Evidence of meeting #13 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was job.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:55 a.m.
Professor, Economics Department, Saint Mary's University, As an Individual
I have thought about this question of what maternity should be within the same program, and there are some good reasons to have it outside.
On the other hand, there already are some different provisions and requirements for our parental benefits, special benefits, compared to regular ones. There's no reason that we couldn't have, within the same program, more diversity of criteria between the regular benefits and the special benefits.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Here is one other question related to that. If in fact it were outside it, how would you protect the job interruption?
10:55 a.m.
Professor, Economics Department, Saint Mary's University, As an Individual
I was going to go on to say that I would prefer to have it kept within EI, and partly because it is a job interruption. I think we need expectations of who works and of multiple-earner families and so on as that changes; then the range of job interruptions is more than just a question of our having a recession and your losing your job. I would like a comprehensive program that takes account of different forms of interruptions, which argues for keeping it within EI.
The second reason to keep it within EI is that we're not all going to get the Quebec program, if it goes provincial. We're don't know what we'll get, and I'm quite worried about what we might get in my province. I like the idea of there being some kind of national program, but I think we have to free the logic of the program parameters for those special benefits from some of the EI logic.
10:55 a.m.
Professor, Department of Economics, University of Toronto, As an Individual
The EI program does not provide job protection; I think that's important to realize. Job protection is dependent on provincial labour standards, so “freeing the benefits”—putting in a separate thing—isn't going to affect the job protection. The job protection is at the provincial level. It's part of employment standards there.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Professor Baker.
I think we've ended the rounds of debates, and I would like us to move on now.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here, for taking the time to come—in some cases on quite short notice—and for putting up with the fact that we had to cancel the very first one because of a vote.
I also would like to make a comment to everyone. I think, just on a point of respect with regard to committees and witnesses, it is important that committee members recognize that witnesses have come here because we've asked them to. If they say things we don't particularly like, we need to respect what they say without upbraiding them for what they have said or taking exception to what they say. We're here to listen. We may not always agree with what we hear, but it's supposed to be factored in.
I just wanted to set a tone here for committee meetings: that we should remember to respect our witnesses.
Thank you very much for coming. I apologize that I wasn't here for the beginning, but I want to thank Ms. Davidson for being absolutely an able chair and I wanted to thank you for coming.
There is one thing, though. I noticed that Dr. MacDonald talked about a report, and Dr. Lightman talked about some data, and some of you discussed information. We would be pleased if you would send that information along to the clerk so that we can pass it on to the committee, and the committee can therefore read it and absorb it themselves. If you think there is something you want to send to us, even if you didn't mention it here, we would appreciate any data you can send. Just please send it to the clerk.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I just have one question: whether any of you have any information or have done research on the costs to other systems when people are under the stress of EI. I know Ms. Mathyssen spoke to it, and we have seen increasing press on it now. But what are the costs to other systems? I don't know whether any of you have done any work on it, but I would certainly be interested in knowing that.
Thank you.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
This is very quick, and it pertains to what Professor Lightman told us about what's going on at the Lord Elgin and the lock-out of women workers. It bothers me very much that we're housing our witnesses in a place that is abusing women in this way. I'm wondering whether—
10:55 a.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
If I may comment, it was our choice to choose the hotel, and we didn't know. If I had known, we wouldn't have gone.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
This is actually not pertinent to the discussion, I believe, of EI, so I would like to move on and thank the witnesses again, so that we can move on.
This portion of the meeting is adjourned. Thank you for coming.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We have a bit of business to conduct before we meet the other witnesses. It's fairly short. It's to tidy up loose ends from business at the last meeting.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Well, we have to deal with business arising from the last meeting. So we want to tidy it up.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
There are some pieces of business that we had, as you will recall.
Regarding the motion from Madame Demers last week, there was a request for background information. We are not able to provide that background information today, because of translation. So this will have to come back to the next meeting, when we return just to deal with Madame Demers' motion.
I think it was Ms. McLeod who had asked for the information to be sent. Because of translation issues, we can't deal with it today. I just wanted you to know that.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Many of us who have chaired meetings in the past have dealt with Robert's Rules of Order. The motion to table is a Robert's Rules of Order motion. Here at the House of Commons, we deal with Marleau and Montpetit.
If members wish to remove a motion from the table, they can do one of two things. They can request an adjournment of debate. So let us say we were debating a motion on the table and people felt they just didn't want it; that is not debatable. If a member requests or moves a motion for ending debate, then it is not debatable. The chair immediately has to call the question on the motion on the floor.
A member could, however, as in the case of Ms. McLeod, actually put a motion forward to request adjournment to a particular date, asking for particular information for whatever reason. Now, that motion is debatable, so we can debate the motion or the feasibility of moving it forward. Then we vote on that, and if it passes, then we just get the information. If it doesn't pass, we have to get on with the debate on that motion.
Those are just the rules. I mention them just so you know them. I am used to the idea of tabling; and as soon as tabling goes on, there is no more discussion, and it moves forward. But that is in Robert's Rules of Order, whereas in Marleau and Montpetit, these are the rules.
Is everyone clear on that, so we can understand how we want to achieve what we want to achieve down the road?
Is it not clear, Sylvie?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right.
I just want to use an example. On Tuesday last week, Madame Demers had a motion on the table. We were debating it, and then Ms. McLeod requested.... No, actually, it was Madame Demers.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I wasn't here for that. It was Ms. Mathyssen's.
April 2nd, 2009 / 11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Oh, it was you. Sorry, Patricia.
Patricia requested a tabling of Madame Demers' motion. Of course, according to Robert's Rules of Order, tabling then supersedes everything; and you don't debate tabling, you just table it. But she wanted to table it for another day, based on getting information. That was fine.
However, I just wanted to tell you that tabling is not what you do under Marleau and Montpetit's rules, which we use here. Under Marleau and Montpetit, you have two choices. You can either request or move a motion to adjourn debate. If you move a motion to adjourn debate, that motion is not in itself debatable. You then have to call for the vote on the motion that was being debated, the substantive motion. Or you could move a motion to adjourn debate to another date or another time. As in Ms. Mathyssen's case, she could have said we should adjourn until we get the background information from Madame Demers. That motion to adjourn debate to another time is debatable. So you debate the motion to adjourn debate to another date; and then, of course, when that comes back, you debate the motion. Okay?
I say this just so that everybody is on the same page.
