Human Resources Committee on April 29th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm not sure that's a point of order. In spite of the fact that I agree with it, I don't think it's a point of order.

Ms. Dancho, please.

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

Mr. Turnbull said that he was new to Parliament and he wasn't sure how this works. It seems to me he knows how filibustering works quite well.

I guess I'm just wondering how we're planning to spend the last half-hour of this already cut-down meeting, which was cancelled and then rescheduled, messing up a lot of my colleagues' plans. We do have other things that are going on. When this meeting was cancelled, other plans were made. Then this meeting was rescheduled. Then we all met. Then we sat through 20 minutes of what seemed like a very good filibuster; I will give that to Mr. Turnbull.

I just want to air my frustration at having to be here and listen to this and deal with Mr. Turnbull's filibuster on this. I would hope that we're going to wrap this up and vote on his motion. Again, I don't mind the idea of what he said. He made some good arguments, but I don't appreciate being called back here and then being lectured for 20 minutes by someone who clearly knows exactly what they're doing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Chabot.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the kind of meeting we are holding is really important.

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

My understanding was that, at this committee meeting, we could decide on the next study motion. I do understand Mr. Turnbull, who put forward his motion with good arguments. I was prepared to listen to him, but a procedural matter was raised, and that's okay.

Coming into this meeting, I was under the impression that we had already done the work on this matter. That was not just an impression, as I did refer back to our committee discussions. On February 2, we discussed here what's to come. There was an entire debate on whether we would prioritize the employment insurance reform or Ms. Falk's motion on the issue of seniors, which was amended with additions.

If you look at our committee discussions with Mr. Vaughan, among others, Ms. Falk herself was saying she was in favour of the idea of dedicating the next five meetings to the study on employment insurance, if that meant that we would move on to the study on seniors shortly thereafter. Mr. Chair, that is what you closed the meeting on.

So in the post–pandemic context, as that is where we are, I was pretty favourable to our next meeting focusing on seniors, as we had discussed and as I had understood.

Of course, that does not take anything away from the merits of what Mr. Turnbull put forward. Although his intervention may have seemed a bit long, the issues he raised were well-founded. However, given the conclusions the committee reached at that time on the study on seniors—which is fairly broad and related to what happened, as well as to government policies—I would keep our next study on the topic of seniors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

We'll move to Ms. Gazan, please.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I have to agree with my colleague Madam Dancho. It's been disillusioning for me in the House of Commons to have to sit through filibusters for two meetings in a row, although I appreciate Mr. Turnbull's knowledge.

I certainly support that study, but I would like to propose an idea around a guaranteed livable basic income, something that certainly would help seniors in this country, something in response to the current PBO report that indicated a guaranteed livable basic income could cut poverty rates 50% at zero net cost.

Particularly because we know people are falling through the social safety net as the pandemic goes on, I believe this will be a life-saving measure. I agree with the members around the table who said we need to talk about things specific to the pandemic right now. I would argue that a guaranteed livable basic income, particularly at the juncture we find ourselves.... I'd like that to be considered in addition to seniors.

I don't want to take too long. I know we have limited time, but the study on seniors is valuable. The social enterprise is certainly critical, particularly for getting people back to work, but a guaranteed livable basic income is certainly of interest to the majority of Canadians. It reflects the electorate and where the electorate is at.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Vaughan.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to propose an amendment, which I hope will break the logjam. We have had a series and a pattern. Normally we do this at a subcommittee, but the Conservative leadership on this committee didn't want a subcommittee to straighten this out and bring proposals back to the committee, which is the easier way of doing it. I'll leave that there. For whatever reasons, the Conservatives don't think those subcommittee meetings work. That's their prerogative, and I respect that.

Here is my amendment. My motion is to amend Mr. Turnbull's motion so that the social finance study will be first; the NDP proposal on guaranteed basic income will be second, and the Conservative motion on seniors will be third, and that we split the remaining weeks between now and the end of the parliamentary session in June evenly among those three studies, starting at three meetings, three meetings and three meetings.

That way we all get a fair shot at this. I will remind everyone that we just finished a Bloc study, so we will commit at the end of that amendment that the Bloc, as they propose a study, would go into the fourth slot whenever we return.

The amendment would be that Mr. Turnbull's motion be amended to say that his study be for three weeks, that it be followed by a study on guaranteed basic income as presented by Madam Gazan for three weeks, that this be followed by a Conservative study on seniors for three weeks, and that the Bloc then be in a position to choose which study it prioritizes in the next space, out of fairness.

That is the amendment I propose for a proposed study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vaughan.

I would accept the amendment as being in order. It doesn't change what Mr. Turnbull has proposed. It simply proposes adding to it.

The debate now is on the amendment.

Ms. Dancho.

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

Mr. Chair, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am confused.

Mr. Vaughan, I appreciate your amendment, but you mentioned that it was the Conservatives who made the meeting public. My understanding is that it was the Liberals who made the meeting public. I just think it's important that be corrected because it seems to be untrue. I don't think you're misleading folks over this but—

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

On a point of order, at the start of this committee before you joined it there was a decision made across all parties to put this business into the public realm. We actually voted against it, and it was the opposition who supported it.

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

We have done subcommittees in camera though.

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

All right, and then you refused subcommittees going forward, so we're now doing it in public.

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

A month ago or two months ago we did a subcommittee.

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

That was the last one, and you refused to participate in that process, which is—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

On a point of order, Chair....

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Perhaps we can have Mr. Vaughan and Ms. Dancho retreat to their corners, and we'll hear from Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That was actually my point of order.

I think we have a lot to cover in the meeting and I'd like to get.... I'm actually happy with that amendment of three, three and three. It's collegial. It certainly reflects everybody's research interests.

Can we call the question? I don't know if it's too soon, but is it possible to call the question?

I just want to make sure we get something done today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We can call the question when the list of speakers is exhausted.

Ms. Dancho had the floor, and I'm going to cede the floor back to her in case she wasn't finished her submission.

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

I'm good, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Madam Chabot, go ahead, please.

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

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I understand the amendment, but I have not seen a formal motion on the issue of guaranteed minimum income or basic income. Perhaps I missed it.

There is something I have trouble understanding. Mr. Vaughan, I could quote you in saying that we have discussed the Conservative motion on seniors, which was moved by Ms. Falk. I can even take the time to read it again. Here it is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the impact of COVID-19 on the financial, social, health and overall well-being of seniors; that the committee review existing and announced programs for seniors, and make recommendations to improve support to seniors;

The motion did propose that six meetings be held. Our discussions really focused on studies that could be prioritized—the study on employment insurance and this one. We reached a consensus in committee when we decided to conduct a study on employment insurance. Mr. Vaughan, you said then that Ms. Falk was raising an important issue and that we could still carry out the study on employment insurance and then do the study on seniors.

Less has been said about this aspect, but I think we must consider the number of meetings we have left until parliamentary work ends. We have seven weeks left, with two meetings a week. So we have 14 meetings left. We must also complete a study on indigenous housing and a review of the employment insurance system. I also think we should hear from the Minister of Labour, Ms. Tassi, on the estimates. I believe this was on our agenda for May. In my opinion, we would have enough time for one study or two short ones.

What Mr. Turnbull put forward, especially concerning social innovation and social economy, is very intriguing. I have no reservations about the substance of his motion, but I am taking into consideration the state of our previous debates and the time we have left. We could carry out two studies. We are talking about discussing substantive issues such as social innovation and seniors in three meetings. The Bloc Québécois cannot claim to be entitled to another motion by the time work ends. So there is no concern when it comes to the Bloc Québécois.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I was just wondering about the admissibility of the amendment.

Mr. Turnbull's motion was quite specific, but Mr. Vaughan's amendment is now talking about future studies that have nothing to do with the amendment. I was wondering if you could clarify if it's actually in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I ruled it in order. That would be subject to challenge, if you wish.

My view is that it slightly amended the motion, to the extent of taking it from six meetings to three, and then added it to it, but the entire motion is still intact, other than the changing of six meetings to three.

I ruled it in order. If the committee wishes to challenge, that's for them, but I did rule on it.

Mr. Vis.