Evidence of meeting #2 for Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
All right. As I see it is 3:30 p.m., we will begin our subcommittee meeting.
What we are trying to accomplish today is, first of all, to figure out what we're going to study, and then to talk about how many meetings we have left and what the timeline would be for those.
I will open it up for some discussion. I know there have been some discussions that have gone on previously. Ms. Damoff, would you like to start?
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I spoke to our clerk yesterday to try to get clarification on what our motions were and what they weren't. My understanding is that we've already passed a motion to do both studies, and it's just a matter of changing the order we're doing them in. I would suggest that we, at the full meeting, bring forward a motion to revoke the motion passed on March 10, and change the order of the studies to study gender-based analysis first.
In terms of a work plan, I know Laura distributed a potential work plan. I was curious in terms of the timing on the calendar. We have a couple of questions and suggestions for witnesses. In terms of timing, this is eight meetings. When would we be able to start GBA?
One concern we had yesterday was that if we asked the witnesses on Tuesday to start on GBA, they haven't had an opportunity to prepare. Is that fair to them? Will it give us the best information? I don't know what the rest of you think. I'm curious when the soonest would be that we could get people who would be prepared, so we could start on the work plan that was distributed.
Conservative
The Clerk of the Subcommittee Ms. Andrea McCaffrey
As you pointed out, Ms. Damoff, we do have witnesses who have been scheduled to come next week, both on Tuesday and Thursday, to speak on the violence against young women and girls study. If we choose to approach the departmental officials to see if they are available to come next week, we run the risk of their saying they wouldn't be ready on time. That being said, the next meeting after that would be May 3.
There is a document in front of you, the green calendar, that shows you when we have our meetings, right up until the summer recess.
If you want to add anything, go ahead.
Laura Munn-Rivard Committee Researcher
Yes. I'll add that in order to have a report tabled on GBA before the House rises for the summer, the last meeting with witnesses would have to be on May 19.
Committee Researcher
If we continue next week with the violence against young women and girls study, that gives us May 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19. That's six meetings. As you can tell in the work plan, there are eight tentative meetings scheduled, but I will emphasize that work plan was made by putting together all the witness names that had been sent to me. I did not cut anyone. In fact, I added a few names of some experts. If you wanted to suggest cutting some of those witnesses, you could do so. Some you may think are more relevant than others, or for some you may just think it's not necessary to hear from them. It's up to you, as the committee.
It is possible to get it down to six meetings if you want, or you could try to invite people for next Tuesday, but it will be tight.
The Clerk
The other thing I will remind the committee of is that you have the power to do as you wish. If you feel that you would like to have all eight meetings, you are able to add additional meetings. You are not required to only meet on the Tuesday and Thursday blocks. Additionally if you feel that you want to extend those meeting times by, let's say, an hour, that's an option as well. That might add enough time to add another panel or to have more people on a panel, but that would then limit the time for questions.
There are options if we do feel that we want to have all of these witnesses come to speak with us. I just want to remind you of those options.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Let me back up a little, then. In terms of your suggestion that we bring a motion to revoke the motion passed on March 10, and move to study of gender-based analysis, what do the other steering committee members think about that?
Ms. Malcolmson.
Liberal
Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB
I think it's a good idea as well if we can get something done in a relatively short period of time and also to try to see what budgetary implications that might have.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Okay, terrific, so we're all good with it.
What does the group think about six meetings versus eight meetings?
Ms. Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
When you've done meeting two and you have five people, we haven't eliminated any witnesses here. I don't understand why a couple of witnesses are on there. We don't think they would particularly benefit the study.
I think we should try to do it in six meetings. If it means cutting some of the witnesses, we can maybe look at where we have duplication. I know we did that on another committee I'm on.
The Clerk
That was one of the things that was passed to us by the whole committee, to take a look at the witness list and try to narrow things down. They asked us to do that for both the GBA study as well as the violence against young women and girls study, which is a little bit more of a substantive list. It is something that we hoped to take a look at today, if we have time. If not, we'll do it at a future meeting.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
The one I had a question about, and maybe someone can help, is the assistant secretary to the cabinet and counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council. I don't know why they're on there and I don't know what they can provide to the committee.
Committee Researcher
What I did was put on any witness who was suggested by any of the members. You can see in brackets who suggested whom, so Ms. Harder did. If you're inviting the Privy Council Office, I imagine it would send whoever was best to speak to the issue. Perhaps you don't need duplication in terms of inviting Ms. Isabelle Mondou, unless Ms. Harder knows perhaps something that we don't. You could always speak to her. But if you invited the Privy Council Office, it would cover that central agency. I am sure it would send representatives that know the subject matter.
Conservative
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
In theory, yes. I'm a little concerned that some of the panels have so many people on them and our questioning is limited, especially for me on the NDP side. I'm concerned that we wouldn't actually be able to dig as deep, so the number of witnesses.... Of course, these are circular arguments.
My biggest motivation is to talk in more detail with the ministries that have been the subject of the recent Auditor General audit, to be able to dig in with them more thoroughly on what would have made a difference so that we can really get the full benefit out of the Auditor General's report. When we did have the AG panel here, it was very clear that they had some ideas but they were not going to get political. So that's our responsibility that the work hasn't been done.
While I have the floor, I'll throw a totally other idea in there. I understand that another committee is also looking at gender-based analysis.
The Clerk
I believe it's the public accounts committee looking at the whole report of the Auditor General. My understanding is that they are not focusing on gender-based analysis specifically.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I see. Okay.
The purpose of my question was just to identify whether there is any overlap and whether we could rely on that other committee's witnesses.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I spoke to a staff member from the chair of that committee because that was my thinking, too. It is going to be studied, but they don't know when. Maybe we should just let them do it, but it was interesting because their focus is more on the money side of it. That was one of the things that I thought would make it better for us to do this one first because, if there are financial implications, then when they're looking at it, they will know what we've recommended.
It doesn't sound like they're rushing to do it, Sheila, so what are your thoughts on the witnesses?