Evidence of meeting #2 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I think what I'm hearing and where we're going with this is that maybe one is going to be withdrawn in favour of another. I'd like to hear Mr. Vaughan out, and then we'll deal with it.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I see a way of fitting them together as a joint motion that achieves the purpose of it. I think we can wordsmith that to make it compatible, perhaps with the help of the clerk.
What I'd like to do is address Mr. Albas's concern about the other priorities, which have also been tabled. I hear the concern, and I think there's a way of handling this.
Perhaps what we can do is table all of them together and then, as a committee, set some priorities here today. We can have a discussion and the people who have moved those motions can make their point and advocate for why they see their motion as a priority. Then, as a committee, today, we can make a decision on first, second and third sets of priorities. Then, perhaps, the subcommittee, which sets the agenda, can get to work with proposing a way of getting through the work plan currently in front of us.
We also know that with the budget coming and with other legislation that is likely to be tabled at any given moment, other things will come from the House that will disrupt this process. I don't think we need to set in order all of the priorities and all of the motions that are being tabled here today, but I think we do need to get to work as a committee and set a couple of priorities here today.
I would say, let's have the members speak to their proposals and let the committee ask questions as to where the priorities are, but at the end of the day, let's set a priority for job number one, at least, and then send the other motions that aren't part of that to the subcommittee for ordering, and it can bring those back to the full committee.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to point out that I share your view that the NDP member's amendment does not seem to be an amendment.
I believe that the subject matter touches on indigenous housing. However, based on the wording, it seems instead to be a new motion that we will have to discuss, rather than an amendment.
As I am sitting on a committee for the first time, I am wondering how we proceed because the committee has already received several motions.
I agree that we can consider all the motions. However, we could quickly decide amongst ourselves what will be the committee's priorities, unless you indicate that the committee will sit every day of the week.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you.
I think we're moving in your direction, Mr. Albas. Go ahead.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I was just hoping we could have exactly this kind of discussion.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
We've all sent a number of notices of motion to the clerk, and the clerk has sent them to everyone, but we haven't actually had a discussion as to perhaps the Liberals, the Bloc or the NDP having motions that others would like. Or maybe we have one that, with a slight modification, could be a good one to start with.
I will just point out that I've put forward one on medical assistance in dying, which is a very timely topic. It's very key to my shadow ministry side. On the disability inclusion, there are a lot of concerns. I think we could give voice to some of those things.
Unfortunately, right now we're debating outside of the motion that's been put. I really do think we should probably clear that back and perhaps then have a discussion on where joint priorities might be set, because we haven't had the benefit of hearing from one another. We've just been sending emails to one another.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
All right, I think we're moving towards a consensus here on what Mr. Albas has suggested. At least that's what I'm hearing from Mr. Vaughan. We do have a motion on the floor, but I think we do have consensus that a discussion around priorities would be in order.
Am I reading the room correctly?
Mr. Dong.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding of my colleague Mr. Vaughan's point is that we should table all the motions, especially the motions that we were served notice of, and go through them one by one. Some may get the support of the committee. Some may not. We don't know. Once we have cleared that table, then we can look at what's left and figure out our priorities from that bunch. That's just my understanding of what Mr. Vaughan was saying.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I think we've all put priorities forward in terms of what motions.... We worked hard as a group on this side to put forward motions that we thought were priorities. I'm sure all parties did the same. I feel like the debate should be around specific motions that have been put forward—I think everybody's worked hard on those—rather than sort of delay, potentially, and get stuck in long debates about reaching some consensus before we actually put those motions on the table.
I really do support my colleague Adam Vaughan's sentiment, and I think we should table the motions.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
First of all, maybe you, Mr. Chair, or the clerk can actually say whether or not.... My understanding is that all of the motions that we have received from the clerk are eligible for discussion.
We all did work hard, which is why I would like to see us consider the different views, rather than charge down one direction. Again, I commend the MP because I do not want to diminish the role of any individual member to plead his or her case as to why we need to do that. I just think that having the context of everyone....
Maybe if the member withdraws the motion, although technically she can't because it's now in front of us and you found it in order.... However, even if she just adjourns debate on the motion, then we can have the conversation. Then we're working within the structure of the committee and can talk about the different priorities to see if we can find some commonalities.
I don't view this as being something that would take very long. I think it would be pretty quick. If no one intonates that they're going to support having discussion on medical assistance in dying for people with disabilities and the concern, particularly from the disability community, I'd like to hear it so that I can just say okay and put that aside, even though I think it's an important issue that each one of us would hear from our constituents that they'd like to hear about.
February 25th, 2020 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
All right, we have a motion in front of us. We have a suggestion from Mr. Albas that debate be adjourned to allow for an examination of all the other options. I am in your hands.
Mr. Turnbull.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I want to clarify whether this is standard practice in committees and how they operate. I've only been on one committee so far that's met numerous times. This is not how things operated on that committee, so I'm wondering whether this is a standard practice.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
It isn't out of line. Neither is out of line. Once a motion is presented, the normal course of things is that it's debated and voted upon. However, there are other committees that adopt the route that Mr. Albas has put forward. I can tell you that, in this Parliament, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs took all of the motions that were put on notice and punted them to a subcommittee on planning and procedure. The subcommittee identified priorities and brought them back to the full committee. From that, the batting order and the amount of time spent on each of them was agreed upon.
The approach that we started with is one that is clearly permitted under the rules. The approach that Mr. Albas is suggesting is one that is being used in this Parliament and has been used. Neither is wrong.
Is that fair?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Absolutely.
If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, let me add that I find this issue to be very important as well, but again, many different priorities have been expressed. I think we kind of jump the gun by.... Basically, you can't make everything a priority, or else nothing is a priority. Perhaps just having a discussion about which will be number one, number two, number three...so that I don't have to vote against MP Young's motion to express that I want to support something else going first. I don't want to be put in that position.
Plus, we're all new in this committee together. It's kind of nice to know where people are at in their headspace. I'm a Rotarian: Building goodwill and better friendships is always a good thing.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
Thank you for that. I do understand that we want to be collegial and understand where everybody is coming from. I certainly want to do that.
I guess I'm thinking that I'm not setting a priority. I was the first one to put my hand up and I was able to get this motion on the table. It doesn't mean that this is the first motion we're going to deal with as a committee. If we can move forward and substantially say that this is something we want to study, then we can move on to the next one.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to echo what Ms. Young just said. To me, the most expeditious way to deal with these motions would be to go through the motions and vote on the motions. The committee could adopt three, six, or seven motions on what the committee agrees to study and then do what Mr. Albas is suggesting—that is, prioritize the motions that were adopted in the order in which the committee wishes to prioritize them.
If we just spend all of our time talking about how we're going to get somewhere, we're never going to get anywhere at all.
