Human Resources Committee on Oct. 9th, 2020

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I entirely support the idea of witnesses providing their opening statements to the committee as soon as possible before they appear. I only question, Mr. Clerk, that 72 hours often doesn't give time for translation. The committee can't receive documents until they're translated. Leah might agree that we ask witnesses to provide their opening statements to the committee as soon as possible, as early as convenient for them, so that ideally we get them translated and we actually receive the statements before the meeting. I don't mind how she worded it, but I think 72 hours doesn't actually create the time often needed for translation.

[The Clerk]

This is similar to an amendment to this routine motion that was accepted by PROC. To my mind, the “whenever possible” covers us in the case of last-minute witnesses being brought to the committee, or any kind of witness who is not able to provide an opening statement. I think the language of “whenever possible” covers us on that. I will do my best to have it translated and get it to the committee, but do know that it won't be possible in every instance because, as I say, sometimes we have a last-minute cancellation and need to fill a witness spot. Sometimes we don't get confirmation for a witness coming until right at the end, but we will do everything in our power to get those opening statements to you when they're provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

The question is on the amendment with respect to the provision of written opening statements from witnesses.

Do we have consensus or do we require a standing vote or recorded division?

I see several thumbs in the air. I'll take that as consensus. Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

The third amendment was with respect to the speaking order in second and subsequent rounds: to move the Bloc and the NDP from fifth and sixth in the speaking order up to third and fourth.

Is there debate on the amendment?

Mr. Kent, please go ahead.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We'd like a recorded vote on this. We prefer Mr. Long's original speaking rotation.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

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

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Motion number five is on document distribution:

That the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee only when the documents are available in both official languages and that witnesses be advised accordingly.

(Motion agreed to)

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Chair, I have just one comment on motion number five. Certainly I've seen in my vast experience up in Ottawa that there are times when I'm still surprised that witnesses show up with just English copy. We see it again and again.

This is just a comment: hopefully it won't happen often this time.

Motion number six is on working meals. It is:

That the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The motion is in order.

Mr. Long, I know you want to offer a further commentary on this. You have the floor.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

No, I was just going to say that I know it will be a challenge, with me sitting here at times in Saint John, New Brunswick, to get me a meal, but I'll take what I can get, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Well, it's your motion.

Is there any debate?

You have the floor, Ms. Chabot.

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

I understand the problem our colleague is talking about.

In its motion on working meals, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs added “provided that members have confirmed their physical presence at the meeting”.

I propose that amendment. It will guarantee that we do not needlessly have turkey delivered to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Chabot proposes an amendment that requires notice from those who will be attending in person in Ottawa. We may now debate the amendment.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

That's a good amendment, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

As there is no debate, we will now go ahead and vote on the amendment. If we have unanimous consent, it will not be necessary to have a formal vote.

We seem to have a consensus.

(Amendment agreed to)

Thank you.

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

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

The next motion is number seven, “Travel, Accommodation and Living Expenses of Witnesses”:

That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two (2) representatives per organization; provided that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.

(Motion agreed to)

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

The next motion is number eight, “Access to In Camera Meetings”:

That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member at an in camera meeting and that one additional person from each House officer's office be allowed to be present.

(Motion agreed to)

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

The next motion is number nine, “Transcripts of In Camera Meetings”:

That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk’s office for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff.

(Motion agreed to)

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

The next motion is number 10, “Notice of Motion”:

That a 48 hours' notice, interpreted as two nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time from Monday to Friday; that (2) the motion be distributed to members in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received on the next business day; and that, when the committee is travelling on official business, no substantive motions may be moved.

(Motion agreed to)

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

On other in camera meetings, I move:

That the committee may meet in camera only for the following purposes: (a) to consider a draft report; (b) to attend briefings concerning national security; (c) to consider lists of witnesses; (d) for any other reason, with the unanimous consent of the committee; That all votes taken in camera, with the exception of votes regarding the consideration of draft reports, be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested; That any motion to sit in camera is debatable and amendable.

(Motion agreed to)

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Routine motion number 12 is on “Orders of Reference from the House Respecting Bills”:

That in relation to orders of reference from the House respecting bills, (a) the clerk of the committee shall, upon the committee receiving such an order of reference, write to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee to invite those members to file with the clerk of the committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the bill, which is the subject of the said order, which they would suggest that the committee consider; (b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given bill; and (c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, the Chair shall allow a member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

(Motion agreed to)

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

That is all that I have, Chair, for routine motions. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That was excellent work, Mr. Long. Thank you.

Ms. Young, you have your hand up. Do you have something you want to raise now?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have two motions. I'm going to read them separately, and I imagine that the committee would probably want to vote on them separately.

The first motion is, “That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Committee agree that all substantive motions adopted by the committee to undertake studies or hear from witnesses in the first session of the 43rd legislature are hereby readopted by the committee without modification or amendment.”

The second motion would prioritize a study, so I wonder, Chair, if you'd like to call a vote on that first motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We'll have debate first, but the motion is in order.

Go ahead, Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to ask Ms. Young whether she wants to maintain the priority of the motions and the orders passed in the last Parliament, given that, now we that have the main estimates and time is short before the end of November for us to call the three ministers within the purview of the committee, I wonder whether she would accept support on the basis that more urgent business supplant or take priority over those original motions.

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

I'm just wondering about the relevance. I know the Prime Minister and the government had decided to prorogue Parliament to reset the focus. I'm assuming just from calls that I've experienced from my constituents and the study we were doing prior to this, before it got thrown out the window, that priorities have kind of changed. Canadians have been affected by COVID, whether seniors or children or workers and so on. I'm just not too sure how relevant and timely doing that at this moment would be.