Human Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

The amendment I'm about to introduce will still have ministers appear to be held to account, but it will do so in a way that's more conducive to the timeline this committee has set out in terms of the things it wants to look at and study.

With that in mind, I wish to introduce the following amendment—and I'll speak slowly for translation purposes. It is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages; the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities; the Minister of Labour and Seniors; the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development; and the Minister of Citizens' Services, to appear for no fewer than one hour each, in two panels of three, to consider the supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year 2023-24 and the main estimates for the fiscal year 2024-25.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Committee members, you have heard the amendment of Mr. Fragiskatos, so discussion and debate will move to the amendment.

Ms. Ferreri, I believe you raised your hand. Go ahead, Ms. Ferreri.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

For clarity, you don't want them to appear separately. You removed that word.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's pretty clear. This allows for ministers to come, to appear and to answer any questions in a way that I think is much more conducive to what we're doing as a committee, in terms of getting other work through. We're not saying ministers wouldn't come—quite the contrary—but I think this is just a better way to do it.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

What I'm trying to clarify is that, by removing the word “separately”, it feels like they wouldn't have to testify individually.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

We've seen that before. There's a precedent for that here.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Why would we want to do that? The whole point is to interview each minister individually and separately with regard to their file.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Chair, through you, we've seen that many times at this committee. It's common practice at other committees. This would allow for ministers to be asked questions—in fact, ministers whose files overlap as well—instead of having a situation in which questions are asked but aren't answered because the relevant minister isn't present. One might be asked a question but their file doesn't directly relate to the matter that's being put forward. Instead of waiting and delaying to get that answer from the department, the minister can be there in the same panel to take up the issue that's been put on the table, so to speak. I think that's just one reason.

There are other reasons—and it goes back to what I said before as far as other reasons go. The time we would have.... This allows us, as a committee, to take up our responsibilities around the estimates. The way that the original motion was worded, this would eat up a huge amount of time and not really get us to where we need to go as a committee, in terms of carrying out our other obligations to look at other matters.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

On that note on precedents—which I'm not a huge fan of, to be honest with you—I think that just because something has been done a certain way doesn't mean you don't need to re-evaluate it, because if it's not working, which, clearly this government isn't I think you have to change things.

To the member's point, through you, Mr. Chair, we need three panels of two for one hour each, which we had last year, which was this member's own precedent. That would be my feedback there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

On the amendment, Mrs. Gray has the floor.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment that the Liberals have put forth, just so we're clear, is to have three ministers within one hour. The way it plays out, and we've seen this at this committee, is that each minister gives their opening statement for roughly five minutes. Now we're 15 minutes in, which gives us only 45 minutes to question three ministers. When you time it out, looking at the time for interventions, that's two rounds of questions. If you have a few questions to ask one minister, it means that one minister literally won't even get asked questions. We have only two rounds of questions.

This is not open. This is not transparent. These ministers have large portfolios. We're looking at seniors. We're looking at all of the services the government does. We're looking at housing. We're looking at disabilities. There are a number of topics here, and we're going to be able to ask a few minutes of questions to one minister.

This is how we bring forth the voices of all the stakeholders we meet across Canada, the people in our communities and even all of our colleagues. There are four on this side. We're only going to get two rounds of questions. That means two colleagues on this side won't even have an opportunity to ask one of the ministers a question.

This is a really egregious affront to our accountability and to our ability to ask ministers the really important questions that we hear from people all the time. This is an opportunity for us to delve into their portfolios. One hour with three ministers really doesn't allow us to do that. It's a real affront to accountability and transparency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although I don't have the amendment in front of me, my understanding is that this is an attempt to replicate the formula that has already been used by having more than one minister appear at a time. I've had to make choices about the issues I wanted to raise and the ministers I wanted to question.

I am rather of the opinion that we should maintain the idea of hearing from the ministers separately. However, two hours may be too much, given our schedule. We have to think about how much time we have left between now and June. The committee will have other bills to study. We have a lot of motions to consider. A meeting will actually be held on the topic tomorrow.

In summary, the meeting with the ministers is important, especially before a budget is tabled. However, two hours each may be too long. We could ask them to appear separately, for one hour each.

Am I proposing a subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot, you're making a subamendment to the amendment. Is that correct?

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

No, I'm proposing a subamendment to the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot, you can only make an amendment to the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos. Are we clear?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. You can—

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

No. I want to propose an amendment to Mrs. Gray's proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot, you would have to make it after we deal with the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay.

Mr. Long, we're still on the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Can we suspend for five minutes, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That sounds like a great idea.

We'll suspend for four minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee is back in session.

We suspended at the request of Mr. Long.

Mr. Long, you have the floor. The debate is on the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos.