Human Resources Committee on June 15th, 2020

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to what I understood the motion to be. I thought the motion specifically said one hour per minister, and then I heard Stephanie answering a question by saying that it would be one hour per minister plus an hour for the officials, but I don't interpret the motion that was put forward to say that.

I simply see that it would be at least one hour for each minister, and I would like clarification on that, because I think it's reasonable to say it's one hour per minister. If they come with their officials, the officials come with the minister. They come together. I don't think the motion asked for that second hour. Two hours or one hour each—I get that. However, if it's four hours and then two hours each with officials, I don't read the motion to say that, so I just wanted clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I can certainly see Mr. Housefather's interpretation, but my intention was that where it says ministers and department officials, I mentioned both separately for one hour each. I can see where it's not entirely clear. It should be each minister for one hour.

It should have been clearer within the motion; I agree, but I believe we have a precedent within the committee whereby, when we have a minister appear, the minister appears with officials, and our format has been one hour and one hour. That was my intention.

If Mr. Housefather feels it is necessary, then I would ask one of my colleagues to clarify the wording to amend it to make it more specific, or we could just agree as a committee on what my intention was, because I can see how the wording of “separately for one hour each” would mean asking what “one hour each” is referring to. Is it one hour each for the ministers, or one hour for each of the ministers, and then the officials?

As I've said, I've stated the precedent and I've stated my intention, so I would ask if we could come to the consensus that my intention is recognized and understood when voting upon the motion. Otherwise, I will ask one of my colleagues to amend it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Kusie.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Speaking to the motion, I will support the interpretation, and if the interpretation is not one hour for each of the ministers and then one hour for each of the ministry officials, I would be happy to move that amendment accordingly.

That's been the practice, I think, pretty well at every committee, so when I read the motion, even though it could be interpreted either way, when it said “separately”, I thought it meant separately from ministry officials, as opposed to separate ministries.

Of course, I'm ESL, so I could misinterpret anything and everything, I suppose.

Anyway, I would support that version of the configuration.

However, speaking to the timeline issue, Mr. Chair, and July 31, given that the timeline is such that we will have more time until November, I would suggest that we give it more time, only to allow us to figure out how to schedule all these things that we want to do.

We just passed the motion to finish the Canada summer jobs report by December 15. We have a standing issue with the housing issue and we have COVID, and now we have this. We just have to figure out within that timeline how we can fit it all in. This is not as a means to delay; I think it's absolutely essential for the minister and the officials to come before the committee to speak to supplementary estimates, but some flexibility in terms of the timeline would be useful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Can I take it that you have now moved an amendment to provide for an additional hour for the officials associated with each of the ministers? Can we take that to be an amendment that's presently before us? Was that your intention?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Sure, I'd be happy to move that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right.

We now have an amendment before us. The debate is on the amendment. Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Seeing none, I would ask the clerk to hold a recorded vote on the amendment to add an hour for the officials from each department in addition to the one hour allotted to the ministers.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much.

Now the debate is on the main motion as amended. Is there any discussion on the amended motion?

Mr. Housefather, go ahead, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I believe when she was speaking, our colleague Ms. Kwan was proposing a second amendment, which related to the date. I don't think you incorporated it as part of the amendment that you then put to a vote, and I don't know that anybody intended that or understood it. I was just wondering, if there was such an intention, whether we could give her a chance to put forward that second amendment on the date by which the ministers need to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Ms. Kwan, do you have another amendment?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'd be happy to move the amendment to change the date to....

Sorry. First I have a question about landing on a date. It was November, I think, the clerk said. Is there a date in November specifically?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It's the 27th.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's the 27th.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's the deadline for a report on the main estimates to the House of Commons.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay. Then why don't we say by November 15? That will give us some lead time to make sure we get the job done, and then it will give us an opportunity to consider all of the things we need to do within those specific timelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

If I understand correctly—and please tell me if I do not—you are proposing a further amendment to the motion to delete the words “July 31, 2020” and replace them with “November 15, 2020”. Is that right?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

The debate is now on this amendment.

I see Mr. Albas. Go ahead, please.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think it's important to have the ministers come, and I think that absolutely it doesn't expire until November, but we can say that accountability is a primary aspect of our job, so I don't support pushing it back by that much time. I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Seeing none, I would ask Madam Clerk to—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I just want to add this for the committee members' consideration.

By changing the date to November 15, it is not my intention to say that we should actually do it on the last day, on November 15. I mean “up to” November 15.

The whole idea is to give ourselves some flexibility to figure out what our schedule looks like. Our committee still does not really have a work plan or schedule of what our meetings would look like, and this is the intention behind that amendment. Most certainly, we can schedule this earlier, but this would give us some flexibility. I hope Mr. Albas did not interpret my moving of this amendment to this date as a means not to ensure that there's accountability.