Evidence of meeting #3 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
We can defeat it on division, if you'd like.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. I request a recorded vote, then.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
You called the vote. Members can't be added to the speaking list after you've called the vote.
Conservative
September 18th, 2025 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK
Yes, and then Madame Gill asked for a recorded vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
There were two options. We could proceed with unanimous consent, or we could then go to a vote if nobody wanted to speak. That was my understanding.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, you called the vote, and if you're saying now that you didn't call the vote, then I'll respectfully challenge that ruling, because I believe you did call the vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
No, I gave the option. The committee had the option of requesting unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment or, if there were no speakers, we'd go to a vote.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I understand what you're saying now, but I believe that you did call the vote. If you're saying you didn't call the vote, then I'm challenging that ruling. It's clear we disagree. That's okay. It's something that happens, but I'm challenging your ruling because I believe you did call a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I will allow the challenge of the chair to go to a vote. I didn't view that I was that definitive, but it's your challenge, which is fine.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)
Then we will go to a vote on the amendment that is currently being debated.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
I don't know if I could ask this, but I will anyway. I'd like to know what we're voting on. Could you read it out, please, so that we have a better understanding of what we're voting on?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Yes. It's the amendment to remove section 2 in its entirety from the motion currently being debated. So we're clear, we're going to a recorded vote on the amendment that was being discussed, which calls for the removal of section 2 from the motion that was introduced.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
We are back to the motion currently on the floor.
I have Mr. Genuis on the motion, and then Ms. Desrochers.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The committee is back in session. There still may be an issue with the sound, but I will be advised if there is. There was an issue with it, but it's been corrected now.
Just to be clear, we are back to the main motion, and I had Mr. Genuis wanting the floor.
Mr. Genuis, I'll pass the floor to you.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I hope that we have the goodwill around this table to get to a solution. We could spend hours or decades going around and around. We want to get to a solution here so that we can begin these important studies—a study on youth unemployment, a study on section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, and what I understand to be a continuation of a study on seasonal industries and employment insurance—and hear from ministers. I hope we can get to a solution.
Some concerns were indicated about some aspects of the section 107 study. I guess I'd like to seek the unanimous consent of the committee—if we have unanimous consent, we can get this done; if not, you know, it'll be more difficult—that we take out the word “routine” in the part about the second study, because I heard that members of the government didn't like that word being in there. Personally, I think it's a good word, but it's not a word to die on.
I'd also add a paragraph (g) with regard to that same study: “that this study will begin no earlier than October 17, 2025”.
If we have unanimous consent to make those changes and to proceed to a vote on the main motion, then we can proceed. If the committee doesn't agree to do that, then I think it suggests that maybe the goal of some members is just to talk this out and not get to a solution.
What I'd like to propose is unanimous consent for that solution—to remove the word “routine” and to add “that this study will begin no earlier than October 17, 2025”—and that we proceed immediately to a vote on the main motion after making those changes.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank my colleague for proposing a solution to get us to a place where we can actually start our work. I think what Canadians are expecting of us is to do this kind of work.
I still believe that this motion, as it is, is very large, and I find it difficult to agree with everything. I know I've proposed this before, but I wonder if there would be a way to separate these items so that we can take the time to work through them. We are absolutely willing to look at each of these three items, but they are quite large and encompassing.
On section 2, I agree with removing the word “routine”, which takes us to a better place, but we still have not had a discussion around the motion. We were proposing to strike it in its entirety in order to protect the discussions that are pending on the issue and the report. So now, if we are going to take a look at keeping the motion, we will need some time to look at the parts of it that would deliver the best results.
I guess what we said before, and I reiterate, is that we believe this is an important study. We believe that this should be done, but we need to do it in the right way and in the right sequence. I know we're not doing amendments here, but in the same spirit as my colleague, who did not put forward an amendment but just mentioned something that they could consider removing, we would definitely want to remove section (f) of this. Again, this is in the spirit of keeping this section as neutral and non-partisan as possible and really focus on the substance of what it is we want to accomplish.