Human Resources Committee on Oct. 9th, 2020

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

I'm a little disappointed that this is what we're having. I brought this up when we debated about prioritization.

Right off the top, we should just be having the ministers here. We're in the middle of a pandemic. The ministers have not reported anything to this committee. Tons of programs and benefits have been rolled out the door. I think we should have each of the ministers who are responsible to this committee here at this committee right off the top.

We all know how important and difficult it is to get schedules to mesh. We need to do that before we discuss the priority of studies that we're going to do, especially with main estimates coming up. We need to have the ministers at this committee sooner than later. That will also contribute to the studies we are going to do, let alone the government legislation that's going to come.

We heard about seniors in long-term care facilities. That is apparently important to this government, so we can expect something to this committee. Child care is another thing.

Before we jump in so deep with both feet, swimming in a whole bunch of the priorities that we just discussed—or I was just told previously in the last motion that we're not necessarily going to do that—we need to get the ministers here.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I agree, and I believe that this motion is redundant and actually acts against the spirit of what was accepted in the previous motions. I think the priority, our responsibility, is to call the minister with regard to the main estimates that have just recently been tabled.

To Rosemarie's point, time is short and, given availabilities, we do not have that many opportunities to ensure that all the ministers can appear with their officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

Mr. Housefather, please go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand what Mr. Kent and Mrs. Falk are saying. I don't think these things negate one another. The first thing is that what was originally [Technical difficulty—Editor] was simply to bring back all the studies and all the calls for ministers that had already been passed. The first motion was not to prioritize anything. The second one by Ms. Young, as I understand, seeks to prioritize the indigenous housing strategy, which is one motion of many that were previously adopted by the committee. I think what my Conservative colleagues are asking for is also to prioritize the calling of ministers for the estimates.

Mr. Chairman—again if Ms. Young or you will allow me—perhaps we can amend Ms. Young's motion to say that the committee's two immediate priorities are to deal with the indigenous housing strategy motion that was just reaffirmed by the committee and to call ministers for the estimates as soon as they are available. Make those the first two things the committee does. I think that's a reasonable compromise based on the indigenous housing strategy being so important—of course we're going to have to line up witnesses for that study as well—and hearing from the ministers on the estimates.

I think perhaps that would bring a consensus from the committee if we agree those two things are the priorities of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are you moving that as an amendment?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I want to hear from Ms. Young— it's her motion—whether she would be prepared to do that. I'm certainly prepared to move an amendment. I don't want to negate her motion, though, if she doesn't agree with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Young, do you consider that to be friendly?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

I do have a question. I thought the ministers were in order to appear for the estimates at a given time after the estimates, and that that would happen in due course, and that wouldn't negate this motion.

I would think the motion would stand, but I could be talked into making a friendly amendment if that's what we think is necessary. I still think it's redundant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Turnbull, please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

My understanding is we already have the ministers appearing and I think we have a deadline for that, which, if I remember correctly, is somewhere around the end of November.

I think we should let Ms. Young's motion stand, which is to undertake this study. I believe strongly that this should be the first study that we undertake, given the fact that we often iterated our deep commitment to first nations and working with them through reconciliation. We know that if communities were vulnerable, with housing insecure going into this pandemic, they are much more so during this pandemic. I think there is a strong case to be made and a strong commitment for the study to move forward as our first priority.

I want to show support for that. I will be voting in favour of it. I think the motion should stand as is.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I wanted to echo, Mr. Chair, the comments of my colleague on the committee. I think if there are some feelings of mistrust around the ministers attending that we could put forward a separate.... I think the motion needs to stand as is. Certainly data has indicated that this is a critical issue that is beginning to exacerbate as the pandemic proceeds. Perhaps knowing that the ministers will be appearing to provide estimates, we can get some assurances on a date by next meeting about when that will occur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Mrs. Falk, please.

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

Thank you, Chair. I hope this will be my last intervention on this.

We just adopted all of our previous motions without modification. Have any of the timelines and deadlines from the previous motions we just adopted been taken into account? For our Canada summer jobs program, in the motion that Dan Albas, our colleague, tabled, the deadline is Tuesday, December 15. By the time we come back, it's going to be mid-October. Is this being taken into consideration, as well as all the deadlines that were in the motions that were previously tabled? It's just a question for clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Kent, please.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

There's no question that the motion, although it is redundant and I think acts against the previous motions we accepted, is an important one. It's an important study. But I think with regard to the process we're going through here today, I will have to oppose this motion on the record, and I hope that fellow committee members will too. I appreciate Mr. Housefather's attempt to find a friendly compromise, but I think we need to make it very clear that it is our duty to call the ministers and make them the ultimate priority of the tabling of the main estimates and the deadline between now and then.

I think we can discuss, as Mrs. Falk has just raised, the Canada summer jobs motion. We need a business meeting to discuss all of the standing motions and new motions that folks will want to put before the committee, given the changes even in the last month, since prorogation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Madame Chabot, please go ahead.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, in a previous life, we had procedures for dealing with a motion. We either postponed it to a fixed date, or brought it forward. In our rules of procedure, they are not the same thing.

I object to the possibility of debating and deciding the list of priorities today, whether it be one motion, two priorities or three priorities. I object, in keeping with what I said during the first debate.

I submit to you that we could possibly introduce all the motions and set priorities in subcommittee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Mr. Vis.

Is there any other debate on the motion? I'm seeing none, so we're ready for the question on the motion to identify the urban, rural and northern study as a priority.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Is there any further business to bring before the meeting?

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

I would like to propose an additional motion, Chair, if that's all right.

I would ask, in the spirit of collaboration and given the adoption of the motion that we just had, that the Liberal members especially consider some flexibility in what I'm about to read.

Just as a preamble, recently in the House of Commons I had a debate with the parliamentary secretary Mr. Vaughan, previously a member of this committee. Mr. Vaughan clearly stated that the rapid housing initiative was one of the most important things that the federal government was undertaking.

It's unprecedented for a government to outline that it is going to purchase 3,000 units of new housing within a six-month period. I think this motion I'm about to read actually goes well with the motion to focus on indigenous housing just passed by the committee.

I'll just go ahead and read the motion, and then we can have a debate about it.

That the committee conduct an ongoing study of the Rapid Housing Initiative as the program is rolled-out over the next six months to March 31, 2021; that all aspects of the proposed program be examined, with specific focus paid to the number and location of units acquired; that any other housing-related initiatives, either of the [Canada] Mortgage and Housing Corporation or Employment and Social Development Canada or other government department...the committee deems necessary to be studied; that witnesses include officials of Employment and Social Development Canada, staff of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and other witnesses the committee deems necessary; that this study be conducted over the course of six...one-hour meetings with officials providing monthly progress updates; that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the CEO of the [Canada] Mortgage and Housing Corporation appear for two hours at a seventh meeting to testify; that the initial meeting be held no later than October 31, 2020 and the final meeting be held by April 30, 2021; and, that the committee present its findings to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You've heard the motion, colleagues. It appears to be in order.

The debate is on the motion.

I recognize Ms. Chabot.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to present five notices of motion to committee members.

Is this the right time to do it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No, Ms. Chabot, it is not the right time yet, but I will give you the floor again immediately following debate on the current motion.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, could you clarify something for me?

Is this a motion we are going to debate and also vote on today, or is my colleague presenting it as a notice of motion that we will debate at the next committee meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You can do either, Ms. Chabot.

Right now, we are dealing with committee business and we are allowed to present motions without notice. However, if you prefer to proceed with notice, that is also acceptable.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

So I have a question for the member who presented it.

Is the motion a notice of motion or is it a debatable motion that will lead to a decision?