Human Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

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

Thanks, Chair.

For clarification—and I know the clerk will probably read this out again, but I was writing—you want two panels of three ministers. Is this correct?

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

That's what I said, yes.

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

There would be two panels of three ministers for one hour each. What we had discussed the last time in committee was that this is not enough time.

I don't understand the rationale here, other than you don't want the ministers to testify and to answer questions. That's the only thing that makes any sense here. That is not enough time to have two panels of three ministers with one hour each.

We need accountability. We need transparency. We need to know how the Liberals are spending taxpayers' money. This amendment is not sufficient to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri.

We have Mr. Aitchison, Ms. Gray, Mr. Fragiskatos and then Mr. Angus.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I wonder if Mr. Fragiskatos is going to clarify this. My understanding is we're asking for an hour from each minister, but Mr. Fragiskatos's amendment would limit it to an hour in two separate meetings, or two hours for three ministers, or an hour for three ministers and then another hour for another three ministers. Is that what you're asking?

Also, there's no timeline for when this would happen. It could happen just whenever—

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

They would act, and we would.... Go ahead.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I'm not quite done yet.

It would be at any time, whenever these three ministers could coordinate their schedules to come and talk to us and answer some questions. Then there would be only an hour for the three of them. Then we'd have to see if the next three ministers could coordinate their schedules at some time before the end of time, and they could come speak to us. Is that what you're asking for?

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

I am on the speaking list. I was going to say something, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Aitchison, direct your questions through the chair.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if that's what Mr. Fragiskatos is asking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

He will address that when he comes, if that's clear.

We'll go to Ms. Gray and then Mr. Fragiskatos. Then I have Mr. Angus and Madame Chabot.

This is on the amendment, Ms. Gray.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically what the Liberals are asking for is to have three ministers here for one hour. Here's how this will practically play out: Each of the ministers could give a five-minute intervention. What that means, therefore, when you look at the rounds, is that as the official opposition we would get two questions—maybe three, but probably just two. That means we would get to ask one round of questions to one minister. One of the ministers we may not even be able to question. That's only one round of questions. You're looking at, potentially, either six or five minutes.

That is really unacceptable, especially considering that we have a new minister, the Minister of Citizens' Services, who has a mandate letter. This is a minister who has not come here before. We'll be able to ask him a few minutes of questions. That is absolutely unacceptable.

We have a lot of really serious issues that we're dealing with in this government. This is a real lack of transparency. This is a lack of accountability. By tying it down to this, we don't even have an opportunity.

That means that only one of our members will be able to ask one round of questions, potentially, to two ministers. Most of the members on this committee won't even have an opportunity, on the official opposition side, to ask questions.

This is really unacceptable. I don't know why this government wants to reduce transparency and accountability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

Mr. Fragiskatos is next.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I've made the point. It's been understood.

If we really wanted to play games here, I suppose there could have been scheming to ensure that no ministers would appear, but we're not saying that.

We're serious in this, and in fact, Mr. Chair, it would be interesting if you go back into the record. I'm not sure about HUMA, but at other committees during the years of Stephen Harper you would certainly find efforts along the same lines of what Mrs. Gray has put forward, which was Conservatives entirely blocking the path for Conservative ministers to appear.

We're not doing that. We do want ministers to appear here. We do want members around the table to be able to ask questions and therefore hold the government to account. That's precisely what the amendment would do.

I'll just end there. I think it's quite clear. Mr. Aitchison now understands where I'm coming from and we're all good. At least, I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Next I have Mr. Angus, followed by Madame Chabot and then Madam Ferreri on the amendment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

As a visitor to your committee, I'm fascinated by this. Requesting six ministers is certainly audacious. I've been in opposition so far back that... I'm so old that I remember when Paul Martin was here. I remember when Stephen Harper was here. God, getting a minister to a committee was life-changing. Six ministers—that's something. I think the most I've ever seen is two.

I would have suggested a narrower focus with a longer time, so that you could actually drill down. If you want six ministers, even getting them to all appear at the same time.... Who knows when that's going to happen? Good luck with it.

We're interested in the amendment because I don't think you could take on this many ministers in this order as it stands now for the supplementary estimates. I just think that's much too big an appetite. If they want to reduce the number of ministers and extend the time, we'd be open to that, or we'll follow the debate and see where it goes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Ms. Chabot, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We did indeed debate this at the last meeting. I would remind you that I agree the committee should meet each minister for an hour. The initial motion proposed appearances of two hours for each minister. That's too long.

At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, our work involves several departments, including the Minister of Labour and Seniors, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. It wouldn't be the first time that the committee received several ministers in order to question them. It has been done before. Having six ministers is a bit much, but it is part of our committee's terms of reference. I believe all these areas are important.

I therefore disagree with the amendment that has been moved. As I previously said, a period of one hour with three ministers would be too short to ask them about their mandate letters, which we haven't seen, and about expenditures for renewal. I therefore disagree with the proposal to have three ministers appear in a single hour. I believe we wouldn't have the required latitude to exercise our democratic mandate to question ministers.

Our committee has many responsibilities. We already received the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. We know how important this is. However, there are other ministers who have to be met to talk about matters like work, employment and the family. I believe it's fair to suggest that each should come for an hour.

Accordingly, I will vote against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Madam Ferreri, go ahead on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I think the comment coming from the Liberal side, from Mr. Fragiskatos, of threatening no ministers is—

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

I wasn't threatening.

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

It certainly felt like a threat, MP Fragiskatos.

What message does it send to the Canadian public when you say, “If you want to play games, then we'll bring no ministers”? It's, “Fine. We don't have any accountability. We don't have any transparency. You know what? We just won't have anyone show up. We'll give you little scraps.”

I think that was very, quite frankly, arrogant. You work for the Canadian people. You are spending their money. They deserve accountability and transparency.

That's through you, Mr. Chair.

The second point I'd like to make is to my NDP colleague who is visiting today. I'd say thank you for doing that, but he's left the room. I find it a little bit shocking that the NDP are supposed to be for the people, and as somebody who stated earlier in today's meeting that he's been in opposition for 20 years, he should know how important it is to call these people in to committee to get answers.

Let's just put out on the table right now what has come out this morning, as anybody knows who was listening to the news. The number of people accessing a food bank in Ontario has increased by 38% from the previous year, making this the largest single-year increase ever recorded by Ontario's food bank network. More than one in six visitors say they are employed, which is an 82% increase over 2016 to 2017, and a 37% increase over the previous year.

We are asking for the ministers who are in charge of our most vulnerable Canadians to come here, be transparent, and make solutions—to come to the table with solutions for how we're going to help our most vulnerable. These are the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion, and Persons with Disabilities and the Minister of Labour and Seniors. If you're not getting countless emails and phone calls from seniors and people who are struggling, you're not doing your job. There's also the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

Therefore, this subamendment is 100% skirting accountability and transparency, which is, sadly, what we have come to expect from this NDP-Liberal coalition that we've seen here today.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It's on this kind of smear that I'm in this NDP-Liberal coalition. She can debate the facts, but she doesn't need to throw that falsehood around.