Human Resources Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Before we come to any vote, can we come to some kind of agreement as to the feasibility of members of both parties and of both committees being present? Then we could work out the finer details as to their presence. Obviously there's agreement on one thing and disagreement on another part. From where I sit, it seems the agreement is that we could have members of both committees present to discuss Bill C-56. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the disagreement seems to be over how the membership is going to be playing in terms of which questions go to whom and for how many minutes. That seems to me to be an important detail, but it is nonetheless a detail.

Would you agree to decide, first of all, on whether you agree to have a joint meeting, and then have a discussion on how the word “joint” could be defined? Would you agree to that?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You can take the word “joint” out. I think we could agree that we will have a meeting at which members of both would be present within this committee. “Joint” implies two sets of people: eight Liberals, 12 Conservatives, and so on.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

There are three Liberals here, Ed, or four.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

In the room there were three, but--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Excuse me, you see where I'm going. I'm just trying to dismember it so that we can agree on something and then move forward to that.

You have something to add, Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

If we take out the word “joint“, it does not mean the same thing at all because, at the moment, each party can replace one of its members. We can do that without passing a motion. So that aspect is removed.

I like Mr. Savage's motion because I think it would be interesting to have a working session using the experience of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Through their work, members of that committee have a perspective that we perhaps would not see when we come to study Bill C-56. Let us hold a working session like that, with all of us. The problem is not deciding who will be in the chair. That is simple; we could say that it would be the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for an hour and our chair for the other hour. It could be like that. That is simple. We have to decide whether it would be useful, and I think it would.

Second, can it be done? Again, I think it can. Do we have to do it in our present situation? I am less sure about that. We could perhaps decide that one or two representatives of each party on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women could come to meet with us, but I am not ruling out everyone being there. But I think that we have to find out the keys to their understanding of Bill C-56.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Go ahead, Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I think it's a good idea. I'm always up for trying new things; I assume it hasn't happened before.

I think there are some logistical questions that need to be answered around it. I agree with Mr. Savage's suggestion that we table it until Thursday. In the meantime we'll hear back from the committee on the status of women and hear what they have to say. Perhaps a couple of people could sit down and bring back to the committee on Thursday a plan that would share with us how this would work, how it would happen, and how we would make it happen. Otherwise, at the moment it's a bit confusing as to how it might unfold.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Vellacott asked to speak.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I was going to say that as Maria knows, there is work from that particular status of women committee around the concept of women and with respect to self-employment, so I think that good evidence can be and ought to be brought forward with respect to our review of the bill. I don't know what in the present circumstance prevents that from occurring, because that report has been done. You were no doubt part of it at that time with respect to women and self-employment, so the very concept that this bill involves, significantly and in a major way, has been studied already, and I think the evidence brought forward would be appropriate.

There is another caution I would raise. I am correct in understanding that we have already assigned, by way of the previous passed motion, Thursday, Tuesday of next week, and Thursday of next week to a study of the bill itself, so to be getting into any amount of quibbling back and forth and wasting time when we've got witnesses before us is, I think, out of order. You can certainly table if you want, but I'm thinking you're not tabling it until this coming Thursday, or Tuesday or Thursday of next week. It's some other time, if you choose, but we've already committed in terms of what we're doing on those particular days. We don't want to be wasting half an hour or half the meeting or a big part of the meeting by going back and forth on this motion, which in effect is what would occur. We've already agreed to our work schedule for the next three successive meetings here.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you. Your point is well taken.

Go ahead, Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

We've agreed to meet next week and we can add more time if we need to. We've agreed to meet; we haven't agreed on the witnesses we're going to hear. We haven't indicated, and it hasn't been indicated to me, that this would take longer to do.

When I came up with the motion, we didn't know that Bill C-56 was going to be jammed through the committee like a sausage. We had assumed that there would be normal hearings and that some time would be taken. We're now trying to do our best to accommodate the needs of the government so that it gets into place before the end of the year.

I don't think there's anything sinister in this motion. I don't know if you're afraid of women; I'm not sure what the reason is that you don't want to do it. It's not going to take any more time and it's not going to cost any money. However, Madam Chair, if it works with the government, I am prepared to hold on to this and perhaps chat with Ed to see if we can come to an agreement.

I also want to hear what discussion has happened at the status of women committee to indicate their view of this. Perhaps we can work this out in a way that makes us all happy away from this table.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'll have a suggestion to make, but first we have Madam Minna and then Mr. Keddy.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I agree with Mr. Savage if he wants to discuss it later and wait for the committee, but I have a suggestion. I'm not talking about the hearings part necessarily, but we can talk about how we do it.

My sense is that it would be very helpful for this committee to sit with the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. They have gone through all the hearings and hopefully they will have had time to read the bill. They can follow the hearings and they can give us the benefit of their experience and knowledge as to whether the bill misses the mark or misses a group of people, as well as on how it may impact on women in a way that we may not have anticipated. I think it would be helpful to have them here in the room with us to discuss the bill at some point.

The joint meeting doesn't have to be during the hearings. I wasn't on the committee when this particular piece of work was done, so I don't have first-hand knowledge of the work that was done. I've read the report, but that's not the same as having been there and having understood the stuff that's happening.

So we're going to have meetings outside of the hearings themselves, and at that point we should have a meeting with the members of the committee for the status of women in Canada so that we can actually hear them and have their input. They can share with us their concerns or what have you, if any, with respect to the bill and share suggestions they might have to improve the bill or anything of that kind. I think it's beneficial to do that, rather than to ignore it altogether.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thanks.

I just wanted to clarify the fact that no, we're not afraid of women, Mr. Savage. I've got three adult daughters, and I know women rule. They remind me of that all the time around the table. They make the decisions--

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I apologize for that comment, Madam Chair. I do. I understand. I've got women in my family too.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I know you're joking.

I've actually substituted in on the status of women committee myself. The biggest thing is to try to get 20 people around the table, and we still only have the same amount of speaking time, so we're not really going to have extra time to ask additional questions. I know Mike said he wants to ask questions, and other people do too. I think the best thing to do is if we have somebody...we're all ex officio; we can all sit in at the meetings. If there are any specific issues we want to discuss, we can have them come and sit in. I know Tony and his colleagues substitute all the time if there's a specific issue they want to talk to.

I think we can work this out without having to belabour the point. We can all work it out.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We're short on time. That is the problem, Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Yes. If we have another committee meeting, we can work it out. If we want to bring extra people to the meeting, sub them in.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with Mr. Cannan. It seems to me there are two different issues being discussed here. We have the motion before us, and we have some discussion of tabling the motion. A motion can't be tabled without unanimous consent, so with respect, Madam Chair, I think we're ready for the question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Before we put the question, I have two things. One, I'm going to give Mr. Vellacott the chance to speak, and two—this is only a suggestion, and I know I have a motion in front of me—I would like to ask Mr. Savage to unofficially come back to us before Thursday with a newer proposal that takes into account what has happened at the status of women committee and, given the discussion that has taken place around this table, something that is more palatable to both sides of the table so that we can move forward.

I am very worried about the fact that we have three or four meetings coming up for Bill C-56, that we all want Bill C-56 to be tabled by November 27, and we have a very short timeline on this. At the same time, we have a motion that is interesting and important, so I don't want to take time away from any future meetings to once again discuss this motion for a length of time, because it's self-defeating. We can discuss whether we want the status of women committee with us, but then if we have no time to discuss the issue, what is the point? Do you see what I mean?

I'm going to give Mr. Vellacott the floor. I would rather not go to a vote. I would rather that we ask unofficially Mr. Savage to come back to us with a new and revised motion or suggestion.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

In the spirit of what you've said, Madam Chair, because we've only got not quite 25 minutes here to actually decide on the program for hearings... I don't know if it's just an assumption that we're going to have the department in on Thursday, but we haven't agreed yet on who we're having in or how we're proceeding from here. We've got very little time remaining now. When we have these good people come, we don't want to be taking up time with other stuff, our private committee business. With that in mind and knowing we need to get some understanding as to this Thursday and Tuesday and Thursday of next week, I simply would affirm that we should get to the question and decide on a witness list for two days hence, right around the corner.

So I think we should move to the question, if we could, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Okay.

Am I wrong in saying that I don't think we have unanimous consent on Mr. Savage's motion as it stands before us now? Am I right in saying that we do not have a consensus?