Evidence of meeting #47 for Science and Research in the 44th 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
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
I would ask for a vote on the subamendment.
Once that subamendment passes, we will, on debate on the main motion, put forward an amendment that would satisfy the Liberals' concerns about the order of meetings. We would, as a gesture, reduce it from six meetings to five, as discussed off-line.
I would ask to call the vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Is there any further discussion on the subamendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Lauzon.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
If we suspended the meeting earlier, it was because we wanted to have the motion and amendments in writing.
I ask my colleagues to imagine having that whole conversation in French. It's true that we have interpretation, but even the interpreters told us it's not easy to follow the discussion when they don't have the text available. All we asked was to have the text and its translation, as well as time to review it before making any decisions. Everything that happened from the start of the meeting destroyed the harmony the committee always had before, when we maintained order and turns to speak.
I'm not necessarily happy with the initial processes we put in place. Often, I'd like to speak at committee, but I can't. Indeed, in addition to rotating between the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, I have to give my colleagues a chance to speak between the Conservatives' comments. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois pipe up every time, and I only have one chance in four to speak at each discussion. That said, I respected it from the start, as did we all.
Maxime Blanchette‑Joncas and I already had a good conversation on the fact that we proceed this way and we don't want to change the committee's routine. However, what we experienced today turned everything upside down.
I can understand that it comes from the whip's order. I can understand that we're going to play the filibuster game. I can understand that today's motion is slowing down a study we had very good chances of finishing. But on top of that, there's a lack of respect for the witnesses who came here today, and I'm shocked. I never thought I'd see this in our committee: sending a witness home after they crossed half of Canada to come talk to us.
Today's study is very important. What's going on is jeopardizing the conclusion of our study of the report on research in French. That really gets to me, because some members already committed to filibustering if they don't get their way. It's a direct attack on French, just as we almost made it to the end of our study.
On top of not respecting the witnesses, trust between committee members is broken. As long as we can't look at the motion and all the amendments tabled today, we can't go any further. We're already up to three amendments and there's talk of a fourth. For today, what I'd prefer is to take a step back and read the motion. The Conservatives, other opposition parties and we ourselves can discuss a strategy, but we have to come back to the foundation we had before at committee.
Mr. Chair, I know you haven't been here very long, but you adapted so well to the committee. What's happening today is a surprise to us all. I therefore move to adjourn the meeting, distribute the motion in English and French, then return in force next Tuesday, after each party has given it some serious thought.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
We have a dilatory motion on the table. He's just moved to adjourn. There is no discussion on that.
We'll go to the vote on the dilatory motion.
Do you want a recorded vote?
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
I have point of order.
Before that motion to adjourn was put forward, I would ask you, through to the clerk, that we sit not just until 1:30 today. I would ask that because we were suspended for over 50 minutes, we would sit until 1:50 and ask for additional services.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Lena, please. It's up to the Chair.
No, it's a dilatory motion that's on the table, so either we have a recorded vote or we have unanimous consent. Should we go to a recorded vote?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
No, you don't, not on a motion to adjourn.
It's a recorded vote.
Let's go to the clerk.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
The meeting continues.
Go ahead, Mr. Lobb.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
The only thing I will say to Mr. Lauzon.... I have full respect for him. There's no question about it. There are two points I will make, though.
The first one—and maybe we can have our clerk and analysts go back and look at this—is that with regard to the past practice on an amendment at a committee on a motion, I don't believe it had to be translated and put onto paper or into a digital format. I believe reading it aloud, if the chair reads it, would be perfectly acceptable. Going above and beyond is fine, but I believe that is past practice.
The other point I will make is I brought up an issue a few meetings ago—in public, so I'm not saying anything out of order here—about my displeasure with the way the committee had gone on the format of the subcommittee. I didn't feel that it was inclusive to all. That's my opinion. It's nothing against Mr. Lauzon; he basically said, “Too bad. If you want to do it, go to the subcommittee.” I'm not invited to the subcommittee anyway.
I'm not saying that spoiled the feeling in the committee, because I didn't take offence to it. It was his point, which is fine. That's all I'm going to say.
There is give-and-take. It is June. I'm not always in favour of all this stuff myself, but it is what it is and that's the way Parliament works, so I guess we will keep going.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
This is a quick comment from the chair that we have standing orders of the committee that the committee adopted at the very beginning of the committee session to say that if people are requesting things in writing, they are able to do that. The standard procedures of the committee were agreed on at the beginning of the committee, and they also included subcommittees.
Go ahead, Ms. Bradford.
Liberal
Valerie Bradford Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a lot of concern and disappointment with what has happened at our committee today. The agenda was to devote two hours to our study on Canada's graduate scholarship and post-doctoral fellowship programs.
Two panels of witnesses were called, and before one question was asked of the first panel—one witness travelled all the way from Saskatchewan to testify—our meeting was hijacked by Conservative members, who proceeded to filibuster the meeting, bringing forward a motion regarding a subject that has been studied and is currently being studied at other parliamentary committees.
The Conservatives wish to push back the already agreed-to study on the impacts of the gender and diversity pay gap for faculty at Canadian universities. We fought hard to get the committee to agree to this study, this next important topic, and the witnesses have been lined up to commence next Thursday.
Tuesday is dedicated in our calendar to deal with finishing up reports on the French language in research and citizen science.
I would like to point out that the composition of our inaugural science and research parliamentary committee consists of 12 members, only two of whom are female.
Not only are the Conservatives insisting on ending the agreed-to order of studies; they are suggesting splitting the time of the meetings, with their study occupying the first hour and the pay equity study going second. Given the pattern of filibustering that was demonstrated by the Conservative opposition members at today's meeting and the disrespect shown to the witnesses, I have no assurances that they will not exhibit similar behaviour going forward and filibuster the second hour of the pay equity study, which then, in fact, would not occur, and those witnesses would be disrespected and dismissed as well.
This is not how our committee is supposed to work. We are sent here by our constituents to accomplish things and do important work. We rely on witnesses to provide expert testimony in order to help us arrive at logical, agreed-upon conclusions and recommendations. The tactics exhibited by the Conservatives today precluded that from being accomplished today. Member Tochor has already indicated that if we do not accede to their wishes, the entire month of June, until we rise, will proceed in this fashion. That was actually said.
These conditions are not conducive to compromise.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Thank you, Ms. Bradford.
We have other comments.
Next is Mr. Tochor.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Chair, just as a clarification, we are now debating the amendment to the motion, correct?
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
It's the subamendment, so once we're done with debate, we'll have a vote on that subamendment.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Yes. The subamendment is that:
the committee split the meetings for this study with the study of Long-term impacts of Pay Gaps Experienced by Different Genders and Equity-Seeking Groups Among Faculty at Canadian Universities, with this study being dedicated in the first hour
Is it a recorded vote? I see nods around the table.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The subamendment has passed and now we go to the amendment. Then we'll go to the main motion.
The amendment has been circulated in both languages, and it is:
that the committee allocate a minimum of six full meetings to this study; that the committee begin the study on June 20;
Is there any discussion on the amendment?
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Again, I think this issue is being studied at several committees. I'm not aware of all the studies, but as I understand it, either it has been studied elsewhere or it is in the process of being studied elsewhere. I'm not certain whether we have that information in hand. Is it possible to understand where...? It doesn't look like the clerk knows.
Look, what I've learned here in a year and a half is that we spin our wheels a lot instead of moving on to studies that will yield some benefit. We did this with the small modular reactors, right? We had a precedent there, and we've done that with two other studies since. I'd rather move on to new and different things to learn how to move legislation forward and look at financial investments that can be made in subject areas that are new to the committee and may possibly be new to the government.
With the recommendation we have in front of us in terms of the six meetings, I would certainly like to suggest, in light of the fact that there's some overlap with what's being studied here and what's being studied elsewhere, that we look at a different number in terms of number of meetings, and I would suggest four meetings, maybe as a compromise, Mr. Chair, if you would entertain that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
We have a motion to subamend the amendment to four meetings instead of six meetings.
Is there discussion on the subamendment?
