Human Resources Committee on Feb. 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand and respect where my colleague Mr. Vaughan is coming from, but I feel that if we refer it to the subcommittee it will just take up time from our next committee meeting and take away more time from the EI study, so it's probably best that we just figure this out today.

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

The practice has been that we meet away from the committee so that it doesn't lose meetings. We figure out what the compromises need to look like so that we don't skip a meeting talking about it this way. Instead, we do it off-line and resolve the issue so that everybody feels comfortable. It actually saves us time in terms of getting to it.

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

Externally...? Okay.

Mr. Chair, if I may, given the time constraints we have, I know how very busy the ministers are and how difficult it is to get them. Though they do come, and it's great that they do, it is challenging to schedule one minister, let alone four, so I think it is important that we discuss it. We have some time left—about half an hour. It's probably best that we get that done now while we have the time to establish where each party is coming from and what they hope to see with the ministers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.

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

It's a very good idea to discuss this in subcommittee. We can take the time to review the study. We put the effort we wanted into the Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B). In fact, we have already met with ministers. Does it concern all ministers? Should ministers be there? I believe this is an issue that needs to be looked at in an appropriate manner, given that we have already had an opportunity to question ministers on this committee about certain parts of it. We would have to look at the scope of the Supplementary Estimates (C).

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I wanted to say I do certainly support MP Dancho's recommendation to have the ministers here for questions. I also agree with Adam in terms of scheduling. It goes really fast in a subcommittee meeting outside of here, and we can communicate with people within our party, although it's easy for me, because I'm the only one in the party representing the NDP here. I think if we can communicate that to the representative who is on the subcommittee, it would probably go a lot faster in terms of scheduling and not take away from our meeting time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Are there any further interventions?

Colleagues, it's pretty clear that we do not have consensus, and there are two issues before us. I think, unless anyone has a better idea, that we're probably going to have to put this to a vote. The first issue—and I'm going to need a motion on this—is whether the committee will, in fact, conduct an examination of supplementary estimates (C). We need to decide that. If that is answered in the affirmative, then the second question would be whether the scheduling of the examination of supplementary estimates (C) would be referred to the subcommittee.

If I may, I'm now calling for a motion that this committee conduct an examination of supplementary estimates (C), including the calling of witnesses. Could someone move the motion for me? Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

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

Would it be possible to just move a motion to move it all to the subcommittee and to have the subcommittee report back with a proposed schedule that includes what we decide on, as opposed to saying yes?

I don't think we're going to say no. It's a question of saying, let's come back with a firm understanding of what the impact is and where they will be scheduled. We as parliamentary secretaries can try to figure out what the ministers' schedules look like and have a conversation off-line to show how it fits into the EI study, how it fits into the URN study and how it fits into the proposal in front of us with the legislation that's come from the House. It would be just to put it all together into a work plan that makes sense and takes into account things like the parliamentary breaks that are coming up for constituency weeks in March and so on.

Let us take it aside and not say yes or no to it, because I don't think that's the answer to either question. Let's take it to the subcommittee and let the subcommittee come back with a work plan that spells out what the next few weeks look like and includes the concerns that are legitimately being raised by members around wanting to hear from certain ministers and certain officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

If I understood Ms. Chabot's intervention, it was that we not examine this. That's what I heard and I felt that we needed to dispense with that to move to the next step. She's on the list here. Perhaps she feels differently.

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate and agree with most of what Mr. Vaughan has said, but I'm a bit confused. I know Madame Chabot is very keen to continue on with her study and is concerned about the days. I do recognize that, having also had that happen to me. I'm not clear. It sounds as though the rest of the committee is open to having all four ministers come for supplementary estimates. Is that not the case?

Do the Liberal members of the committee not want the ministers to come for supplementary estimates? Is that the case? I'm not clear.

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

We have three boats that have to come into harbour. We just need to know what order they're going to come in to understand what impact they might have on the EI study, and also there's getting our own study finalized and off to the minister. We have two pieces of work in front of us.

The supps blow a hole in that, and I'm saying let's get together and figure out the best way to schedule them, also based on when we think ministers may be available or not available. It just helps us to compose a coherent schedule that accommodates everything that people are saying, including most importantly what Madame Chabot said. She has been waiting almost a full year for this study to start, and it just seems unfair that, just as we get to the start, we have four ministers come in on four meetings. That blows the entire schedule until July.

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

That's how it goes. I think it's happening to all the committees right now, not just this one, as you know.

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

Instead of saying yes or no tonight, let's punt it to the subcommittee. Let's have the subcommittee come back with a schedule we can all work with that meets all of our interests, and doesn't put Madame Chabot in a—

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

Okay, Mr. Vaughan.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I've never known a subcommittee to bring forward the minister's calendar, so are you committing to bringing forward their availability at the subcommittee?

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

As best we can, to understand where it fits into the schedule.... We'll go away to find out where that schedule lies, what that schedule might look like, to get you the results and the appearances you want in a timely way, but to also understand and be respectful of the fact that Madame Chabot has been waiting literally one year to start her study.

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

I'll just finish. I know many of our opposition members and our party have been waiting a long time to speak with the ministers as well. I know that's equally as important to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Madame Chabot.

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

I would like to raise a point of order. Although the discussion is quite interesting, it is more like a dialogue.

I said no. I must admit that I am concerned about the work schedule. If we had never gone through the exercise of examining supplementary estimates, which we have done twice, I would be concerned.

First, we were given the mandate to conduct the study. I am sorry, but I have not read the entire email, and I don't know what timeframe we have or which minister is involved in these matters.

I agreed with our colleague Mr. Brown's fine idea. I'm open to receiving suggestions and reviewing the matter in subcommittee to determine how we can fit the study into our work schedule. I remind you that we have all taken on this study as a priority and that was not by chance.

If we had another two years to conduct a study, it would be a different story. Our reform study is also affected by the fact that, if we don't have time to study it, we will see a period of uncertainty between the end of the temporary benefits and unemployment insurance in September. We need to combine the two issues.

I really did not see that we had deviated from the schedule. However, if we have consensus, I'm prepared to agree to transfer the whole matter to the subcommittee and then let them come to the committee with a proposal. At that point, I will be able to say whether or not I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Ms. Gazan, you have the floor.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Can I propose that...? I don't think there's any disagreement here. One is the motion that we invite the minister for the supps. The second vote was that the scheduling would occur during a subcommittee. I don't think it interferes with Madame Chabot's goal of getting the study going if we look at the scheduling in the subcommittee and agree that the ministers will come here to review the supps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Can I take it that there's no need to proceed with the first motion? You're withdrawing it, and you're moving a second to have this matter moved to committee for scheduling?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, what I'm saying is, can we get on with the vote on this? I think there's some agreement here, or maybe I'm missing something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No. I think we're trying to get at the same thing through two different routes.

I agree with you that there now appears to be consensus that we are going to have a look at the supplementaries. That being the case, I would suggest that you withdraw the motion to determine whether we consider them—take that as a given by consensus—and let's move on to whether the subcommittee is going to be involved in the scheduling.

Are you okay with that?