Human Resources Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

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

On the adoption motion of Mr. Casson, what is the relationship between this and Jeff's motion? It's the same thing.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm not sure why I moved it, but I did.

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

Okay.

On Tony's motion, is this the major study we're talking about?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

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

Okay.

The only thing I would say on that--and I fully and completely support it--is we had some people from the disability community in here before the summer break talking about some of the stuff they want to see. I'm sure Tony would be amenable to this. But on the exact scope of the study, I hope we will get some input from disability community leaders if that changes.

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

Yes.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes. I would think that when we begin the study, we have to actually determine the scope, because it's going to be such a large study.

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

And I know, Madam Chair, that Tony is in touch with the disability community a lot. I just want to make sure there is going to be a chance for the community to give input into what needs to be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I would think, too, at some point, and it may be even by mid-November, we're going to look at this again and probably want to just reaffirm that we're going in the right direction and in the same direction.

I think this is just trying to give us a bit of a guideline and a map for the next month and a half.

Are we all--

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Just a point of information, because this was raised at the steering committee. I'd like to ask the clerk to explain what is the status of Rick Casson's adoption study and why it's appearing the way it is. He explained this to us this morning and I think it's a point that should be explained to all members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm sorry, what's the question?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

About Rick Casson's adoption study. Why is it here and why is it called “Rick Casson” and so on? It's just a simple explanation that the clerk could possibly provide us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Do you want to provide that, Georges? It was just a process thing.

Go ahead.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Georges Etoka]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion originally was presented in the House by Mr. Watson. It was agreed to by the House and sent to this committee. But in the meantime, there was a prorogation, and according to the prorogation rules, everything dies.

The motion was presented again in committee as an individual motion by Mr. Casson, with exactly the same text, and it was agreed to by the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, did you want to speak to that briefly?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

No, I just want to be on the speaking rotation to speak to the motion or on the schedule or whatever it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Did you want to speak to the report?

All right, so there's that explanation.

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Just a quick thing. This is more of a process issue. And forgive me, since I'm new to this committee. I don't know whether it's a standard practice for steering committees to actually have a written report that is looked at and voted on by the committee, because I don't seem to have one.

I have a draft schedule, which is different, first of all. Within the schedule, the substance differs somewhat from the actual motion, if I heard it correctly in terms of the order of some of the things presented.

I'd just simply make a suggestion. I wouldn't mind actually seeing a draft report of the subcommittee. It's easier to follow than listening and trying to write down motions from members at the table. That would really help.

Secondly, I do have a question, and that is with respect to the wording of Mr. Martin's motion following the study on adoption issues. Is that to suggest that it doesn't have to be immediately following the adoption study, and that there's latitude to do it in a different order, that is, after Mr. Lessard's issue? That seems to be the substance of the motion here, whether that binds us to a study of it immediately after the adoption study. It's just a question I'd like clarified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Go ahead, Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I would propose that in the report of the subcommittee that be added in point (2). And I take Mr. Watson's comment, absolutely. We can send this out to you, because we want to get it done by Thursday, since on Thursday we also want to ask the chair to table that request in the House.

Given that two members have already asked about Michael Savage's long-form census motion, I would suggest that part of it be included in our report and that Michael Savage's motion on the long-form census be discussed on November 16 and November 18. I just want to add that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, we can put that in. All right.

Mr. Watson, we can provide that report.

Is the report of the subcommittee, as presented, agreed to?

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

Was it not going to be circulated for Mr. Watson's benefit and then voted on, on Thursday? I thought that's what he said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Komarnicki, were you at the meeting earlier this morning?

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

I was. It was a very fruitful meeting and proceeded very well.