Evidence of meeting #3 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 ministers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
I'm concerned that if we do the main estimates, we won't discuss supplementary estimates (B) from the 2020 budget.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I don't want to get into semantics. I don't know that the first sentence is needed. I think the simplest way to actually read the motion would be, “That the committee ask the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities and the Minister of Labour to jointly appear before the committee for a period of two hours to discuss their mandate letters and the main estimates, and that in a separate meeting the committee invite the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Seniors to testify before the committee for a period of two hours to explain their mandate letters and the main estimates.”
That way it's simpler. I leave it to you and the clerk to work that out, but I think it actually reflects what the committee said and it doesn't have extra sentences that are kind of confusing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay.
It's been pointed out to me by the analyst and Mr. Vis that there are a couple of things that are basically left hanging here.
Traditionally, when ministers appear on estimates, they appear for an hour and then departmental officials appear. The road that we're going down isn't consistent with that. I just want to point that out. If everyone is comfortable with taking an approach that isn't consistent with what's traditionally been done, then I'm your humble servant.
The other point that Mr. Vis raises, appropriately, is that we have adopted a motion to have three ministers appear on supplementary estimates (B). That isn't referenced in this motion. Presumably that will have to be dealt with.
Mr. Kusmierczyk.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
It's just a small technicality. The correct title for Minister Qualtrough is Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion”. I just wanted to make that correction.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
With the committee having made a decision on the supplementaries and now making a decision on the main estimates with a tag on, I think the two are quite different. I'm willing to support the motion as it currently reads. Again, I think it's helpful, particularly at the beginning of a mandate, to have them come in and explain their mandates. We can familiarize ourselves with them and what they're trying to do, and then talk about the main estimates.
I do think that this committee does need to assert itself, though, on its traditional roles. Any time supplementaries come forward, we should be inviting the minister to come to speak and we should look those over. I would just leave it at that.
February 27th, 2020 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Am I to understand, then, that the ministers are now being asked to appear twice?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We have adopted a motion to invite three of them to come on supplementaries. We're now considering a motion to invite four of them to come on mains and mandate letters.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
First of all, that eats up just about the entire time to do studies. That concerns me, particularly insofar as we have a study that we've already prioritized.
Second, I'm not sure that you're going to be able to get ministers to put that much time between now and June into appearing in front of committees. I'm trying to figure out a way to manage it so that we get access to ministers. Having an hour, one at a time, on the supplementaries, and then another two hours to follow, are three hours of ministers' time. I just don't think we have the bandwidth to handle that.
Is there a way of consolidating the supplementaries and the main estimates, as well as the mandate letters, into that two-hour meeting? I think that's the efficient way to get it done.
I'd be surprised if there's an hour's worth of questions on mandate letters. They're not that complex, and they are interrelated. The mandate letters, the estimates and the supplementaries are all part of the same body of work. One is just language, and the other one has the numbers to support that language.
In the name of efficiency and getting to work, rather than having ministers endlessly appear in front of the committee, let's compress the work, focus the work and get the work done.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I want to agree with my colleague Mr. Vaughan. I think we have a lot of work cut out for ourselves based on all the really impressive motions we've put forward. It seems that it will delay things considerably if we have ministers coming in meeting after meeting. I really believe in efficiency. There's a lot of work to get down to business on.
The other thing is that the mandate letters are online. It's always nice to hear from ministers about their mandates, certainly, but they are online. I've printed them all out and read them. We can all review them. What is it that we really need to hear from ministers regarding their mandates that we can't already access and do our homework on?
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think it provides us with an opportunity to ask questions of the ministers about their mandates and how they plan on fulfilling their mandates, but I also think that it is a reasonable suggestion from the members to combine the two meetings together for two hours.
Although the mandates are online, I do think that having an opportunity to ask the ministers questions about those mandates and how they expect to fulfill them is really important.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I think we all agree on the basics. We can read the mandate letters, but it is important to see the ministers, to confirm how they intend to carry out the mandate with which they have entrusted, and to ask questions about their priorities. In addition, if some mandates overlap, we can see how they intend to work together. Those are important questions.
You mentioned the supplementary estimates as they relate to the mandates, and the main estimates. As for the scheduling, I don't know whether it would be possible to have two meetings lasting three hours instead of two. Then it would be over and done with.
Would three hours be enough to meet the two ministers and cover the mandate letters and the supplementary estimates?
We have agreed that lunch can be ordered. If that is so, we can extend the meeting and get everything done.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Chair.
I think we need to step back, though, and recognize it. I just counted up nine weeks, so I think we have 18 meetings. We all know that there are going to be votes and there are going to be things that happen, so I think it's prudent that we combine all of these. I don't think we need to talk endlessly to ministers. We'll get the two ministers in for two hours, and in the next meeting we can do that again. I think that's more than enough time.
Thank you.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
I'd just like to point out, with all due respect, Mr. Vaughan, that when we talk about the efficiency of the committee, our constitutional responsibility is to approve or disapprove parliamentary expenditures.
I do appreciate all the work that every committee member wants to undertake for the well-being of their constituents, but my constituents also want me to undertake the work of reviewing expenditures put forward by the government, and I don't want to undermine the estimates process. There are literally hundreds of people employed full time by the Government of Canada who prepare these reports, and we're discussing one hour for someone's full-time job in the department. I don't want to undermine the process more than it already is in our Parliament.
Thank you.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I think it's really important. There are a lot of new members here, and again, especially, this is a minority Parliament and Canadians have asked us to work together. That's right, but we also have to be mindful that the supplementaries as well as the main estimates are sent to this committee for our scrutiny and review.
It's one of those things where we have.... Again, I think Mr. Vis alluded to this. It is 100% our ancient duty to either deny supply or to grant it, so there has to be an oversight component of that. I do think that this is the.... We already passed a motion the last day, and I would hope that members would acknowledge that.
We've already seen the NDP motion changed quite dramatically to take into consideration ministers' very valuable time. I also will say, though, that there is nothing more important, I believe, than for ministers to be held accountable. That's why I believe that this first part is our role. It's to have those ministers in front of us so we can ask questions. If they answer all those questions and I've exhausted everything, I'll be the first person to say, “Minister, thank you for your time and please go and do the good work you need to do.”
I would hope that the government—and I'm looking at the parliamentary secretaries who are here—fully understands that a committee's first assignment is to do that and to ask for those things. I'm sure there are many things that a minister could be doing, but there's no greater work. How many hundreds of thousands of Canadians are represented in this room? I think there's no greater duty than that first one.