Human Resources Committee on May 6th, 2021

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

I'll move that motion.

I'd also like to ask members of the committee whether they would like the minister to appear at the beginning or the end. If we can schedule the minister and can get the minister, staff and officials at the beginning, we could get the study started sooner and wouldn't have the microphone problems, etc., because we would have people who are already accustomed to it.

On the other hand, in some committees there has been a choice that, after all the testimony has been heard, to then hear the minister and to ask questions that may be raised in the exploration.

This is just so we can relay it to the parliamentary secretary and the minister's office through the committee as to when you'd like the minister and officials. Really it's a question of where the committee stands on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I would say first that the motion specifically calls for the Minister of Seniors and departmental officials to appear for one hour each, but it does not specify whether they should come at the beginning or the end, so there are two questions for discussion, colleagues.

Can we adopt the standard procedure with respect to witness schedule and prioritization?

What are your thoughts with respect to the timing of the appearance of the minister and officials?

Go ahead, Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, MP Vaughan.

My opinion would be that, at some point on the duration of the study.... I think MP Vaughan did bring up a good point that, if the minister and officials can come even near the beginning, that also gives a bit of a buffer for the clerk when it comes to witnesses and that whole microphone kerfuffle that we seem to get to enjoy quite often.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.

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

I think it would be more interesting for a minister to be present at the end of the proceedings or the study rather than at the beginning, as was the case during the review of the employment insurance system. In fact, Minister Qualtrough came closer to the end, when the work was being concluded. When some work has been done, and I think it could be more conclusive. That is my proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaughan.

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

In all these situations, ministerial availability is always the challenge in case they're pre-booked. What we will do is endeavour to get her first, and if not first, we'll tell you when her availability is, but I think getting her first gets the study started sooner. The sooner we get into the study, the sooner we get to the rest of the work that we have in front of us. We will get back to you at the next meeting with an answer as quickly as possible.

I think the will of the committee normally is for first. We just offered options because there may need to be options, but let's work for first, and if we don't get first, we'll update you on when.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

With respect to the prioritization of witnesses and the development of panels, can we proceed as set out in the routine motions? Is there any further discussion on that? Do we have consensus to proceed in that fashion?

I believe we do. Thank you.

Finally, can we set a deadline for the receipt of briefs? If we assume the next six meetings, that would take us into at least the first week of June when you consider that there is one week there. I would suggest that probably the earliest we could get through the six meetings would be the first week of June. I'm guided by the committee in terms of a deadline for the submission of briefs, but I do believe that's something that should be included in our press release.

Mr. Vis.

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

Yes, I agree, Mr. Chair. Maybe we should not extend the submission of briefs beyond our last meeting for hearing from witnesses. That way, all committee members will have a sufficient amount of time to review any correspondence received. I know that in previous studies it has been difficult to keep up when briefs sometimes were received following the completion of witness testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

If we begin the study on May 13 and count six meetings from there, that takes us to June 3. That assumes no interruptions. That would be the quickest we could do it, so I would propose an end date of June 2 for the submission of briefs. Is there any discussion on that? Very well; we'll set five o'clock eastern time on June 2 as the deadline for the submission of briefs.

Ms. Dancho, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, my apologies. I'm just counting.... We don't have committee meetings during a break week. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Well, I'm in the hands of the committee, but unless the committee wishes that to happen, normally we would not. That said, I'm not opposed to it if that's the will of the committee.

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

Okay. Perhaps that's a discussion we could have.

I just wanted to make sure that if we're not counting that week, it was actually the 13th, 25th, 27th, the 1st and the 3rd, and then it would be the following week, the 8th of June, I think it would be, unless I'm incorrect. I just wanted to make sure. It might be that the 8th might be the last day. It's a difference of just a couple of days, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't off on my calendar if we start next Thursday, skip a week and there are six.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You are correct. Should we change the 3rd to the 7th?

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

I think it would be prudent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes. Okay. We're good for the 7th.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right. We have consensus on that point.

Is there any further business to come before the meeting in public? If not, I'm going to propose that we suspend and move in camera for consideration of the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing study. Is there any further business for the public portion of the meeting?

Seeing none, the meeting is suspended. I would encourage you to log off and log back in with the link you've been provided for the in camera portion of the meeting.

Thank you very much, colleagues. We'll see you à huis clos.

[Proceedings continue in camera]