Evidence of meeting #30 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 meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Ms. Dancho, if you could just raise your mike a little bit, that might help. I just got a note to that effect.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
My point was this. Just listening to Madam Chabot and Madam Gazan, I think the study that was already proposed, amended and unanimously agreed to by this committee to study seniors in COVID, given as we well know that they're the hardest-hit group in Canada.... They are worthy of a study and priority, which may be difficult for the Liberal government to recognize, but I do think that seniors are worthy of being a priority at this committee.
I think that what the Bloc and the NDP have said would suit well in that study and would encompass the things we're looking to do. Just to reiterate, seniors have suffered more than any other demographic in this country in the last year, so for the HUMA committee not to study seniors in the worst year on record for seniors, I think would be a huge oversight and quite disappointing. I would just like the committee to consider that in the vote.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I also think that we chose that motion, which came from the Conservative Party and not from the Bloc Québécois.
To answer your question, the Bloc Québécois did not have another motion to put forward. You will note that I have not put forward any other motions from the Bloc. We talked about the motion on employment insurance. I agreed and decided that the next study would be the one from the Conservative Party on seniors. Should we have to carry out another study afterwards, we will do it.
Members are talking about amending Mr. Turnbull's motion, which calls for six meetings, and another motion concerning seniors that also calls for six meetings. They want to split the difference. This amendment is probably acceptable, but I don't think it is in keeping with the spirit of motions.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry, but what we're discussing right now is not clear to me.
We have the motion that was read by Ryan and then amended. We're at the stage where we're voting on the amendment to the motion put forward by Ryan. Could I hear those read together? This has kind of been put together on the fly. I would like to hear it presented, if that's possible.
It has been a long day. We had a committee and we're off committee.... I apologize for not making notes as quickly as possible with the motion that was on there, but if Ryan could read his motion.... It sounds like it was produced prior to this meeting. Then we could have Adam's amendment to that. It might clarify things.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay. On the motion put forward by Mr. Turnbull, do you have that in front of you, Mr. Turnbull?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Would you care to provide that for Mr. Tochor? Then we'll have Mr. Vaughan recite the amendment to the motion.
Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I move, as the next order of business:
That the committee undertake a study on Social Innovation and Social Finance, outlining how these strategies can contribute to building a more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable economy as we look towards economic recovery, and that this study shall take no less than six meetings.
That was provided on October 15, 2020, and it is in the shared drive. Just so everyone is aware, it was on notice for quite a long time.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Just on a point of order, Ryan, what is the name of the file on the shared drive, if you don't mind? I couldn't find it or I didn't see it before. I apologize if it's there.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I don't know. I have it printed out here. I printed it off. I can't remember the name of file because I'm not looking at it right now. It's one of the notices of motion, and I think it would have my name on it.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
My amendment was to amend Mr. Ryan's motion to read that the study on social finance be first and that the time be amended to three weeks, that it be followed by the motion presented by Madam Gazan and that that be three weeks, that that study be followed by Madam Falk's motion on seniors and that that be three weeks, and that we agree that the Bloc be in the position to choose the fourth study after that.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I mean meetings.
We have a very strong tradition of receiving written submissions that allow us to create reports. It's not just about live testimony. We also have a robust capacity to receive reports and information from stakeholders who are very engaged in all of these issues.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Mr. Tochor, I think that's what you were looking for.
Are there any further submissions before I move to the next person on the speakers list?
Mr. Vis.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just trying to pull up some notes here from our digital binder from our meeting on October 28. The minutes say:
The committee proceeded to the consideration of matters related to committee business.
A point of order was raised by Jenny Kwan related to a possible breach of privilege.
RULING BY CHAIR
The Chair ruled that the point of order did not touch on a matter of privilege.
I remember that meeting. It was pretty intense.
The question: “Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?” was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division....
Your subcommittee met on Wednesday, October 21, 2020, to consider the business of the committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:
1. That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee’s study on urban, rural, and northern Indigenous housing be composed of six meetings.
2. That prioritized witness lists for the study on urban, rural, and northern Indigenous housing be sent to the clerk of the committee by Friday, October 30, 2020.
3. That the Parliamentary Budget Officer be invited....
4. That, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2020, the committee conduct a study on the Main Estimates 2020-21; that the study include, but not be limited, to the following witnesses....
We won't go into that.
5. That the subcommittee meet towards the end of the study on urban, rural, and northern Indigenous housing to provide recommendations on the prioritization of the following studies:
a. That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee conduct an ongoing study of the rapid housing initiative as the program is rolled-out over the next six months to Wednesday, March 31, 2021; that all aspects of the proposed program be examined, with specific focus paid to the number and location of units acquired....
I won't go on, but I will say that, at the end of it, it says:
...the Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation appear for two hours at a seventh meeting to testify; that the initial meeting be held no later than Saturday, October 31, 2020 and the final meeting be held by Friday, April 30, 2021....
What we already agreed to, Mr. Chair, has not been followed. For the Liberals to come forward with another motion, when we had a really intense meeting in committee business on October 28 and we're not following what we already went through, is wrong.
After that, it said, “b. That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the review of the employment insurance program”, which we're doing.
What the committee agreed to do on rapid housing hasn't been followed and I don't think that's fair. I could go on about this, but it's just not right. We work pretty well on this committee. Generally it's been pretty good, but for the Liberals to try to throw our schedule off and, frankly, to not give Rosemary—who's not here today—who's been really amenable to a lot of different studies, a chance to discuss seniors, because the Liberals are trying to hide that seniors aged 65 to 75 didn't get the OAS, is wrong.
I think the clerk needs to come back to us, Mr. Chair, and give us a review of everything we've agreed to in committee business, all of the motions passed, so that we can make an informed decision. I thought we were coming here in good faith for a quick meeting today and the Liberals started to filibuster because they didn't want to deal with the business before us, probably because they knew we were up for a Conservative study on seniors and they didn't want to have to address the points the budget made.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Colleagues, we've reach the appointed hour, but we require the consent of the committee to adjourn. Is it the will of the committee to adjourn and to continue these discussions on Tuesday? If it isn't, we will continue.
Do we take a standing vote? I can't read the room and I don't want to pretend to do so.
6 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have a point of order, Chair, very quickly. We'll get those documents before the next meeting? I think we could do it if we came on the same page.
6 p.m.
Liberal