Evidence of meeting #4 for Pay Equity in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was group.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Actually, I have a list. I have Mr. DeCourcey and Mr. Sheehan and Ms. Dzerowicz.
Is it on this topic or is it on something completely new?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Okay, I think we should have one conversation at a time. So let's just—
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
We'll see if there's a comment on Ms. Benson's point. Then we'll go back to the previous conversation, and then I'll see if there's any new commentary.
Do you have a comment on Ms. Benson's point?
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Yes, and while I certainly appreciate that PSAC is one of the largest unions, and perhaps we could find a spot that would allow for them to do a full presentation, I will also say, because I have met with the other union, that they actually have experience in this field, and they have solutions that I think we should be hearing.
I would be really reluctant to say we should listen to them because they're bigger, and discount someone who actually has real knowledge and experience of previous processes that I think we should be hearing. I'm sure other people have met with them as well.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
I'd like to add that there is the possibility—I know other committees have done it—of going beyond the three hours. If there's ever a point where we would want to have an extra half hour or hour with a particular set of witnesses, that is a possibility.
Is that the wish of the committee in the case of the unions?
Ms. Benson.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
I hear what you're saying. I've also met with that group and they do have a particular perspective because they've gone through the process that no one else has. I didn't want to limit them. I just thought the one group would have a longer piece. If we can go longer that day so we can have a fulsome discussion, that would be fine.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Are there any objections to adding an additional hour on the 18th of April? We would sit for four hours and we would then allow for the unions to be heard for two hours. We would sit from 5:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on the 18th of April.
Are there any objections?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
May I ask a question on that point? I can honestly tell you, if I look at the different dates, I might say to you that I probably would want to hear a little bit more of that second group on the 20th, and maybe I would want to hear it that night. I wonder, and this is a wonder, whether we can just go through.... We have our three-hour time frame. Is there any way, if at the end of that time frame we're asking questions and then decide we want to hear from a couple of groups more, that we could say we want to stay an extra hour instead of voting in advance? I might feel like I have all the information I need at that time; I don't know. I don't know whether we have to make that decision today or not. It's just a question.
To me it would be the same case for every single meeting. It might be that we get to the 20th or the 2nd or the 4th and we realize there are two people that we really need to hear more from and there are a lot more questions. Can we make that decision in terms of the extra hour then, or is it that we have to vote for all of this right now? I don't know. I'm just putting it out there.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
The clerk is informing me that would be possible for the third hour set of witnesses, but if, for instance, we wanted more time with the first witness, it would be difficult to ask them to then stay an additional hour or two hours later. What we could do is, if we think there's a particular group of witnesses that we may want to hear more from, we could make sure they're in the third hour. That way, if we inform the witnesses ahead of time that it could extend to two hours just to make sure they're available, that would always give us the flexibility at that time.
Mr. Albas.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
The one other alternative is that we just go ahead with the work plan as is. Then, if we want more information, we can ask that they please send us more information. We also have that additional day, Friday, May 6, I believe it is. If that's in our back pocket, quite honestly, most of the unions—I take it that in this case we're having a discussion about which union should be where—are here in Ottawa. I'm sure they would love to come for an extra day on a Friday, if there is a particular area that we want to investigate more fully.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
I'm just referring to the fact of what we're asking how long a presentation they are being asked to prepare. That was my point, that a larger organization would be given 10 minutes to give the depth and breadth of the group they are covering, that kind of thing.
As far as being able to talk to them longer is concerned, that's fine, but I think you have to give the group guidance, that they have a 10-minute presentation, or that they have a three-minute presentation.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
I think we have a rather exhaustive list. I have no issue with sitting beyond three hours, if needed. I have no issue with trying to move StatsCan up a little bit earlier, if needed. To reflect upon whether we need to sit on that Friday, I think it's important that we get this set tonight, because we are working in a tight time frame and need to start promptly next week with these witness lists.
In some cases, if we only have time for them to present for seven minutes, then that's the situation we're in, given the time frame we have to work with.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
This is just a point of clarification. We're all working together to get this finished. We're going to extend meetings from two hours to three. Then, we're all in agreement, I think, in saying that if we need to, on some days we can go to four hours.
I think we're all saying that we probably can get it done on those days, and we have an extra day in our pocket.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
We are all agreed, then, that we would be prepared to extend to four hours, if necessary. Perhaps we could suggest, since this is the one that came up to the clerk, that we forewarn the unions that this may be a possibility, just so they can plan their time in that particular case.
Ms. Dzerowicz.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I agree with what you said. Then for April 20, can I suggest that group two, I'll call it, be moved into the group three section? I personally think that's a group for which there may be some extra reason for us.... If Deb Gillis ends up coming, she will be coming in from New York. That's a long way. She has lots of international experience. Mary Cornish has been writing about this for decades. There's also the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
It would be my preference that these witnesses move into group three. Then for the May 2 meeting—
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Can we do these one at a time and just make sure there's a consensus on each?
Are there any objections to moving that group into group three? Again, the clerk would notify them that it's possible we might go overtime.
Are there any objections?
No? Okay.
Do you have a new point, or is it related to this?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
It's related and it's new.
It's related in the sense that I'm also going to suggest that May 2.... This is when we have, in my opinion, your businesses. I wouldn't mind moving them towards the end, only because I think I might want more time with them.
To be honest, we have three credit unions. I'm not quite sure why we need to hear from all three, but I know that the group in that whole category on May 2 that I'm most interested in would be the private sector, and it's to them that many of my questions will be put.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Are there any objections that on the 2nd we would move the first—
Mr. Albas.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, for raising this. I just want to make sure.... I sent a request for the Association of Canadian Financial Officers to appear, and I don't see them on the list.
6:55 p.m.
The Clerk
[Inaudible—Editor]