Finance Committee on March 25th, 2021

[Mathew Wilson]

Yes, we've been working for a couple of years now with WAGE and the minister there, doing some really good work.

One thing exactly like that is that we're trying to get young women and girls to experience what manufacturing is—not just shop-floor welding, but all the various positions, from the CEO right down. We actually have a program called “see me, be me”, which was founded, as part of this, by our former chairman of the board Rhonda Barnet, out of AVIT Manufacturing in Peterborough.

It's really important that we do this. I have a young daughter in grade 10 myself, and I'm hearing from her what she's exposed to in the school system, which is not very much.

There are a lot of things the federal government can do to support this happening. There's a huge amount of interest in the manufacturing community to do it. There may be something we can speak about offline specifically on what we're trying to do with the federal government, as well as the manufacturing community in general, because it's really important.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

I know we always run out of time.

I have one question. A number of people talked about the wage subsidy, number one, and how important it was, and some about how important it is that it be continued. I know from talking to the tourism industry here that they appreciated its extension to June, but if they don't know soon whether it will be extended further, there's going to be a problem opening. This was mentioned by the ski group and by Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy, how important is it that, if the wage subsidy is going to be extended, it be announced soon?

[Kevin Murphy]

Thanks, Chairman.

Just before I quickly answer that, I want to give kudos to the credit union. We were on the charter banks' backs with Mr. Easter way back, and they weren't participating and didn't participate. Kudos to the credit union.

Regarding the wage subsidy, Chairman, we had a meeting last week, and they knew I was speaking here. They were all sitting there asking, “When can we hear?” I think that's the biggest thing right now. We fully appreciate that they have it until June 5, but some of these tourism operators don't open until June 15, yet they start in May and they have a staffing issue.

If you're asking me how critical it is, the answer is that timing is as critical as the amount, because right now they're going to make a decision.

I'll give you an example: Fisherman's Wharf Lobster Supper, in your district, a huge restaurant that caters to lobster supper business. Last year it didn't open. Right now, they're having that discussion.

Now, having a business close for two years is not good. We have to get everybody open, because our physical plant.... As I said before, it's not one operation; it's everybody who makes up the reason why people come to P.E.I. When one closes, it's just a little chip off the iceberg.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ryan, you mentioned the same thing.

Go ahead.

[Jean-Michel Ryan]

In response to Mr. Murphy, I want to specify that I also sit on a Canadian committee where I represent the Quebec tourism industry. We're really talking about predictability. In addition to preparing to hire people, we need to prepare the equipment and the infrastructure that must be set up before we open. If that predictability can't be ensured and it's impossible to know whether financial support will be extended, businesses will have to make a critical choice between opening up and closing down for good.

I could not agree with Mr. Murphy more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

“Foreseeability” is an interesting word.

I'm sorry, folks. We always run out of time, but we are going to have to end the panel, because we start on committee business right away. We have a number of motions to discuss.

With that, we will allow our witnesses to go. On behalf of the committee, I thank you very much. Everybody had very interesting presentations, and we hope we can move forward together. Thank you, all.

We said we would discuss several motions. I don't know, with the vote coming up, how much time we'll have.

Do we want to start with yours, Mr. Ste-Marie? I know you had three. I have four in front of me; I'm not sure whether I have the right three.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have four motions, three of which were introduced a long time ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Well, I have the right number.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

The fourth one is about information being requested from the government and organizations like the Bank of Canada. Because this last motion was introduced later and a lot of things will need to be discussed, I have discussed it with Sean Fraser.

In the interest of fairness in the time spent debating this, I move that we consider the first three motions, then go to the motions from Mr. Julian and Ms. Dzerowicz, and finally return to my fourth motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

All right, thank you. If that's okay with you...

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Perhaps you could start with whichever one you're on, because I have four too, but I'm not sure which one....

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

The three motions that I'm going to present one after the other are about the ways in which the committee deals with respect for French. I can tell you that, from my perspective, the committee's procedures are impeccable. I have no complaints about them. The Chair, all members and the Clerk are very concerned with ensuring respect for both official languages, and therefore with the importance of French.

These three motions are from my whip's office, which suggests that they be adopted by all committees to establish standards in the way things are done. Again, I would say that this committee's procedures are at least equal, if not superior, to what is in these motions. However, adopting them here would send a message and help counter discrimination against unilingual francophone members of other committees.

If it's okay with you, I could start with the first motion, which has been translated and distributed and reads as follows:

That the clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the Committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the Chair advises the Committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.

As I said, I don't see any problem with the way the committee is doing things. So the purpose of this motion is simply to endorse what I feel is already being done. So I move to adopt this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, so that is moved. It's up for discussion.

I did note today that every witness had Parliament headphones on—there might have been one without—and that makes such a difference, if they can be mailed out in time.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will support this motion by Mr. Ste-Marie. I should mention that Parliament's Board of Internal Economy discussed this today. In the past few months, the frequency of injuries among interpreters has been rapidly decreasing due to the fact that more and more technical testing is being done and that our sound quality is good as a result. We need to keep working on it, but I think it's important to make progress and we need to continue in that direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Go ahead with the second one, Gabriel.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I thank all my colleagues, I am very grateful.

The second motion involves substantive motions and substantive amendments in written form in both official languages. It says:

That the text of any substantive motion or any motion in the amendment of a substantive motion be distributed in writing in both official languages to all Committee members before the Committee begins debate on such a motion.

Again, this is already how we do things on the committee, and I am introducing this motion to anchor this standard so that unilingual French speakers are not penalized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, that's moved.

I believe your hand is up, Mr. Julian, and then we'll have Mr. Kelly.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I very much appreciate my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie's contribution. I think the principle behind these issues is extremely important, but it would be very difficult for us to do what is being asked.

I completely agree that substantive motions should be translated before they are distributed to everyone. However, our day-to-day work makes it difficult to do the same for amendments to substantive motions. Our discussions may also result in a motion being passed unanimously or by majority. For this reason, I will not be able to support this second motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kelly, go ahead.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry, but at the very beginning, I missed which of the two we are discussing. These are similar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The one we're discussing now, Pat, is about the text of any substantive motion or any amendment.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Okay. I guess I have to agree with Mr. Julian, then.

There is a difference when a motion is put on notice and will be distributed to committee members. I think it goes without saying that it must be done in both official languages, and I would agree in principle wholeheartedly that any written material of any kind at the committee must be available in both languages.

However, I think members have to have the ability to make a motion at the table, and each language is of equivalent use. That's why we have translation. To say that it must be in writing before it can be debated would really cause difficulty for the practical functioning of the committee. That's my reaction, if I understand this motion correctly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

I'll go to Mr. Ste-Marie and end with Mrs. Jansen, and then we'll have to go to a vote.

Mr. Ste-Marie, go ahead.