Human Resources Committee on Feb. 18th, 2021

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

That's perfect. Thanks.

I just want to make sure that we're being efficient and effective with taxpayers' dollars. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mrs. Falk.

Are there any other discussions, comments or questions with respect to the approval of the budget for the rapid housing initiative study? Can we approve the budget by consensus or do we require a vote? I believe I see consensus in the room, so that budget is adopted.

The third item, colleagues, is that, as you may be aware, private member's bill, Bill C-220, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding compassionate care leave, was referred to the committee by the House yesterday, I believe. It's for us to now do an examination of that private member's bill and report it back to the House. I know there have been some discussions between the parties and the bill's sponsor, Mr. Jeneroux, who is, as I understand it, available to come to the committee on Thursday.

I open the floor for your thoughts on scheduling, how much time you expect we will need and any other comments you may have with respect to how we dispense with this matter that has been referred to us by the House.

I recognize Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have indeed been in discussion with Mr. Jeneroux, including today. We would both propose that we cover the bill in one hour. I mean one hour of testimony from Mr. Jeneroux and one hour of clause-by-clause afterwards, so that it would be completed in one meeting.

As you had mentioned, Mr. Chair, Mr. Jeneroux is ready to come to the committee as early as next Thursday. Of course, he bows to whatever date the committee wishes to have him here, but given the situation and wanting to get the bill back as quickly as possible to the House, I think it would be ideal if we could have this next Thursday. I think there will be amendments that all members of the committee and all parties will agree to.

Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, you and the committee could agree to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Madame Chabot.

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

I had a question, which Mr. Housefather answered. Indeed, I feel we should not take too long to proceed with this bill, which is still fairly straightforward in terms of the principle on which it is based. So, if we can deal with it in a two-hour session, depending on the availability of the bill's sponsor, I would be interested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Vis.

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

I believe that we should have at least a little bit of time for some witnesses for MP Jeneroux's private member's bill. Perhaps Mr. Housefather would be able to enlighten us about the friendly amendments to the legislation as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

Are there any further interventions?

Mr. Housefather, do you want to respond?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'd be happy to respond.

To the questions Mr. Vis asked, Mr. Jeneroux himself asked that it be one meeting. You can consult with him, but I've had that conversation with him. He wants to get it over with as quickly as possible in terms of getting the bill back to the House. Certainly, if he has witnesses that he wants to appear with him in his one hour, he can always bring them, if the committee agrees.

The second thing is that we've gone over amendments and basically it's one amendment where we would be extending bereavement leave to 10 days from five days. It would apply as well to caregivers. In Matt's original bill, different caregivers, depending on where they were in their caregiving time frame, would get up to three weeks or no bereavement leave, depending on where they were in the process. Now we will propose to the committee—and what we both agreed to—that it would be 10 days of bereavement leave for everybody. Right now it's five days of bereavement leave for those who are immediate family members. It would be extended to 10 days and it would also encompass those who are caregivers. They would also all get 10 days of bereavement leave.

It's a pretty simple amendment to the bill. That's the only substantive amendment.

Again, as soon as Matt and I submit it properly to the clerk, we'll send copies to everybody and discuss it with everybody over the course of the next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Housefather, for your feedback. We largely agree, and I am looking forward to discussing your amendment at the meeting.

I have just two comments, Mr. Chair.

I think we should set a deadline for amendments to be submitted, in the event that other opposition parties are also interested in amending the bill. I would suggest Monday, or Tuesday at the very latest, to provide parties with enough time to see them and discuss them, and to ensure that Thursday goes smoothly. I agree with the date being Thursday, and I am happy to have Mr. Jeneroux bring witnesses.

However, I want to confirm whether any of the other opposition parties or the Liberal Party are interested in bringing witnesses. If that's the case, then we should probably discuss what we believe to be an appropriate number, particularly if we have only two hours to do all of it. We're happy to have Mr. Jeneroux and then a Conservative witness in addition to him. I believe that's how that works. Since it is his PMB, he will be coming and then we can put forward a witness, so that would technically be two witnesses.

I am wondering if there is interest from other parties in having witnesses, and if there is, then we may have to squeeze in four plus Mr. Jeneroux in one hour. I just want to make sure that we're aware of the time crunch we may have, if that's the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

Mr. Housefather, did you want to respond to that, or are there any other interventions?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'll only respond by saying that, since we're all in agreement generally with the principle of the bill—I can't speak for everybody—personally I wouldn't see that we'd need to bring in any additional witnesses. He has many groups across the country that support the bill, and I assume he will bring letters of support, as he brought to the House of Commons.

Again, I bow to the will of the committee. At least from my point of view, I don't see that we need to bring in additional witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Madame Chabot.

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

I agree with Mr. Housefather. Mr. Généreux brought this bill to the House and each party had an opportunity to vote on it. All were in favour. I don't see why we would need a lot of witnesses. If an amendment is proposed within the time limit, I would leave it up to Mr. Généreux to decide whether he wants to be accompanied by a witness, but we at the Bloc Québécois will not propose witnesses for this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Colleagues, I think we have a consensus.

I am going to propose, following on Ms. Dancho's recommendation, that any amendments that a member of the committee wishes to have considered should be submitted to the clerk by 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Monday; that the committee consider Bill C-220 one week from today, on Thursday, February 25; that the first witness be the sponsor of the bill and that he be welcome to bring along any witness he wishes; and at the conclusion of witness testimony, which would normally be an hour, that we move to clause-by-clause consideration.

I think that also allows us the flexibility to add witnesses, if that is the will of the sponsor or the committee, but that we start with Mr. Jeneroux and exhaust the witnesses, which it appears will be just him and one other, before we move to clause-by-clause.

Is that acceptable, and if it is, do we need to put it in the form of a motion to be discussed and voted upon? That's what I would propose, based on what I've heard so far.

I see some thumbs up. Is there any discussion on that? If not, can we take that as the consensus?

Ms. Dancho, go ahead.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, I know you mentioned that the witness list is due on Monday, but I want to confirm that the amendments, if there are any, are due on Monday as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I meant to say “amendments” for Monday, and—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

—that Mr. Jeneroux can bring a witness with him on Monday and, if there are suggestions for other witnesses, that we exhaust the witness list before going to clause-by-clause, but I anticipate that there won't be a witness list to exhaust. I wanted to leave open the flexibility of that in case that's what people want between now and then.

Do we have a consensus to proceed in that fashion? I think we have that dealt with. Thank you.

Finally, supplementary estimates (C) have been referred to the committee for the last fiscal year. They were referred on Tuesday, February 16. Is it the wish of the committee to consider supplementary estimates (C)? As you know, there's a date set on which they are deemed adopted, which I believe to be sometime at the end of March, depending on when the last opposition day is. The floor is open. Is it the will of the committee to examine and pass supplementary estimates (C), and if so, who would you like to hear from on it?

Madame Chabot.

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

I would have said no, but it seems to me that I had read that the period extended into April. However, I could be wrong. I will look into it. I wouldn't want this to interfere with the schedule of our ongoing work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Respectfully, I'll have to strongly disagree with my colleague from the Bloc. I believe that, given the pandemic, it's extremely important that we have the ministers come before this very important committee and discuss the supplementary estimates and the mains, share with the committee some of the challenges they've had and answer our questions accordingly. In fact, I believe that it is critical that we have all four ministers join us for that.

I'm open to discussion about how much time should be allotted to each, but given the extraordinary circumstances we're in, I think it's very important that we have all four ministers come before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

I'm not sure whether the supplementary estimates touch on the responsibilities of all four, but I absolutely take your point. Are there any other interventions?

Mr. Vaughan.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Why don't we send the estimates and their request to review them off to the subcommittee to figure out a schedule? Last time, we ran into who should appear with whom. This is one committee that has a lot of ministries attached to it. Just to figure out where perhaps a priority might lie or what the structure should look like, maybe we should refer it to the subcommittee to work on what that schedule would look like and bring it back to the full committee for a conversation.

There are pros and cons to every direction that's been expressed, including the work in front of us. I know that Madame Chabot has been waiting a long time to get this EI study under way, and I respect the frustration she has. Just as we start, everything else fills the agenda, and that doesn't feel fair.