Evidence of meeting #4 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 study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I'll move it with the understanding that there are six meetings and then two to draft the report. Is that what's proposed?
March 12th, 2020 / 3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Item number three indicates that there will be six meetings where we hear from witnesses and one meeting for drafting instructions.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
If we need a second meeting, we can amend that, I assume.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I have no problem moving the report in its entirety, with this note. I remember all of us talking about it, that if you can't properly stream a theme, that we accommodate them in off days, but we try to balance it out to one-third, one-third, and one-third over the six meetings, trying to get to that schedule, meaning the first report.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We have a motion to adopt the report of the subcommittee.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Albas.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Just on point six, the press release, I would hope, would come through you to committee members so we can know about it, and if there any graphics, we can put them on social media to encourage people to consider applying. I know it's not a large bursary, but by the same token, we want to make sure that anyone who's interested has the ability to do that.
The question is on “Respectfully submitted”. Could it not be “Submitted with love”? It's totally up to you, Mr. Chair. If you want to maintain the stiff upper lip when you send us these things, I understand that.
3:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:50 p.m.
A voice
That's parliamentary language.
3:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are you ready for the question?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Yes.
Now that it has been adopted, the analysts have prepared a draft work plan based on the subcommittee's work. It will now be circulated.
The first item on the subcommittee report was that today's meeting include a discussion of the scope and objectives. We have delved into that. Are there any further interventions with respect to the scope and objectives? Do you want a few minutes to review the document in front of you and then come back to that?
Why don't we do that? Let's suspend, take some time to have a look through this, and then I'll ask that question again.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
All right, we're back in session.
The draft work plan that you have in front of you has some suggestions with respect to witnesses. The subcommittee report you just adopted indicated that we've set a deadline for March 20 for all parties to submit witness lists. The witnesses will come from the witness lists provided by the parties. You can take this advice, leave this advice, or amend this advice, but that's what it is, advice.
Is there any further discussion with respect to the scope and objectives of the report?
Ms. Kusie, please.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to hear you indicate that. It's frankly impossible for us to approve a work plan that does not indicate the witnesses who will be present, considering that all parties have not had an opportunity to submit their witness lists. Certainly, while we are in agreement with the meeting distribution as discussed in both the subcommittee and here today, we couldn't possibly confirm the witness outlay considering, as I've said, that we have yet to submit our witness lists. We need an opportunity to submit witness lists for this study.
I'll also take this time, Mr. Chair, to note, certainly with the threat of the COVID-19 virus, that there exists the very real possibility that we may not return to the House the week after next. Of utmost priority for us would be to have the ministers come before the committee. I think we also need to consider that, with the timing of the meeting scheduling and the witnesses, this external situation could apply to the House and therefore to our committee. We need to consider that for the planning of the meetings, because it is our expectation that, should we not sit on the 24th and 26th, the ministers will be scheduled at the next possible instance for their appearance before this committee. That could affect the work plan as well.
While we are, I think, supportive of the outlay for the meetings, as we have indicated several times through our approval of the subcommittee report, we have to consider the scheduling of the ministers as well as who the witnesses will be and their scheduling.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I concur with my colleague. I just want to say that I can only imagine the anxiety that a clerk and analyst would have trying to fill individual blocks. I would just want to reiterate that if you could clump certain groups in, it would be advantageous, in my mind, although I would like to hear from whoever sets up the work plan eventually that, when you send in a witness list, you may make a suggestion in brackets under what category. I may have some categories that will just say “other”, because they may not neatly fit into it. Then we can expect them to try to clump them as best they can.
Some witnesses are just not available. I do think, further to MP Kusie's comments about external forces and whatnot, some may decide that they do not want to come to Ottawa but would prefer to do it by teleconference. Even those facilities may not be as easily accessible. I just have to bear in mind that I'm going to give a lot of latitude to the chair, the clerk and analysts as they try to populate a schedule in any kind of cohesive thematic fashion.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
First, let me in turn thank the analysts for the documents they provide to us. They inspire us and they will guide us. I learn a lot from them myself.
Before us, we have a list of suggested names. However, we also have given ourselves until March 20 for each party to be able to submit suggestions for witnesses. I imagine that each party will do so. We may be able to draw on some of the organizations that the analysts have suggested, and we will be able to propose other organizations. We know that we are not obliged to stick to that list and we have to be flexible. It may actually be possible for one group to cover two regions, urban and rural, for example. However, we will not be able to divide them all up like that. But still, we will go through the exercise and give ourselves the opportunity to do our job.
In this situation, we can see the glass half full or half empty. I prefer to see it half full.
As I said at the last meeting, if we have enough witnesses for the six meetings we have scheduled, we should not restrict ourselves. Instead, we should make it possible for us to extend the length of our meetings in preference to increasing the number of them. Other committees do that. Instead of two hours, for example, our meetings could perhaps last three hours. That would give us more time for our study, while still sticking to the number of meeting days we have.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kate Young Liberal London West, ON
To comment on MP Kusie's concern about meeting with the ministers, I know we are going through some uncharted territory here, if I can use that word, so we understand that concern.
That said, we should try to get the witness list together for March 20, no matter what happens.
I'm not sure this is the right time to question this, but number 5 on the list talks about a blessing ceremony. I wonder if that is in fact a smudging ceremony that we're discussing and if that would be at the very beginning of the committee report. Would we be able to suggest possible people for the smudging, such as elders and people who could help us with that? Could that be a part of the list of witnesses?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I think that would be appropriate. Certainly Ms. Gazan had a suggestion at the subcommittee. Yes, it would make sense if that could be included.
Mr. Turnbull.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have a few comments on some of the bullet points on page 2. These are just some thoughts, so do with them as you will. I'm wondering whether adding a bit of detail to those, maybe an extra bullet or two, might be helpful. Others can weigh in and say if they think that's inappropriate.
It says, “identify best practices, innovative solutions, and technologies”. I want to add “culturally relevant housing models”. I've been reading stuff from the “For Indigenous, By Indigenous National Housing Strategy” report that's been developed, and I think what we're looking at is a distinction-based, culturally appropriate response. We have to stay open and attentive to how some of our presuppositions on this might not be true in the context of indigenous peoples in communities. That's one comment.
My other comment is about a stakeholder group that I think should be included, the service providers. As we know, the best-practice model in much of the supportive housing is about integrating lots of other services into housing. Housing doesn't stand alone, so looking at those perspectives is going to be important.
I know from my work in social innovation for many years that mapping stakeholder groups throughout this process.... Maybe out of this study there could be a list of partners that could be drafted or collected. That contact information could potentially be utilized in the future when we implement something that comes out of this.
The other thought I have is about financing models and whether there are any opportunities for innovative financing within indigenous communities.
The only other comment, which I think we talked about in the subcommittee, is maybe we should be getting a briefing early on, on any relevant data that's out there. I've been reading, and something that stands out to me in this report is that 87% of indigenous people do not live on first nation reserve land, which highlights the real importance of the work we're undertaking here. Data like that is really useful, and it would be great to have a briefing, or whatever could be provided for all of us to get up to speed on this issue and start together.