Evidence of meeting #25 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was supply.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, if no one else has their hand up to speak, I would ask that we go ahead and vote on the motion.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
No. Okay, clarify what this is for me.
It says, “Pursuant to the motion adopted at the Standing committee on Finance...inviting the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study the subject matter of the Part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of the Bill C-19, and taking into consideration of the uncertainty of the availability of the House of Commons services.... The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities hear from relevant officials from the department of Labour...."
The second hour of that meeting.... I don't understand the point of this motion. How is this different? We voted for two meetings, and this just references one meeting. You just want one meeting. That is what this is saying.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
It's one meeting rather than two.
Okay, that's clear. I was kind of getting that idea, but I wasn't entirely clear that it was just one meeting.
We had said three in the original motion, and I just said that two were okay. I think one is unacceptable at this point. Two is a reasonable compromise between the three that were passed in the original motion and the one that Ms. Martinez Ferrada is suggesting here today.
It's just disappointing that we don't get the time that these pieces of legislation deserve, especially since they have such significant impacts on employment insurance, the tribunal process and the labour code, etc.
I thought I understood that, but now I understand completely. I think two is a reasonable compromise, Chair. Thank you. We can go to the vote.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Mr. Liepert has his hand up, and then we'll go to a vote on the motion of Madame Ferrada.
Mr. Liepert, do you have your hand up?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Yes, I do. I want to ask a quick question.
If I understand this motion correctly, it would mean we would have no witnesses testify before this committee. We would hear from department officials and then write a recommendation based on department officials' testimony.
I'm not even sure why we're bothering if we're only going to do one meeting and have department officials who never tell us anything worthwhile anyway. This is just another attempt by the Liberals to not have any public input. There's no sense in even having the one meeting, in my view, if we're not going to have a minimum of two with some witnesses.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to understand which part of this the finance committee is going to be looking at, because the finance committee said that they were also going to be studying these sections. It's their responsibility, so I want to understand what burden falls on that committee as well, please.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The committee has the responsibility for clause-by-clause discussion. They're the only ones who can actually make changes or recommendations. We're simply going to review it and pass on comments.
I have Madame Chabot and then Mr. Long.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I want to comment on the discussion around who is supposed to study which parts of the bill.
The Standing Committee on Finance asked a number of committees, including ours, to study parts of Bill C‑19. We were asked to study the part on the employment insurance system, which is within our purview because it falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.
The motion we adopted says that we are supposed to spend three meetings studying that part of the bill if possible, subject to everyone's availability. In addition, we are supposed to invite the two ministers. Today, we are being told that we have to go down to two meetings. That was settled. We don't know whether the ministers are going to appear, but at least we have a list of proposed witnesses.
Furthermore, I don't think we should avoid holding meetings where witnesses could express concerns over certain provisions in the bill. I don't want to hear what department officials think, because it's futile. All they are going to tell us is why the bill is drafted the way it is. I want to hear from witnesses who have concerns about the provisions. If we go down to a single meeting without witnesses on Thursday, we are shirking our duty, which we agreed to fulfill.
As a compromise, I am willing to hold two meetings. I won't insist that we hold three, because that would not make sense.
If the ministers aren't able to come, it's no big deal. We should prioritize the witnesses.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to get a few points on the record. This was sent to us from the finance committee. It's not our report, number one, and we don't do clause-by-clause consideration; we don't do anything with that. We just give some recommendations.
How many committees are involved with this? We are, and justice, industry and immigration. This was sent to us and, yes, the Liberal MPs on finance agreed.... It is in our laps. We have a short timeline, we haven't heard back from the minister about whether she can even come, and we have a holiday on Monday. The fact is that we can get one good day in and give some recommendations.
Let's be clear again: This isn't our report. FINA is not even compelled to accept or implement any of our suggestions. Let's just take one day to review this, get our heads around it, develop recommendations and send them back to FINA.
I'll say it again: This isn't our report.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I want us to be conscious of the clock. It's six o'clock. If we continue, there will be no meeting next week. We have to come to a decision.
Go ahead, Madam Zarrillo.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I'll be really fast, then.
On all the motions that are out there, my expectation was that the ministers were going to come, but it doesn't look like they are. What I'm hearing from many of my committee colleagues is that they want to hear from witnesses and they don't see value in having public servants come to this committee.
Is there an opportunity to have one day for the witnesses who have been proposed by some of the parties around this table? That is my question.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I'll speak to the crux of the issue. We came to an agreement last week. I realize that it would suit the members across the way if we didn't hold any more meetings. They weren't exactly crazy about the idea last week, and that's still the case today.
To answer the honourable member's question, I think we could hear from witnesses on Tuesday and do what Ms. Martinez Ferrada is suggesting on Thursday.
I think it's possible because we have the availability for two meetings. Now we are being asked to limit the study to one meeting without witnesses. I think it's possible to hold one meeting and that it comes down to political will.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I was on the list to talk before the vote was called.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Ms. Zarrillo, what do you think? How many meetings do you think there should be next week?