Human Resources Committee on April 29th, 2021

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the committee forgot the motion we passed in support of the rapid housing initiative. I'm wondering whether Mr. Vaughan's motion could even be in order, given that the committee already committed to giving x number of meetings to talk about the rapid housing initiative, meetings that have been taking place for a very long time. I can't support Mr. Vaughan's motion, even if it is allowed, based on the agreements this committee has made in the past.

I think, for all of us on the call today, it would be very helpful if the analysts could bring us back to all those planning meetings where we agreed to certain studies that we haven't followed through on. After prorogation, things got a little mixed up there, but I do know that my housing motion was passed and that those meetings were agreed to. I believe Mr. Vaughan will honour the commitment to those meetings that we agreed to previously.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I don't want to raise it as a point of order, but just more as a reference, Brad brought up what was passed. As I'm relatively new to this committee.... Regardless of when the membership changes—and I've been [Technical difficulty—Editor] to sit on this committee—whatever has been moved in the past and adopted for the next studies, should that not take precedence? If not, what's the point of actually voting and agreeing to something that may change in future committee meetings?

I would ask you, Mr. Chair, to maybe report back to us on what has been approved by the committee in past meetings, and if there are other studies—whether from the NDP, the Bloc or what have you—that have been agreed to. Those should set the order of committee business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I have absolutely no problem with doing that.

Several motions have been adopted, and none of them have indicated that they are next on the list, so that's the purpose of today's exercise. I guess what happened today was that a motion that was on notice came forward with the inclusion that it be next. You are correct that there are others that have been adopted, but there was no indication within those motions or otherwise that they would be next on the list.

The way we tackled business from the outset was that everyone who had a study they thought would be of interest to the committee brought it forward, and it was agreed that there would be an agreement later with respect to the order. That is the discussion that we're in now.

Madam Chabot.

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

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I think we had agreed on this matter. I don't know whether the decision was formal. We should look at our meeting minutes to determine that. I want to come back to the fact that our discussions were not held in a subcommittee meeting, but in a committee meeting. We agreed that, after the study on employment insurance, we would begin the study on seniors, as proposed by Ms. Falk. I think that should be confirmed.

If we start over, it does not say that the next study will not be Mr. Turnbull's or another study that may be proposed. It may have been naive of me to think it would be simple today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just in keeping peace with the committee.... I think it's actually a rather good idea if we have the clerk come back with the studies that we've put forward to date so that people who are new to the committee can see what has been discussed and what was specifically said and agreed upon. I know I have my priorities, but I also respect democracy.

I think, for the good of the committee and the relationships here, that's a really good idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It's no problem to provide to the committee all of the motions that have been put on notice, all of the motions that have been passed. That information is certainly available.

Mr. Vaughan.

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

If we had an established schedule we wouldn't be debating what's next. That's the whole point of today's meeting. The agenda for today's meeting is to decide what the study is next. Committees—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Hold on just a second, Mr. Vaughan.

Go ahead, Mr. Vis.

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

I believe my study is ongoing. We haven't completed it yet.

Thank you, Mr. Chair

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Vaughan.

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

I was getting to that.

We are sequencing the next few meetings. That's the prerogative of committees. It's in the hands of the committee to make decisions. Events change. We've seen it across a lot of other committees in the last few days and weeks in this new year alone, let alone over my life in Parliament, where issues emerge and committees make decisions on what to study next. That's why we don't do 15 studies in a row. We do them in small batches.

When COVID occurred, we completely changed everything and we didn't get to URN. We started URN in February, but we didn't start again until September. Proroguing helped us do that, quite frankly.

The issue is that Mr. Vis is correct. We agreed to return to RHI when there are gaps in the schedule and when thresholds are possible. We can certainly see from the URN study and in the way in which translations and study reports come back vis-à-vis the EI study that there will be gaps. I think that, rightfully so, when we encounter one of those gaps, we work together to bring forward the appropriate officials to complete that. The RHI study has no date, no sequence and no timetable. We are setting date, timetable and study subject now, so the motion in front of us is as presented.

Mr. Turnbull has moved his motion. I have moved amendments to accommodate the other parties and their priorities. The chair has made a ruling that the amendment is in order. I think if we dispense with that motion we can then move on to making sure we accommodate Mr. Vis's motion, which I think is an excellent motion. I have always agreed. In fact, I appeared as a witness on that study because I was so enthusiastic to talk about the program.

There will be gaps and we have a backup plan to fill those gaps on short notice by bringing in experts from CMHC and from the department to fulfill the goals that Mr. Vis has proposed.

I would suggest that we could get to the vote and move from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'm just trying to clarify what exactly is going on here. As you know, I am not a regular at this committee. From what I glean, there was an agreed-upon schedule, Mr. Turnbull brought forward his motion and then Mr. Vaughan modified that so that we can add three other studies to it. I'm just a little bit confused here.

Before we vote on anything, would you be so kind as to clarify what exactly is going on here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Sure.

There was no agreed-upon schedule. Several motions were passed to adopt studies without any indication of the priority to be assigned to each. This meeting is to determine the priority of future business, including the studies that have been adopted.

You're partially right that the purpose of this meeting is to plan our next steps.

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just listening to Madam Chabot and Madam Gazan and, of course, our members talking about seniors. It sounds like we could actually have quite a robust study on seniors. I think Madam Gazan can bring in plenty of excellent witnesses to talk about UBI and the benefits therein to seniors. We could easily incorporate that.

I would like to say to Ms. Chabot that many issues could be discussed and that Bloc Québécois members would be okay with that. We could work together and undertake a study—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I have point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Dancho, hold on for just a second.

Mr. Tochor, go ahead.

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

I think Mr. Tochor is having some audio issues.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I think I'm back on.

Just as a point of order, I think the translation was garbled up there. I apologize.

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

I can just wrap up in English.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I am studying French, but it's much tougher.

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

I'm sure yours is better than mine.