Human Resources Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

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

We should be clear on what's happening here in case there are people later on who follow this and don't understand how this minority Parliament works.

This is a committee that has a majority of opposition members. The chair is conveniently away, I think in Scandinavia, in a country that actually has a strong social infrastructure and is proud of it. Because of that, there is not a majority. There normally is a majority on the opposition side, which would mean that we could pass a significant bill with targets in the form of an amendment that would make a difference for people in poverty.

I am prepared to support this motion because my friend Tony, who I believe in, is comfortable with it and I think it at least does something. But I think it's too bad that we couldn't have done something with a little more teeth in it. I think we're letting people down and I feel bad about that, but I'm also not prepared to see this thing go by the wayside and not have that discussion in Parliament on November 24. I think Mr. Martin's amendment to that effect makes sense.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

If I understand this correctly, Mr. Komarnicki has indicated that he and his colleagues find the friendly add-on of November 24 as the date when it would be reported to the House is acceptable. The motion would read: “...develop an immediate plan to eliminate poverty in Canada for all, and that this decision be reported to the House on November 24.”

Do we need to come to a vote on this motion? I have a suspicion that we will all agree on this.

(Motion agreed to)

There's unanimous agreement on this motion.

Congratulations, Mr. Martin. You've waited a long time. It's not quite what you wanted, but it's part of the way there.

Thank you very much, everyone.

We now come to the other motion we have in front of us, which is Mr. Savage's motion dated November 5, 2009.

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

I want to see a copy of that motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We're just waiting for it to be circulated.

I'll ask you to read it out, Mr. Savage, so that everybody is on the same page.

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

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I'm prepared to read the motion. I'm not quite sure why there are two. I submitted one.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'd like to bring to the attention of members of the committee a slight revision. You have before you two texts, one short and one long. In fact, the motion itself is the short text, the one that is three lines long. The part that is longer is really the preamble to the motion. So what you will be voting on is, “That the Standing Committee on Human Resources” and so on, and so forth.

I'll ask Mr. Savage to read his motion and explain it.

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

Thank you.

I'll read the short one:That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women hold at least one joint meeting to review Bill C-56.

Shall I speak to the motion, Madam Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

The status of women committee, of which my colleague Ms. Minna has been one of the leading members over the last number of years, has done a fair amount of work on employment insurance. This year they did a major piece of work on employment insurance and how it affects women, and they have some recommendations about the self-employed and how women should be affected by the self-employed being brought into the employment insurance system and other aspects, specifically maternal, parental, sickness, and compassionate leave.

To me it makes perfect sense that this is how Parliament should work. Where there's expertise existing on two committees looking at a single piece of legislation, we should do a meeting.... And I'm not sure how this is done. I would rely on the expertise of others. I've never done one in my time in Parliament.

Madam Chair, you've indicated that you have.

But it seems perfectly sensible that we have at least one meeting of both these two committees, and that would obviously have to happen next week.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I would respond to the member without taking a very long time here, but the honourable member Maria Minna is on that committee.

Are you still on the committee?

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

No, I'm not. I was when I was the critic, but I'm not now.

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

Okay.

Anyhow, with that kind of experience resident right in our committee here, and that kind of wisdom in response to a bill that in large part involves women, as I understand, I would think Mr. Savage would cede his chair and you could simply substitute those people in, as you choose, for part of the committee or the whole of the committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Let's not discuss so much how we're going to do it. Let's discuss whether we want to do it.

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

Precisely, Madam Chair. And that's my point. I don't think this is necessary. I think it can be done and you can accomplish the same result by having those members of the status of women committee sub in for a period of time on behalf of Mr. Savage, as they choose, for part of that two-hour meeting. So I don't see this as necessary.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I agree with Mr. Vellacott.

In the past when we did Bill C-50, it was with the immigration committee, but I subbed in to ask questions. It becomes more complex and difficult from a process point of view to have two committees, two chairs, whatever. We know that we have an allotted time for questions. We go by rounds of seven minutes and then rounds of five minutes.

There are enough members and numbers here where people from the status of women could be subbed in to ask questions on the first round or second round in a simple fashion through the committee we now have, with one chair. It's less complicated. It's straightforward. You can achieve the same thing without complicating the matter further.

So we would be opposed to the motion but not opposed to status of women people being subbed in to ask questions in the first round or second round during our hearing. It would be done in a normal fashion with the normal rules in this committee. And this committee would be the lead.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

Madam Minna.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I read this motion correctly, I don't think Mr. Savage means for it to be while we're having the hearings. I think that subbing--me or anyone else, one or two--is obviously a doable thing.

The bigger value for this.... I wasn't part of the committee when they studied the EI part; I was no longer a member. I think what this motion is speaking to, which I like, is this. It is asking for a joint meeting where we as a committee would discuss potential resolutions or potential impacts, or lack of, in the legislation, and so on. I think that's where the benefit would come in.

Quite frankly, I think it would be a huge assistance to us, as we discuss the bill, to see if there are any aspects of the bill that may benefit from being strengthened from the research the women have done. They had much more intense hearings and concentrated work on the issue of EI than we are going to be able to do in the short time we are taking to put the bill through, and I think it would certainly help us to have a joint meeting with the standing committee.

Asking questions of witnesses is one thing. And I understand, Mr. Komarnicki, that you're talking about time. But having a joint meeting around this table in camera where we can discuss and they can bring forward their findings, I think, is much more useful for us. And I think that's what Mr. Savage is suggesting.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Before we go further, there seems to be not quite an understanding as to how you see it, Mr. Savage. I'd like you to take a couple of minutes to talk to us about how you see this joint meeting to review Bill C-56. It's your motion.

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

I'm open to different variations on that meeting. I want to make sure that we have the view of the status of women committee. Mr. Vellacott says they can sub in; well, I have a lot of questions about Bill C-56 from a regular EI point of view, some of which include how women are affected and some of which don't. I want to be here; I don't want to be subbed for. You and Madam Minna also have some specific interest in Bill C-56; you want to see it move along.

I should let the committee know that the status of women committee has a similar motion in that committee, and I think they're dealing with it today. If we can't come to an agreement, I'm going to table this motion until we see what happens at the status of women committee, but I'd like to hear what my colleagues on the opposition side think.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

This is not clear to me. Are you suggesting that this meeting, whatever shape it takes in terms of its membership, be to discuss it or to hear the witnesses or both?

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

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

That's a possibility. Okay. I just want that to be clear to everyone.

Go ahead, Mr. Komarnicki.

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

My sense is that if you expand the committee by doubling its size or even making it bigger than this, it will be cumbersome. It has issues and problems with chairing and so on. I still think that if the members of the status of women committee want to be present here, they certainly can be, whether subbed in or not, but those who do the questioning and who participate in debate would need to take a chair within this committee by subbing in. There are four members of the Liberal party, two members of the Bloc party, and one member of the NDP, and they can perhaps all take a chair at different times.

The fact of the matter is that it's far less complicated to proceed as we have been and accomplish pretty much all that Mr. Savage would want to accomplish for this motion. We will oppose it, but we would be prepared to work with the committee to ensure that the status of women committee is well represented within one hearing or whatever is decided.