Human Resources Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, again, Mr. Chair.

My presumption is that we should stick with the original wording from Ms. Falk.

If we're not going to do that—since 30 different versions were thrown out—I think the right version, if you want to go broader, is “well-being of Canadian grandparents or other relatives who became guardians of minor children”. I think that would be the right way to express it, because then it would encompass all relatives who became guardians of minor children.

Again, I'm perfectly happy sticking with the original wording.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I think if we go much broader, then we would need more meetings.

My background is social work, and I've dealt with and been a part of a lot of cases and sad situations. If we're just looking at legal guardians in highlighting this.... I think this gets underlined a lot. We are usually only hearing about mothers, fathers and children.

I think it can get very messy. What I would propose is that we leave the motion the same, but I'm willing to move a motion to remove the “four meetings”. I would leave all the wording and remove “that the study comprise no fewer than 4 meetings”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay, folks, here's where I think we are. There have been several subamendments put forward, none of which have been moved. There have been a bunch of suggestions on subamendments. There is an amendment that has been moved.

What I propose to do is take it that there have been no subamendments. I'm going to read to you what I understand to be the amendment, and if we're ready for the question on that, great.

If a subamendment to that needs to be moved.... I don't think that a subamendment has been moved, but an amendment certainly has been moved.

Mr. Vaughan, go ahead.

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

Can you split it into two, because there are two amendments, right? If we split it so that.... I mean, I could withdraw the first part, which is to acquiesce to—

We can just vote on taking out that one phrase about the four meetings and we're good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

What is before the committee, then, is the following: to amend the motion to delete the words after “grandchildren;”—”that the study comprise no fewer than four meetings”.

That's the question. Is there any further debate on that amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, is there any discussion on the motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mrs. Falk, if I may briefly remove my hat as chair and speak as the member of Parliament for Charlottetown, this is a very significant issue on Prince Edward Island. If I had to vote, I would have been right there with you. Thank you for bringing forward that motion.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'd like to move another motion, Mr. Chair.

That, this committee undertake a study to review the first Spring 2019 report of the Auditor General of Canada on Call Centres and hear testimony from Employment and Social Development Canada officials on the action taken to provide Canadians with accessible and timely call centre services for Employment Insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, and Old Age Security; and that the committee report its findings, with recommendations, to the House and request that the government provide a comprehensive response.

I can add the reasoning behind this, Mr. Chair. I think all of us in this room have had constituents come forward to us and demand that the Government of Canada do a better job with the telephone services that are operated on their behalf. I think we had an Auditor General report, and it's timely for us as committee members to respond to any changes that might have taken place in this major government department.

I'm thinking of the seniors in my riding who might not be good on the Internet and who have so much difficulty reaching a federal agent and of some of the remote and rural communities where accessible Internet is not an option yet, and they require these phone services to get the services they need. That's the basis behind doing this, sir, to improve accountability for Canadians with this department.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

The motion is in order.

Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm new to Ottawa, but going back to my Queen's Park days, the AG's reports usually go to the public accounts committee. They're the ones who would review the report. I don't know what the custom is here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Albas.

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

In my days of being a parliamentary secretary, I served on the public accounts committee. In the last Parliament, when I sat on industry as a regular backbencher, we supported a motion to have the Auditor General come to the industry committee to specifically speak about rural broadband. It was highly educational. Oftentimes public accounts will look at a particular area in terms of dollars and cents.

I think this issue is so tied into how people are respected and whether or not they can access services that it affects all our constituents. I was contacted last week exactly on this particular note.

I would really hope that we study this, because the Auditor General does fantastic work, and this gives us some parameters to work around. I'm sure each one of us would also be able to call forward some witnesses and be able to derive some benefit that perhaps the public accounts committee may not have looked into in their own report.

Again, going back to my days in public accounts, the previous Auditor General would say that he would encourage all parliamentarians to take advantage of their material, not just the public accounts, because there's a lot that both the AG and the environmental commissioner do. Unfortunately, there are just so many reports that they don't get the proper scrutiny and public display.

I look at this committee and I think, “What a great group.” Why wouldn't we want to study this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The ever-helpful analysts have pointed out to me that in the last Parliament, Mr. Long was in this committee at the time. On May 28, 2019, the committee invited the Auditor General along with officials from ESDC in relation to report 1, “Call Centres”.

Just so you know, this happened in the last Parliament. I offer you that because it was pointed out to me by the analysts. I'm not sure that it precludes us from doing it again, just so you know.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

We've had time to review most of the other motions. While I have nothing against the one that was put forward in the moment, I'd like to ask for a five-minute recess to confer with my colleagues so we can discuss it, if that would be amenable to the group.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Let's exhaust the speakers list and then suspend. I do think it's a good idea, but there are some other people who may want to make contributions that will form part of your deliberations during the suspension.

Mr. Vis.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I will flag that the Auditor General already appeared at this committee on this item.

I'm not looking for a long and exhaustive study on this subject matter, but the point of Auditor General reports is to provide parliamentarians with information on how to improve certain services or programs offered by the federal government, and ultimately improve accountability for the people we all represent.

This is a significant issue for a lot of people, so what I'm really asking for is that we follow up. It was over a year ago, now, that this report was issued, I believe. It's a good opportunity for us to see what actions have been taken from the recommendations put forward by the Auditor General.

That's what I'm seeking, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With Mr. Long, I was also on the HUMA committee in the last Parliament.

I was going to say what Mr. Vis said. It would be great to see the improvements that have been made. Sometimes people are calling Service Canada, and it's not necessarily fun, so it's just about making sure Canadians, who are our constituents, are receiving the best service possible. I think we owe that, at a minimum, to our constituents.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaughan.

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

I move that we defer the consideration to the next meeting and ask the clerk and the staff to distribute the report from the previous one and consider the motion at that time, based on what we see. We may be able to fine-tune what we're asking for and looking at.

As parliamentary secretary, I was part of that committee, as well, although not a voting or speaking member. I was very happy to hear about some of the improvements but also some of the challenges that were there, quite frankly.

I suggest we defer consideration of this motion, ask the clerk to distribute the report that was done from the previous Parliament and then, with that in hand, make a decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I would like to suspend for five minutes, please, and then we'll circle back on what's been discussed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right. We're back in session.

There are a couple of things. It was pointed out to me that, in the previous Parliament, when the AG came before this committee on this topic, it was a single meeting and there wasn't a report. Therefore, to the extent that you would receive a report, it would simply be witness testimony. Also, that appearance by the AG before this committee wasn't the only time it happened. That is by way of background.

Procedurally, Mr. Vaughan, if we're going to defer this, the appropriate way to do so would be to adjourn debate on it and to bring it back, unless we have a consensus otherwise.

Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

We were just having a discussion. Is Thursday set aside, as well, for committee business, so we can continue the discussion of priorities and motions? Obviously, we recognize the time government requires to make that evaluation. Our NDP colleague also indicated that she would like more time to consider and review it.

We want to allow for these times, but what we don't want to happen is that it be tabled indefinitely so that it never ever returns. We just want to verify that we are, in fact, having committee business again on Thursday, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Well, I am your humble servant, and what we do on Thursday will be your decision, which I will carry out. I think that we have at least a couple of options. One is to continue with committee business and another is to have a briefing from officials, but I am entirely in your hands on that.

I take it that your preference would be to continue with the work that we've started today.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm sensing that. Certainly even one more meeting would be great to finish committee business. As well, we've determined priorities that are important for the committee, but I think that now we need to start to think about the weight of the priorities in terms of the amount of time we want to allocate to each of these studies. I don't think we need more than one more meeting, but I think having one more meeting would be our preference, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaughan.