Human Resources Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Madam Kusie and then Madame Ferrada on the amendment.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I want to clarify that I think it's incredibly evident that I don't think breakfast programs are silly. I have attended them before in my own riding. It was, in fact, the idea that we are putting forward more studies than we could ever hope to or dream of accomplishing by the end of this Parliament, let alone by the end of June.

I think Mr. Coteau knew that, yet he tried to blur that, and that's incredibly disappointing. It's incredibly unparliamentary.

I spoke in my last intervention about the goodwill that we are trying to build here. When someone conflates and distorts the position I was trying to take relative to the number of motions that have been put forward rather than hungry children, which it is very evident—and I'm sure everyone knows—this government could in fact be doing a lot more on, it's very disappointing.

Mr. Coteau, please don't do that again.

[Michael Coteau]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we were talking about a student nutrition policy program across the country, and it was her words, not mine, that the study would be silly.

I don't think it's silly to study this type of issue. I think student nutrition is a very important issue.

Mr. Chair, can I just say that we're committee members here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Coteau, that's not a point of order.

We will now move to Madame Ferrada, or is it Madam Zarrillo?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that while we would all like to continue to be collaborative on this committee, this kind of discussion is not leading us in that direction. I'd like to suggest that we return to the motion on the status of seniors in rural communities. To do this properly, I think that we need to have discussions among ourselves to come to an agreement on a motion that we all feel is important.

I am therefore requesting an adjournment of debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You've heard the motion to adjourn debate on the motion and the amendment as a whole.

Madam Clerk, call the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Debate is adjourned on the motion.

In the time that's left.... I believe at the last meeting, there was consensus that the care study would be the first one that the committee would move on. As I recall, that was the consensus we had. If the committee is in agreement, I'm going to ask the clerk to give us a date, because we should focus on that and the witness list we're going to have. I believe we would be looking at starting that in March.

As everybody said, there are ample motions before the committee. It will take us well into the fall if we go. The next committee business is to look at prioritizing them, so that we're not losing time.

Is there consensus from the committee that we will move with the care study? I'm seeing nods. We're going with that. We will set it to March 3, and we would look at witnesses by February 18.

Is everybody clear on that? That allows us then to move quickly after the ministers appear. That was the wish of the committee, that we would move to the care study as being our first study. At our next committee business, we will begin to prioritize the motions currently before the committee.

I see Madame Chabot's hand up.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's probably a problem that stems from translation into French. We're talking about doing a study that, among other things, addresses what we in English call the care economy, but to make things perfectly clear, what we're talking about is a study on the labour shortage, including the care economy, are we not? I simply wanted to clarify this with respect to the translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot. Madam Clerk will give us the exact study, but you are correct about the one we're referencing. I just used it. Sorry about that.

Give us the full study. Do you have it?

It was a motion from Madam Zarrillo that was carried, Madame Chabot. That's the one that the committee agreed would be the priority.

We have the date for the witnesses. We would ask committee members to begin focusing on those witnesses they wish to have, and we are establishing a date of February 18 to get them in. That gives people ample time to move on them. It's a very important study, and at least we'll be able to get under way.

Mr. Ruff, you have the floor.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

If I understand your intent and what you're proposing, when we return for our next meeting, the first hour would be to deal with the prioritization. We would not be introducing new motions at that time. It would be to prioritize our work, not only for the witnesses but for future studies.

Is that your intent, or what you're proposing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's what I would like. I recognize that motions can be introduced at any time under committee business, but we should be prioritizing.

The other item I would like to have a brief discussion on is scheduling for the Centennial Flame award. I would look to that meeting to discuss that briefly and make a decision on it, Mr. Ruff.

I believe we have ample before the committee. It's the committee's decision, but I would look at setting priorities in the first hour.

Is that agreeable? I don't see anybody offering anything contrary.

That being said, a lot has been done. Thank you, committee members.

The meeting is adjourned.