Human Resources Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

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

I want to reiterate here that we don't know what's going to come out of our deliberation. I'm always very uncomfortable when a parliamentary committee says they're going to finalize their study and report back to the House. I'm entirely comfortable with saying we're going to make every effort that we can, as Liberal members, to ensure that happens. I understand that if that doesn't happen, then the travel may well not proceed. That's certainly not what we want. I think it's irresponsible for us as parliamentarians to prejudge what witnesses are going to tell us about that bill and what amendments may be required.

But I give this committee my assurance, as the critic for EI on this side, that we want to do whatever we can to get this back into the House. With that caveat, I'm prepared to support that motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

From my past experience also, I think it's easier on everyone if we said that we report it back on November 27, which is a Friday. There's no problem in reporting to the House on a Friday, by the way. That would give us the chance to finish off on November 26, if that's where we are, and report the very next morning in the House of Commons.

Monsieur Lessard.

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

I have the same concerns as Mr. Savage.

On the poverty question, when we planned our trip, of course we wanted to have finished our work first. But we also wanted to make sure that the drafters are able to enjoy the holiday season, and to do their work in January, when we will not be here. In my opinion, that agenda is risky because it does not ensure that the trip will happen before the holidays. It also wastes the drafters' time, time that they could use doing the work we expect of them. Let us not forget the consensus we have that this work is of the highest importance.

I have to say that the parameters of Bill C-56and Bill C-304 include elements, factors that must come into play and that must normally relieve poverty a little, if it is done well. I am not sure that we will succeed in doing good work on Bill C-56 if we rush things. That is my second argument.

That is also where I share Mr. Savage's position. We also want to hear witnesses. The people in the trenches, the self-employed, have their representatives and we must hear from them. We must also hear from experts. At very least, we must hear from the chief actuary who administers the employment insurance fund.

In the opposition, we are always concerned about costs. We do it openly, but we must get answers. The principle of getting the bill passed is not the problem. It is new and interesting; it is the first time that self-employed workers have acquired rights under the employment insurance plan. We recognize how interesting that is. So, since it is worth doing, let us make sure that we do it well. It seems that there may be people whom it is intended to include, but who are actually excluded. We should check that as well.

I still have one concern, Madam Chair. I agree with postponing our study on Bill C-304 until after our trip to the west. We certainly agree with that. But, as for the agenda, I wonder whether we should not stay with the trip next week and carefully consider Bill C-56 when we get back. That would not delay things very much, as long as we can start to study this bill on Thursday.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Before I ask Mr. Komarnicki the question, I would just like to remind you of something.

I'd like to remind everyone that what is in the motion here is the possibility of eight hours of discussion and witnesses: November 19, November 24, November 26, and another day if needed. That's eight hours. Or we could possibly even prolong it if that's what the members decide to do when we come to that.

So we're talking about eight hours additional on Bill C-56. However, Mr. Komarnicki, Mr. Lessard has made a suggestion. First of all, I have a motion here. I have to deal with that motion, but I'd like to remind Mr. Komarnicki that Mr. Lessard has made a suggestion that we keep the calendar as is in terms of traveling time and that we deal with Bill C-56 when we come back.

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

It's not something we would be prepared to entertain, because Bill C-56 is important. It's important that we have it in the House and hopefully through both houses before we break for the year, because it has some significant timelines, including January 1, when we're not here. It's very important that we proceed expeditiously for the benefit of those who are self-employed.

Even dealing with it by way of an extra week is impinging on time and expeditiousness. Having said that, we would not want to delay it another week because of the danger posed to the bill itself, making it through both houses.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Savage.

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

I have a point of clarification.

Mr. Lessard's point is entirely correct, but I think it's moot. I don't how that translates into French.

I'm going to ask my colleague Ed a question. Is it not the case that the House leader and/or the whip of the Conservatives has said that there will be no travel, and that without assurance we're not going to travel next week regardless?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'm sorry, I didn't hear your answer.

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

It passed Liaison Committee and it needed the assurance of the whips. I'm told that the three opposition whips were prepared to travel next week. Is that not the case?

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

I don't know what the situation is at the House leader's office. But I do know that Bill C-56 is a priority in front of everything else, including travel. We've been clear about that. That means travel can't commence next week. It can be delayed until the spring or later. But this bill will come in advance of that, and that's not going to change.

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

My question, though, is this. Are you telling me that your House leader or whip have not said there will not be travel next week, regardless?

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

I'm not sure what position they've taken. They're probably meeting as we speak. I do know that certainly our whip would be aware of the fact that we want this bill through before travel.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Lessard, you have the floor, and then it will be Mr. Martin's turn.

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

I think we have the answer. This is saying that it is cancelled the moment one person does not want it. It was the right question.

The other question I would like to ask is about the witnesses. Are we saying that there will be no witnesses for such an important bill?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

That is not how I understand it, Mr. Lessard. Where do you get that from?

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

No, but there is the fact that we are having three or four meetings very closely together. There must be enough time to allow these people to come. So we have to get the list together very quickly, because we are going to have to hear the witnesses before beginning to study...

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We can put our faith in Mr. Etoka. I think that you have already given him the list of witnesses whom you want to hear from.

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

It was not at all about a lack of faith in Mr. Etoka.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You have already submitted your list. I think that almost everyone has done so. Am I mistaken, Mr. Etoka?

I am mistaken.

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

He did not have this...

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Anyway, we have a list to submit to Mr. Etoka, certainly, and then he will set about inviting the witnesses with his customary diligence.

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

The reason why we have not done that is that we still did not know when we were going to do the study.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Right.

Mr. Martin.

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

For me anyway, I tabled the motion based on some very practical realities that are in front of us. First of all, the government wants to get Bill C-56 through committee and back into the House before any travel is made. It's as simple as that. That is what Mr. Komarnicki told me. And he can make that happen. All he has to do is talk to his whip or his House leader and we don't travel.

We know the process here. Committee can approve and the Liaison Committee can approve, but if any one of the whips decides unilaterally that travel is not going to happen, it will not happen. That happened last June when the plug was pulled on a planned trip to Ireland because the government whip decided that it wasn't going to allow that travel. That can happen anytime, and it's within the power of the government or any of us. The reality is that we're not travelling until we get Bill C-56.

The other question, then, is how committed are we and how strongly do we feel about the travel for poverty? I heard many say it's important to get the travel done so that we finish that piece of the work, so that the analysts can do their work over Christmas and be ready with their report in the early new year. I suggest that's a good plan, that it is what we need to do. We've been at this now for over two years, and it's time to bring it to some conclusion.

So when do we travel? Do we travel the first week in December or do we travel the second week in December? The first week, in my view, makes the most sense. The last week is always a pretty hairy week, for those who have been around for a while. There are things happening, there are votes, there's commotion, there's anticipation of the government falling and all that kind of stuff, and the whips tend to want us here. So I think the only week we have left in terms of travel is that first week in December.

That's why I'm making the suggestion that I have. I'm willing to make the commitment. I understand what Mr. Savage and Mr. Lessard are saying in terms of our hands being tied at this committee. I also understand what Mr. Komarnicki is saying about needing to get this done as quickly as we can, because at the end of the day it's not us who are going to be affected. We will still have our jobs, hopefully for a while longer, and we won't have to worry about EI for a little bit. But there are lots of people out there in this very difficult economy who are waiting for this to happen and be available to them. I think we owe it to them to, first of all, do a fulsome job to make sure this piece of work is the best possible coming out of here at this time. We've all seen where we've rushed bills and made mistakes and had to come back later and fix them. We don't want to be in that position again.

I'm pretty confident that if we do our work and do it in the spirit we've been working in at this committee over the last couple of years, we can actually get that done. That way, we meet all of the very significant and important requirements that have been laid out by all of us here today.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'd like to add one point. Speaking of losing our jobs, that reminds me that budget time is going to come fairly quickly when we get back to the House at the end of January. With budget time, sometimes there are a number of choses imprévues, if I can use my own language in this.

My personal feeling on this is that it's really important for this committee to travel as quickly as possible and not wait until the new year, because that would push back this study on poverty. Every single time we have had to push it back, we have pushed it back.

Don't forget, it's not just travel; it is also travel to a part of the country that I don't recall, as far as Yukon is concerned, has ever seen our parliamentary committee, if any parliamentary committee--certainly not this one—which is why we had pushed it forward. I think it's really important. That is my personal opinion.

We have here a formula that can work if we all put our shoulders to the stone. We have a possibility of eight hours of witness time on November 19, 24, and 26, and maybe another two hours at some point. When the time comes, if we have to stay an extra hour one evening or something, I'm pretty sure most members, if not all members, would agree to that.

That's where we are. We're still on the same motion, which is that the study of Bill C-304 be deferred until the committee returns from its travel west and north, and that we deal with Bill C-56 during the week of November 19, 24, and 26, and another meeting if needed. The bill will be reported to the House by November 27.

The grammar isn't all together, but we'll work it out.

We would resume study of Bill C-304 on December 8 and 10, 2009.

That is the motion as it stands. We'll come to a vote on the motion, then.

I have just read Mr. Lessard's motion. It is exactly the exactly the same as the one we have been discussing for half an hour now and I am calling the question.