise we'll get very mixed up, so if you don't mind....

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

I am the second one on the list. If that's the way you intend to proceed, Madam Chair, I will wait for my turn.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Mr. Lessard. Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Komarnicki.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Obviously this is a very serious matter. I think you've hit the nail on the head on that point. Having said that, just before I left for holidays, I hoped that perhaps the members opposite would have their consciences pricked by what they were about to do. I see that this has been somewhat the case with respect to Mr. Savage, but Mr. Lessard has taken a rather hard approach, and I would ask him to still reconsider.

I know he said that Mr. Martin's support of the motion I made was somewhat of an unintended accident, if you want to call it that, but that's just not the case. Let us look at the motion. Let me read the motion. It says:

That the HUMA Committee request a written copy of all the transcripts of all the Standing Committees which have conducted a study on the Long Form Census

There is nothing to be misunderstood there.

Part of it included another committee, because Mr. Martin wanted to include another committee and specifically argued that the status of women committee had considered this thing. He wanted to be very specific that it was there. There was no accident there.

It said, “in both official languages, and that these transcripts be tabled...” There's no difficulty understanding what that means in ordinary English. It was not an accident. It was not unintended. It was specifically intended “...as part of the HUMA Committee's study on the Long Form Census”.

The only issue Mr. Martin had a concern with--and we argued it at great length--was what the words “and considered” meant. I added those words “and considered” in my initial motion, because the term has some meaning. It means more than just appending it to the report, and that's where we spent a lot of time.

So to say that Mr. Martin's support was an unintended accident is totally off base.

Having said that, I would ask that members opposite defeat the motion or that Mr. Lessard withdraw the motion. Members can exercise the power of the majority by going through the report and excising those parts they think are not pertinent or relevant or that somehow shouldn't be in the report. We can then include them if we wish to. That would be the proper way to do it, and it doesn't do injury or insult to democracy, to the committee, to the motion, or to the integrity of the members who put the motion and supported it. There's a way to do that, but doing it in this fashion is a very grave and serious injury to the committee, to its members, and to the work they do.

You may disagree with me on that, and that's fair, but I would ask Monsieur Lessard to remove the motion; if he does not, I would ask that the members opposite at least not support it and that we deal with the report as we normally do.

That is my submission, Madam Chair.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Vellacott.

I would like to remind members that hopefully you have something new to add. If it's repeating something we've already discussed, I would ask that you not ask to be on the speaking list.

Mr. Vellacott, you have the floor.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Right.

I'll pick up on the comment you made, Madam Chair, in regard to this instruction to our analysts to do some very interesting work to extricate all of that stuff or pull it out of there. They're commendable and wise people. They probably will have some way through to doing that, but I think we need to be very clear, because it's no easy task for them. We're creating some extra work for them, obviously, because some of it's embedded a little more seriously; other parts can probably be extracted or removed with greater ease.

I quickly want to speak to motive before I make a final comment. I think the idea of that particular amendment or motion to make it part of the report was to get some balance on the issue. We had limited time. We couldn't spend inexhaustible time in this committee looking at the issue. I think the true intent, or the sincere intent, was to get some balance on the issue.

I think it was in order that way. The intent was to temper our report by way of that. That, I think, speaks to the motive and the intent of why we were trying to have that--in quotes--“considered”.

In conclusion, yesterday we had the privilege of hosting some Swedish parliamentarians in the room off the parliamentary restaurant. It was interesting; we got on to a number of topics, as you do on these occasions. We were learning from them, and they from us. This long-form census scenario came up, and how they handle this kind of thing. Well, they don't do it any more in that country, I was told. They're a government that has a history and a succession, if you will, but they don't do it because they don't require to do it. There are other ways to collate that information and draw it together, and I think that within our Canadian context it's not a great deal different.

Bbut that was the point. Actually, the individual sitting to my left--to my left on a political scale of things as well, from a centre-left party, if you will--was the one who remarked on this, and not in any negative way at all. She said they didn't need to do that: they collate, they gather, they collect that information without the need to do a long-form census submitted with questions like that. We had a quick little discussion on it, and it wasn't put down by her. She is in fact a member of the opposition and a member of a more left-leaning party, if you will.

Anyhow, I just offer that. I think we have to be very clear.

The other thing I have here is a request to Mr. Lessard.

Does he want to remove any references to statements relating to something said in the industry committee, or remarks made by the minister? Is he wanting that? It might have been made by a member opposite or by somebody in testimony here, maybe in a disparaging sense, in reference to the industry committee testimony. It might have been remarks made there or remarks by the minister. Is that what is meant to be removed as well?

Those things were actually said. They were germane and they were said right at this very committee. At some point, maybe in his earlier remarks, he would want to respond to us and to the analyst and clerk on whether he wants those references removed. There were a few of those remarks made by people in the witness chair or by members opposite. They were somewhat disparaging remarks, possibly; nevertheless, are they to be removed as well by our analysts and clerk in their redrafting of the report?

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Mr. Lessard, you're next on the speaking list.

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The way in which you and Mr. Vellacott are using my comments is shocking and completely out of place, in my opinion. At no time did I question the quality of the work done by the team of writers and analysts who support us here. They know how much I respect them.

I believe Mr. Komarnicki accurately summarized Mr. Martin's position with respect to what he told us in December. It was not Mr. Martin's intention to support this motion, which would have us use a report from another committee. That is what that motion proposes that we do.

This is not a question of interpretation on our part. That is what Mr. Martin realized when he told us in December that he had changed his mind, because of the way this motion was going to be used. We had understood the intent, and so had the Liberals. And the reason we voted against it was precisely because we were concerned about how it would be used.

Now, when I say that Mr. Martin accidentally voted in favour of the motion, that may not be the correct way of putting it, Madam Chair. I go back to the explanation given by Mr. Komarnicki, who believes that he changed his mind after realizing there was another intent behind the motion. That is possible.

Furthermore, Madam Chair, there is no need to lecture us as you did earlier, or to say that this is not a kindergarten. You gave the same lecture to Ms. Folco before the holidays. Now you have just repeated it for my sake. We are all adults here. There is no need to treat us in that manner, Madam Chair.

In terms of pointing out to me that a term may not be appropriate, I can accept that because it happens from time to time that the correct term is not used. I accept that and I think it is perfectly appropriate to make that point.

The real issue is whether the long-form census is a useful, indeed critical, tool for the people and organizations that use it. And the answer is yes, it is, according to all the testimony we heard.

If the Conservatives want to try and find contrary testimony somewhere else, then they themselves can refer to that contrary testimony presented elsewhere. However, that is not what we heard here. We must preserve the authenticity of our work, by relying on what we heard here.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen

Madam Minna, you're on the speaking list.