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.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I don't know if the usual way of doing committee is by asking each other questions on that.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Okay, then it's pretty clear to me how many....
There is currently a motion that has been passed, which is that there will be three meetings next week and that there are witnesses. That's where things are right now.
The way I see it, then, is that we should have three meetings next week. We have submitted witnesses' names. We have submitted enough names to last through all three meetings. I think we should contact those witnesses and have them come to the three meetings. That is the motion that was passed.
My colleague Mr. Liepert has already said that the minister should be asked again. They should all be contacted and they should be asked again.
Mr. Long has tried to indicate that this is a study for the finance committee, that it's finance that is responsible for this. In fact, they have charged our committee with thoroughly reviewing these items. I said specifically on Monday what those four things are. They are EI, the EI appeal board, collective agreements.... These are things that have significant impacts on all of our ridings, and it's the budget. Of course the budget is going to be dispensed to a number of different committees to evaluate all sorts of different parts of it. This is nothing new. I would expect this of the government, assigning other parts of the bill to other committees.
As I said, we have a motion that has passed for three meetings next week. We have witnesses who will be there, so we should go ahead with those three meetings.
I tried in good faith to lower it to two meetings. This idea was rejected, and instead one meeting was put forward. My Bloc colleague here was not happy that there was only one meeting suggested. As she indicated, there would therefore not be any witnesses from the public or from Quebec, which includes the public, or other third party stakeholders. They will not have the ability to present this—
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I have to suspend at 6:00 p.m. to do a staff change, and then we'll resume until it comes to a conclusion.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Members, the committee is back in session. We may have time constraints.
Mrs. Kusie had the floor when I suspended.
Mrs. Kusie, you were speaking on the motion.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
As I was saying, we were going to have three meetings, and I thought moving it down to two meetings was a reasonable option. I think two is the reasonable compromise between one and three.
I don't know why we can't have a compromise, and as I said, if I had the option, I would actually prefer to probably have four meetings, one for each part of the section. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect that. These are all very important parts of the budget.
I don't buy the idea that the finance committee has this and that as a result we just say that it's not a big deal. They wouldn't have referred it to us if they didn't want us to do a thorough examination. Really, when we're thinking about four hours out of the next week, it's a good compromise between the six hours we were looking at originally and the two hours that have been proposed.
Mr. Chair, it's the principle of it. We made a decision on Monday that we all committed to three meetings and the ministers. I'm not surprised the ministers aren't here. There were too many outs, and they were taken, and now this additional out is being taken in going to one meeting. I'm not sure if the government thought that only one meeting was going to be available or that no meetings were going to be available, but lo and behold, they had space for two meetings, and as a result of that, we are seeing this occurring.
It's the principle of it. We voted on those motions in good faith and we passed those motions in good faith, and now we have the government being backed by the NDP, it would seem. It's usually the non-speaking committee member indicating support of the government position, which is understandable, considering the agreement the two parties made, and it's usually my expectation, very honestly. It's just disingenuous and it's unfortunate, because I think that two meetings are really an acceptable alternative to the three meetings that I had originally suggested.
We're getting into this late period of the parliamentary season when we have to go through all of these processes, which really are just like a delay or a push-through, with democracy being shut down and no opportunity to speak, no opportunity to examine all of the information. That is very disappointing. It's certainly not what our constituents expect of us. It's just disappointing that we're at this point, and I don't know why we just can't have two meetings.
It's an important opportunity to have the witnesses we put forward show up to this committee and give their testimony. We put witnesses forward, and in fact I think the Bloc put witnesses forward, did you not, Louise? I believe the Bloc put witnesses forward.
It's very interesting that the NDP did not put witnesses forward. I'm not sure if they didn't recognize they had to do that or if they also thought perhaps there wouldn't be any meetings next week, but that's simply not the case, as we're seeing.
As well, I was even thinking sincerely about the clause-by-clause study, which I now understand we no longer have to do. I was just mentally preparing for it, because I know that when we went through Bill C-3, I wasn't really given the courtesy of being able to read line by line to truly understand it, which again is something I think my constituents expect of me. I thought it was just disappointing and ungracious not to allow the opportunity to do that.
Once again, given the way we see patterns emerging in this committee and as we see them across the House, and given the behaviour we can expect from different groups and different individuals, I was also preparing for the clause-by-clause study. I wanted to really have a good understanding of that, since I didn't expect we would have the time or that I would be given the consideration to read every single word.
As well, I know that last time Ms. Zarrillo was subbed in by Mr. Boulerice. When I saw him in the House this week, I thought, yes, that's probably going to happen again. It's probably going to be Mr. Boulerice, as the labour critic, who steps into the role again for the review, especially since there is a part pertinent to the Canada Labour Code. We will see him here again, and understandably so, because it takes time to familiarize yourself with these processes, as I've come to learn in my five years here. I must say that I'm really only getting the hang of it after all this time.
I know my colleague Mr. Lobb has much more experience in reviewing these bills. I would just like to take a moment to congratulate him on the passing of his bill yesterday, at a time when the opposition parties worked together in an effort to provide good legislation and a thorough review for Canadians, but that definitely was something I was expecting in the clause-by-clause consideration.
As for the witnesses, as I mentioned, I thought we could potentially have one meeting on each of the divisions. Those divisions, again, are 26, 27, 29 and 32, and we could have witnesses on each of them, because each is definitely significant within the budget.
Regarding the Employment Insurance Act, I went to the employment insurance consultation presentation, and I was the only parliamentarian there, other than your parliamentary secretary, Irek, whom I really like. He is a really nice guy. I was very impressed by the comprehensiveness of the presentation that was made. I think even the information we saw there would be relevant to this, but my more important point is that this is the kind of information we could expect to see—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
Chair, on a point of order, I want to make sure that we have time with the resources right now. How long do we have the interpreters?
6:20 p.m.
A voice
Is that at 6:30 shortly?
6:20 p.m.
The Clerk
I am waiting for confirmation. We are checking. There are two other committees that were scheduled to sit this evening. I think there are discussions among the whips about where the service will be allocated. I am waiting for a response, but at this point in time it's uncertain.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
Okay. I just want to make sure we're talking this out in a good manner and not wasting everybody's time, especially the interpreters' time, which is very precious.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you.
As I was saying, that was an incredibly comprehensive review.
Perhaps I can share my two critiques here, even though they will not go into the testimony of the review of this bill. The first one was that there was no timeline, despite the comprehensive evaluation of the EI consultation.
The second part was that there was no idea as to how the EI benefit would fit into the entire suite of benefits that the Canadian government provides. Again, I think this is something that Canadians would be interested in.
The part on the benefits related to employment is particularly ironic for this committee, because this was part of the Bill C-3 discussion, and again I think one reason Monsieur Boulerice was brought into this discussion was specifically around the negotiation of benefits—sick days there, but benefits in particular. I can imagine all sorts of witnesses who would have been so important to have here to talk about these types of benefits and the use of the benefits.
I guess the irony too is that I think these topics would be specifically relevant. Again, Madam Chabot recognizes this, I think, coming from a labour union background, so I'm a little bit surprised that this isn't more important to the NDP on this committee.
Another thing, again coming back to the labour code and division 29, is that I really think of the NDP historically as the party of labour. Just the fact that they potentially would not want to study this amendment to the labour code as outlined in Bill C-19 and—
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
I want to make sure that the honourable member realizes that, if we aren't able to make a decision, another committee's meeting being held elsewhere will have to be cancelled because we are taking up the resources of the House of Commons.
I think the honourable member is well aware that we all agree on holding two meetings. If she wants to keep talking, she should know that she will be taking resources away from another committee. I've been saying that for a while.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
You agree on having two meetings. Is that right?
Okay, then you will withdraw your motion?
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Okay, Chair, have you recognized that her motion is withdrawn?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Madam Kusie, you will have to concede the floor and give it to Madam Martinez Ferrada to formally do that.