Evidence of meeting #5 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I raised my hand almost immediately after Mrs. Kusie, before any hands went up on the screen, but there was no procedure in place at the time to recognize speakers.
12:30 p.m.
The Clerk
On the decision, it's yours. I have Ms. Zarrillo as third, when I noticed her, but the decision is yours, Mr. Chair. I have Mrs. Kusie, Madame Chabot, Ms. Zarrillo, Mr. Collins and Mr. Coteau—
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Mr. Chair, my hand was raised when the meeting resumed.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Kusie. The motion that you put forward is the one that we tabled, which proposes that we hear from the ministers in relation to their respective mandate letters, which were provided sometime after the throne speech. We see that there are very important priorities for ministers in the mandate letters. What I understand from what you're proposing, Ms. Kusie, is that we hear from ministers on their mandate letters in the current context. I am in full agreement with my motion and the way you are prioritizing it.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
Just so we're clear, if there's no further discussion on the motion, we have to deal with the motion that has been moved as it's currently on the floor.
Am I correct, Madam Clerk?
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes. Ms. Chabot has moved the motion. The floor is now open for debate.
Ms. Martinez Ferrada has raised her hand in terms of the debate, so she is next in the debate on the motion.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is about my colleague's motion. Was she going to make a proposal about time allocation? Indeed, once again, there are several motions to be considered at this time, and we will eventually have to discuss them. There are also several studies to be considered. I am very much in favour of hearing the ministers on their mandate letters; however, without wanting to take anything away from anyone or the ministers, we may as well read these mandate letters and, eventually, regarding each of the studies we will undertake, decide whether the ministers should be heard. At the moment, if we do a quick calculation, we can expect to spend an hour with each minister on their mandate. That would take up the time of two full meetings of the committee. This makes me wonder, then, about the effectiveness of the committee and the effect this will have on the studies we will undertake.
I would like to know if this is, generally speaking, what my colleague had in mind. I would like to hear the views of my other colleagues on the need for two full meetings of the committee to hear from four ministers at one hour per minister.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Madam Clerk, who is next in the speaking order? We are debating the motion.
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Coteau is next on the list in the debate of the motion by Madame Chabot.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Okay.
Madam Clerk, could you identify the next speaker on the motion?
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Ms. Chabot is next.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to understand Ms. Kusie's intention in giving priority to my motion. If I understand correctly, her intention is that this motion should be given priority and that we should receive the ministers to consider their mandate letters, before we start work on other motions, in the immediate future. If that is her intention, and I would like it to be clarified, I will agree. The motion, then, would be to receive the ministers in respect of their mandate letters during the next two meetings, if I may put it that way.
For my part, I had calculated that we have 15 weeks of parliamentary business between now and June. I think we have time for that and for other very important motions that we have to deal with. We could receive the ministers without delay at our next two meetings, if Ms. Kusie confirms that that is her intent.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Jeneroux is next.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madame Chabot, for the motion. I think Ms. Martinez Ferrada's motion—I don't know if it's an official amendment or maybe more just for us—is a smart adoption.
I haven't been here long, Mr. Chair, but I think in the six years I've been here, it's always been nice to be able to have the ministers show up when we begin committees so we're all essentially on the same page of where the ministers are coming from. It gives us an hour with each minister to propose those key questions that we want to have answered. Ultimately, I think for the first two meetings, that's a good course of action. That's my opinion, Mr. Chair.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Madam Clerk, are there any other committee members who wish to speak?
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Coteau and Madame Chabot still have their hands raised, in that order.
