Evidence of meeting #2 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'm asking, really, if I'm clear on this. This is what my understanding is.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We've just adopted an amendment that indicates that if four hours are available, a full four hours will be used. Now we're voting on the main motion, which basically deals with the situation if four hours aren't available. If four hours aren't available, we would be agreeing to proceed with one hour each. We're now voting on whether, if we're limited to two hours, that is the manner in which we're going to proceed. It's that we're going to deal with what we have.
Mr. Dong is next.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Chair. Through you to my Conservative colleagues, I know that Mr. Kent tried to explain in principle why they were against the motion, but I'm still having trouble understanding what exactly they are asking.
My understanding of this whole motion was that initially Mr. Housefather was suggesting two hours with the two ministers and two ministry staff, and the amendment was to increase it to four hours, to be done on the same day, depending on the availability of the committee room.
I thought that was what my Conservative colleagues were asking, but they voted against it, so I don't understand what they are looking for. Through you to my colleagues, if they can explain that, it would be great.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Actually, Mr. Chair, I won't comment since the committee just voted.
As far as the amendment goes, I will just say the idea is to do everything in our power to spend two hours with each minister. I think that is what everyone wants, including the Conservative members. If that is not possible, we at least have the ability to hear from the ministers as soon as possible.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Ms. Chabot.
I have Ms. Falk, Mr. Vis and Mr. Kent, in that order.
Go ahead, Ms. Falk, please.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Through you, Mr. Chair, to MP Dong, I think at the first meeting, which he said he wasn't here for, back previously before the Liberals decided to prorogue Parliament and clear the slate of everything, Ms. Kusie, who was part of the committee before, brought forward a motion to have each minister appear—there are four ministers for this committee—for two hours. It would be each minister for an hour and their department for one hour each.
What Mr. Housefather is suggesting is that we have two ministers come in during the one-hour time block, which actually gives fewer questions to the opposition and to government, and fewer rounds to ask questions to each department and minister.
During that committee meeting we had, I brought this up, because the Liberals brought forward a motion to just transfer all the motions that were on the table previously to this one, even though there were time constraints and deadlines on those motions. I did raise the point that we needed to take this into consideration before we just brought everything over.
Therefore, on principle, I am voting against this motion, because we shouldn't have to amend something when it had already been brought up. The problem was already suggested back then, so on principle I'm voting against this because it was brought up a few weeks ago.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you, Chair.
As I look around this committee room, there are a lot of people. I understand the pressure on parliamentary resources and the human beings who actually make those resources work. I appreciate that deeply, but we are standing on the principle that it's not either/or. We are standing on the principle that we should have the standard practice of one hour with a single minister responsible for billions of dollars in expenditures and with the officials from that department to answer the rounds of questions. That is what is normally afforded to committees.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Chair, I just want to be clear again. I don't see where the motion impacts any ministerial time. Yes, there may be an issue with departments, which we can make in a later point, but if you just look at the motion, I don't see where the ministerial time is impacted, unless I'm missing something.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to reiterate that nobody, a couple of weeks ago, could have known that there would be the limitation on resources that there seems to be right now. I would not have presumed that we would still be at one meeting a week and I would not have presumed that the resources would not allow the committee to have more meetings. The resources of the House seem to be outside the control of the politicians and the members of the committee.
I agree that ideally we'd have four hours. There would first be two hours, consisting of one hour with the minister and one with the officials, and then there would be another two hours, consisting of one hour with the other minister and one hour with the other officials.
All my motion says is that in the event that we're unable to get that, we'd hear from each minister for one hour. It does not mean that at a future date we couldn't bring their officials in for an hour each also, but I'm just trying to say that with two hours of resources, I would rather hear from both ministers than from only one minister before we leave for break week. That's it.
I don't understand how this has become politicized or how accusations against Liberals are being made in the way they're being made. I find it quite unfortunate when we're supposed to be collegial at committee, and I think most of us are pretty collegial. I find the tone and the way it's being used to be quite offensive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you, Chair, and through you to MP Housefather, I apologize if I have offended him or he is offended by my tone or my frustration.
I know how hard it is to get ministers here. This is a frustration that I've experienced since I was first elected, and that is part of being in opposition. I get that, but when we're fighting tooth and nail just to get the minimum of what we can, it's very disheartening when motions are moved to limit the time that we already have.
I'm sorry—through you, Chair—to the member for offending him. Again, I'm just doing what I was elected to do, to hold the government to account, and I would like the maximum time possible, which is a precedent that has been set, which is an hour with the minister and an hour with their department for each of the four ministers.
Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you.
I want to thank Ms. Falk. Again, it's not personal. I like Ms. Falk. It's just a question of whether we can all just try to stop talking about our parties and the other parties. Let's try to work together. I think what we are trying to do right now is to just do what's achievable in the short term. That's all I wanted to do, and to be practical.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry to have hogged so much time.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are there any further interventions on this motion? Is there any further debate?
Seeing none, I believe we're ready for the question.
I would ask the clerk to conduct a recorded division vote on this motion—
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you read out the question, please?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Basically, the original motion was already amended, as you have heard, by Ms. Young's amendment. It was that if it is possible to have two 2-hour blocks on November 4, we will hear from each minister with their officials, with the minister in the first hour and the officials in the second hour.
My original motion was that in the event that it is not possible to get four hours and we only have two hours with the ministers, that we hear from Minister Hussen for one hour and we hear from Minister Qualtrough for one hour.
That's what the motion is: If we can't get four hours, we do it in two, with each minister getting one hour.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Sorry. I know you've called the question, but I have a question.
If this motion fails, we still have the ministers coming. The motion that we have is that the ministers and their departments will come for two hours before November 15. If the motion on the floor is voted down, we still have the ministers coming to committee for two hours.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That's correct. If this motion is defeated, Ms. Kusie's motion stands, and that's what it says.