HUMA Committee Meeting

     I will call this meeting to order.

     Welcome to meeting number four of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting at the request of four members of the committee to discuss service standards for employment insurance claims.

     Today’s meeting is taking place in the hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

     The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

    Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings. The “raise hand” feature at the bottom of the screen can be used at any time if you wish to speak or alert the chair.

    For members participating in the committee, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols.

    Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. I will remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

    As a further clarification before we begin, I will be giving time because, on another committee, we had a situation where the translation was moving more slowly than the proceedings on the floor. I will always ask if the translation has concluded and if each member has heard what was being translated before we proceed to a vote or a discussion on a motion, so that everybody knows what they're proceeding with.

    With that, as I indicated, we received a Standing Order 106 request. The clerk did notify me, so we called this meeting within the timeline allowed to consider the letter that was submitted.

    At this time, I will call on Madame Chabot.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning, colleagues.

    Because it is still January, I will wish everyone very happy 2022. I hope that committee members will soon be able to meet in person.

    We are meeting today further to the letter requesting that an emergency or special meeting be called pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). Indeed, Mr. Chair, the request was made because we are faced with an urgent situation involving many employment insurance claimants across Canada who are currently suffering the dramatic consequences of delays in processing of employment insurance files.

    For this reason, I would like to introduce a motion. May I go ahead, Mr. Chair?

     Yes, Madame Chabot.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    You have all received the motion. I will read it out to be sure that we are all on the same page. After that, I will briefly provide some background.

    I believe the wording of the motion is simple and engaging for these two ministers. As we know, the former is responsible for Service Canada, while the latter is responsible for the employment insurance program. Therefore, I feel the invitation to receive the two ministers responsible for these areas to be quite urgent.

    As I was saying, this is an urgent situation. Canadians across the country have been waiting to receive their employment insurance benefits for weeks, even months. This is putting them in unimaginable and inconceivable situations. We have heard a lot of testimony, and personally I would say the situation is chaotic.

    This is nothing new. The alarm bells have already gone off for the ministers responsible through emails, letters and media scrums. Everyone is crying out for assistance, and rightly so. I think it is appropriate that the ministers responsible for these areas appear before the committee and answer our questions. The goal is to put into perspective the measures taken to respond to this emergency situation.

    Some might say that the committee has other important work to do. I'm thinking of the motions you introduced to establish our agenda. On my opinion, next week we could carry out everything we need to do to in the motion. The other issues are important, but they can certainly wait. For the EI claimants who have been waiting for months, it must feel like time has stopped. It is our duty to do something, hence the motion.

    Go ahead, Mr. Long.

    Good morning to everybody, all of my colleagues.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.

    First and foremost, I want to say I appreciate Madame Chabot's contribution to HUMA. I've been on HUMA with her for two sessions. She is always very thoughtful and brings forward very important, thought-provoking motions.

    Having heard Madame Chabot's motion and giving it some thought, I would like to propose an amendment, if I could.

    Is it okay, Chair, if I keep going?

    Yes.

     The reason I would like to bring forth an amendment is the following. Madame Chabot wants to bring the minister to the committee to answer questions, but I have a few things on that. We certainly know that with omicron, the Christmas period and December claims, there is always a surge in EI claims at that point. What Madame Chabot wants to get at is very important, but I think it would be much better served by inviting officials to the committee.

    The reason I say that is that we've been on this committee for several years and thus, of course, it's very important that ministers come here, but to get to the root of this problem, Madame Chabot, I think the officials can speak to the much more technical issues that we need to get to the bottom of. I'm talking about call centre operations, staffing levels and how human resources are being deployed to resolve specific issues. If it's okay I think the motion would be much better with the following amendment. If the committee would indulge me, I would like to read an amendment if that's okay, Chair.

    Continue.

    It reads:

    Again, I think we would be much better served by getting a lot more technical answers as to what's happening. Look, all of our constituency offices get calls, but I think we'd be much better served by having the officials here. That's why I put forward the amendment.

    Thank you, Chair.

    Madame Chabot, you have your hand up.

    Mr. Chair, I'd like to react to Mr. Long's amendment. Can I go ahead?

    Yes.

    Mr. Long, thank you for your kind words. I always strive to make a useful contribution for the people that we members represent. In this case, it's an urgent situation.

    I understand the amendment, but I totally disagree and I will explain why.

    While Service Canada officials play an important role in answering questions, the fact remains that the bureaucratic apparatus serves the politicians, and the accountability lies with the politicians. I feel our two ministers have a responsibility to govern. They need to be heard and we need to be able to ask them questions

    I see no reason why we should call officials before calling ministers. I don't think I've ever seen that done. Of course, the officials are welcome. When we call the ministers, the officials are always there too. That's how we have always done things.

    In my opinion, we would normally call the ministers and have the officials attend as well. After the ministers have appeared, we can have some time with the officials, of course.

    Some aspects are political. As parliamentarians, we must be accountable for this situation in our own constituency offices, and this has to do with the ministers. I feel they are well placed to give us the straight goods and answer our questions on the directives given to officials on how to deal with this situation. That's what we expect, anyway.

    So I totally disagree with the amendment. I don't object to the officials appearing, it's the idea that they appear before the ministers.

    Thank you, Madame Chabot.

    Madame Ferrada and then Mr. Long had their hands up.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to lend my support for my colleague Mr. Long's amendment, given all the extremely important issues right now, as Ms. Chabot pointed out.

    I don't want to give the impression that we're minimizing the situation, quite the contrary. This is an extremely important issue. In fact, I have received a few calls about it myself in my constituency office.

    In my view, Mr. Long's proposal is very balanced, particularly due to the upcoming committee business. We also need to finish our studies on other extremely important issues.

    A good way to approach this would be to have departmental representatives come in to get answers on what I believe are very technical issues. Then we could determine whether we really need to go further.

    The committee needs to undertake several other studies, and I'm hoping that we can start doing that together fairly soon.

    So, I fully support my colleague's amendment.

     Thank you, Madame Ferrada.

    We'll go to Mr. Long. The next on the speaking list will be Mr. Jeneroux, who has his hand up, and then I will return to Madame Chabot, who still has her hand up.

    Go ahead, Mr. Long.

    Thanks, Chair. I'll be very brief.

    Through you, Chair, to Madame Chabot, the reason it's much more important to have the officials here is to get the technical and administrative answers that we need. I'm on the government side; it's no disrespect to the ministers at all.

    All of us are getting those calls. I applaud Madame Chabot for moving this forward, but we want to quickly get to the root of the problem, and the way to get to the root of the problem—we've been through this many times—is to talk to the officials who have that technical and administrative expertise, and who can really answer the questions.

    That's why I proposed the amendment for one hour. After that, I'm hoping we can get on with other committee business and look at all the other motions that other members from all parties have tabled.

    Thank you, Mr. Long.

    Go ahead, Mr. Jeneroux.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It's good to see everybody here. Happy new year from me.

    I just have to point out the hypocrisy that Mr. Long is trying to get across with his amendment here. He's saying “no disrespect to the minister”, but we don't want him here because he doesn't know the technical details of his file. Ultimately, he is saying he's not in charge of his file and he doesn't get what's going on in his ministry, so let's bring the officials instead.

    That said, I support Madame Chabot's motion, which I believe is very well thought out and proposed because it includes any other officials as well as the minister. In the committees that I have been a part of, generally the minister shows up and brings one or two officials. When there are questions that are just so technical in nature, as Mr. Long points out, the minister defers to the officials who are sitting right there.

    I would respectfully disagree with my colleague, Mr. Long, that it is only the officials who can answer these questions. The ministers are responsible for their files. They are the ones who should be held accountable, and that's what our committee is for.

    I go back to Madame Chabot's original motion and will be supporting it.

    Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

    Madame Chabot, did you have your hand up again?

    Yes, Mr. Chair.

    In front of all those watching and listening, especially the people who fell victim to these delays, personally, I would be embarrassed to oppose an urgent meeting with the ministers responsible for this issue.

    This is a disturbing situation. As elected officials, we should be concerned about it, and I hope that the ministers responsible are sufficiently concerned to appear before us and fill us in on the situation.

    As you know, we could have a meeting on Monday with one of the ministers responsible for this, who would be accompanied by officials. They could then answer the tough or highly technical questions about Service Canada, and that would be fine, but that's not the point. There may be technical problems, yes, but this is political.

    I could use the rest of my speaking time to share with you all the emergencies Canadians are facing. By the way, I am not trying to change my responsibilities as a member of Parliament here. It's not our role as members to do what Service Canada does, but we are here for Canadians. What are we supposed to tell people when they have been waiting for seven months?

    I may be given a technical explanation, that requests did indeed surge in December and January. Also, the lockdown in Quebec surely resulted in more applications to be processed. In addition, Quebec could be harder hit by identity theft issues. All these contextual factors could help explain things to us. However, I see absolutely no justification for a delay of that magnitude in processing applications, a delay that has left people with no income since last fall. I look forward to hearing the numbers so I can compare them to the information we have.

    I recently heard from someone who is waiting, who has no income and will be unable to pay the rent on Monday or child support. A Service Canada agent told them it was impossible to process their file any faster and that they had better find a job.

    If this doesn't qualify as a political issue, I don't know what would. I don't know why people are refusing to hear from the ministers, who should be just as concerned about the situation as we are.

    To sum up, I support the officials being here, as long as the ministers appear as well.

     Thank you, Madame Chabot.

    Next speaking are Mr. Coteau and then Mr. Long.

    Mr. Coteau.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

     I'd like to thank the member for her motion. I will be supporting the amendment to the motion. I do agree with MP Chabot that this is an urgent, serious issue and I think everyone here would agree that it's urgent and it's a very serious matter. But it is also complex and there's a very technical aspect to a ministry of this size and just how large the system is and the complexity that goes into it. I think we would be better served to hear from the bureaucrats who could come in and explain the technical side of this issue so we could determine where the challenges are and go forward from that point. I will be supporting MP Long's amendment. I think it's the right way to go. Again, this is a very serious issue but there is massive complexity to it as well. This is a large system. We have to remember that, yes, the minister is without question responsible for this file, but it is the bureaucrats who look after the administration of the system. Let's go right to the source and figure out what within the system needs to be corrected.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

     Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

    Mr. Long, you had your hand up? No.

    Madam Chabot, did you have your hand up again?

    Okay. Seeing as there's nobody wishing to speak on the amendment, I will call for a vote on it.

    I will ask the clerk to read the amendment so everyone knows what they're voting on.

    Madam Clerk, do you have the amendment?

    I am still waiting for a copy of the amendment. I need confirmation from Mr. Long.

    Right now what I have reads:

    If Mr. Long could repeat the end of that, it would be great or if he can send a copy to me, that would be wonderful.

    I'm happy to read it again, Mr. Chair, if that is what the committee wants.

    Go ahead and read it into the record, Mr. Long.

    Thank you.

    It is as follows:

    Madam Zarrillo, do you have your hand up?

    I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to ask about seconding these motions and amendments. I don't think they need a seconder but I would just like this to be clarified.

    Madam Clerk, can you clarify that for Madam Zarrillo?

    A seconder is not required in committees.

    Do we need to wait until we see this amendment in two languages before it can move forward?

    No.

    The clerk can speak to it. Because it's an amendment during debate, translation services does not cover that, Madam Zarrillo.

    Okay. Thank you very much.

    I have a few comments.

    Mr. Chair, I'd like to share them with the committee through you.

    Certainly.

    I want to talk about the fact that this is definitely a very serious situation. There is a critical need for EI recipients to receive the entitlements that they're expecting.

    I appreciate this debate about the political and technical side of this.

    My question is regarding the status of these issues. We did get some briefing notes, but there hasn't been an update for a while. I believe that if we have ESDC come to the committee, they can answer my question, which is when are people's payments going to be restored? That is the number one thing on my mind.

    I can support the motion on an hour of technical staff coming up because there are competing priorities in this committee and I want to get to as many of those priorities as possible. Many people in this community need support because of what happened during COVID and some of the shortfalls that have been there for a long time.

    I want to mention people living with disabilities, those who feel exploited in the workforce, those who have worked the front lines of this pandemic and those who are awaiting serious investments in housing due to this housing crisis. I know the people who elected me and people who elected this government across the country are counting on this committee to work effectively and quickly to inform the government on potential legislation that can lift people out of poverty, improve working conditions for many who have worked on the front lines in this pandemic, and fix the housing crisis.

    I'm here to do that work.

    Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

    Madam Kusie, do you have your hand up?

     Yes. Thank you, Chair.

    Happy new year, everyone. It's so nice to get back to work here in the new year. I really wish everyone the best.

     I also want to take a moment to thank the administration for being here today and supporting the work we're doing. It's great. We recognize and appreciate your presence here today. Thank you so much for doing that.

    I want to agree with Ms. Zarrillo. Yes, this work absolutely has to be done on this committee of getting to these other priorities that Canadians have brought us here for. I couldn't agree more. There's no better way to do that than to bring in those who are at the highest level and most responsible for this work being done, and that's the ministers. There is no greater opportunity for direct accountability to our citizens, whom we've come here to represent, than to have the ministers here.

     I completely support what Ms. Zarrillo said: that we are here and we want to get to work. This is a very outstanding—and not in a good way—piece of an issue that Madame Chabot has brought forward. If we want to get to work for Canadians and we want to really get that accountability for them that we all came to Ottawa virtually or in person for, the best way to do that is to get the ministers here and get the answers directly from those who are ultimately held accountable for everything that's going on. As my colleague Mr. Jeneroux did point out, within the motion it does say other individuals or other supports as required to support those questions, but the best way to get accountability, to get answers and to get action is to have the ministers appear.

    Also, with that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to see if we could get the motion in writing, please. I think a written copy would be helpful, just to very clearly outline perhaps which officials—as a former public official myself, I never like using the word “bureaucrat”—we can expect and the length of time for that.

    I will leave my comments there, but again, thank you so much, Madame Chabot, for bringing this important issue to Canadians. Let's get the ministers here so that we can get answers at the highest levels for those whom we came here to represent, and then keep moving forward with this committee.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mrs. Kusie.

    Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I don't have the wording of Mr. Long's amendment in front of me. Although I understand the spirit of the amendment, I am against it.

    I spelled out why I think it's necessary that the ministers responsible for this appear before the committee and answer our questions. It is not malicious; I think it is even healthy, democratically speaking. Given that so many people have challenged and continue to indirectly challenge the ministers responsible for this, I would be honoured to come and answer all the questions if I were in their shoes.

    Having said that, if I had the wording of the amendment, I could suggest a subamendment in the spirit of cooperation. Since I do not, I would not know where to insert my subamendment, so I will give you the essence of it. In the first hour of the meeting on Monday, January 31, I would like us to hear from the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Ms. Gould, who is responsible for Service Canada. We would spend the second hour with officials from that department.

    I hereby submit a subamendment to be tagged onto the amendment. Having the wording of the amendment on hand would make things easier.

    Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

     Before we go to that, Mr. Ruff has his hand up.

    Mr. Ruff, you have the floor.

    Thanks, Chair.

    My question very much aligns with Madame Chabot's. I'm just trying to understand the amendment and how it changes or makes any deletions to the original motion. As I understood it, Mr. Long is proposing that these officials show up first and then the ministers would still be forthcoming, but I just want to get clarity as to the exact amendment. Obviously if that's not the case, if he's proposing we delete the original motion and have a completely new motion, then obviously Madame Chabot's intervention, what she's proposing, is a subamendment.

    Can we get some clarity on the full motion and on the amendment? I'd appreciate that.

    Thanks.

    Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

    I'm going to ask the clerk to read Mr. Long's amendment slowly into the record.

    Madam Clerk, do you have Mr. Long's amendment?

    I do indeed.

    In the original motion—

    Just so everybody is clear, Madam Clerk is going to read Mr. Long's amendment to the main motion.

    Madam Clerk.

    Mr. Long's amendment reads as follows:

    Okay. I'm going to call on Mr. Long, but you've heard Mr. Long's amendment.

    Mr. Long, do you have a comment?

    Thank you, Chair.

    Through you to the member, the intent of the amendment was to have the officials instead of the minister appear for one hour. The second hour we'd get to committee business and onto the other motions.

    Thank you, Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Long.

    Seeing no other discussion, I will call for a vote on the first amendment, Mr. Long's amendment.

    Clerk, am I correct on that?

    Madame Chabot had raised her hand.

    I think the chair called the vote though before the hand went up, if I saw it correctly.

    The recorded vote is on the amendment by Mr. Long.

    Thank you, Madam Clerk.

    Now, unless there is other discussion, we will move to vote on the main motion—

    I'm sorry, Chair, but can you reread that vote again, the yeas and nays?

    It is five yeas and six nays.

     I don't believe so....

    So the amendment was voted down?

    Now—

    It was five nays and six yeas.

    It was a recorded vote.

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    Okay. It was six yeas. There we go. Thank you.

    I see Mr. Ruff.

    It's more of a point of order, Chair. I'm a little confused here. Are we going to vote on the subamendment?

     There was a subamendment on the floor before the vote was called. I thought we actually had to deal with the subamendment before we deal with the actual amendment. We have to stay within procedure of the House of Commons here. Could I just get some clarity on that, please?

    Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

    I opened and Madame Chabot did not indicate.... If Madame Chabot wants to return.... I wasn't clear if it was an amendment.

    I was going to ask the same thing, Mr. Chair. I formally announced that I was putting forward a subamendment, although I had not written out. It has now been written out.

    I was going to ask that Mr. Long's amendment be sent to us in writing, but we made do without it. The amendment ended up going to a vote and, when I raised my hand, you told me that voting was in progress and that we needed to finish it. I should have objected to that.

    My question is about procedure. Procedure should be at our service, but sometimes we need help. Perhaps I did not react quickly enough.

    By adopting Mr. Long's amendment we have just precluded the ministers' appearance on this urgent issue. I simply cannot believe it.

    Now, we are done with voting. I repeat that I'd like to introduce a subamendment so that we can also call Minister Gould, in addition to officials, on January 31. I would like my subamendment to be considered.

     Of course, Madame Chabot. It just wasn't clear to me at the time. I was going to go back to you.

    Madam Clerk, Madame Chabot had made a subamendment to the amendment. I'm correct...?

    I actually just received the text two minutes ago—

    The Chair: Okay.

    The Clerk: —and she did make changes to it.

    Changes to her subamendment...?

    From the text I received here, she made changes to the amendment of Mr. Long.

    Okay. Can we be clear on the subamendment that Madame Chabot wants the committee to consider?

    The committee has made a decision on the amendment. It can rescind that decision.

    What's the wish of the committee?

    With respect, Mr. Chair, we've voted on the amendment already.

    Madam Clerk?

    The committee can choose to rescind that decision of the vote on the amendment.

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, on the same issue.

    Go ahead, Mr. Ruff.

    Thanks, Chair.

    My point is that we have to follow the process. Again, I'm not the expert on the complete Standing Orders, but if a subamendment is tabled, we can't vote on something that.... We have to deal with the subamendment first before we can deal with the amendment, and Madame Chabot clearly stated “here's the subamendment to the amendment”. We can't vote on the amendment till the subamendment debate has been dealt with.

    Madam Clerk, could you give an explanation on the procedural...?

     The clerk called the vote on the amendment.

    Yes. The chair did call for the amendment, and we did do a vote on the amendment. The committee can choose to rescind that decision and return back.

    On a point of order, Mr. Chair, was the subamendment presented prior to the vote?

    Not that—

    Yes. Yes, it was.

    If it was presented, what was it?

    Madam Clerk, was the subamendment presented before the vote?

    Madame Chabot had raised her hand and spoke to a document. She did raise her hand before the vote was called, and she did submit the subamendment, the document for a subamendment, after the vote; probably immediately afterwards I received the text—

     It's therefore out of order, Mr. Chair.

    Madam Clerk?

    I do have a document here that was submitted by Madame Chabot, with the amendment from Mr. Long.

    So procedurally, should we consider it a subamendment, Madam Clerk?

    We can rescind the decision on the amendment and return back to the subamendment, should it be the will of the committee.

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

    Rescinding it would be a new direction for the committee. The question was whether or not the subamendment came after Mr. Long's amendment. If Mr. Long's amendment was first and we voted on it, which we did, then I don't know how we go backwards—only to vote on rescinding the actual motion. But at this point right now, I would suggest that the subamendment is completely out of order.

    Is that correct, Mr. Chair?

    Madam Clerk, do you have a comment?

    The committee can choose to rescind the the vote on Mr. Long's amendment and return back to discuss that amendment, and the subamendment of Madame Chabot.

    Mr. Coteau.

    On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that doesn't really answer the question.

    I guess it comes to your decision, Mr. Chair. It seems to me that the motion that's currently being presented was presented after we voted on the original motion from Mr. Long, and therefore it's out of order. I think we should just proceed, based on how we voted.

    Mr. Chair, on this same point of order, I would offer this: Suspend the meeting momentarily and go back to the record. I clearly heard Madame Chabot introduce her subamendment verbally prior to any vote being called.

    I would recommend that we suspend and check the record, Chair, and you'll see that she introduced her subamendment prior to the vote's being called. That way we can put this to bed and make sure we're following procedure.

    Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

     Before I go to Madame Chabot, I'm going to suspend for three minutes so that I can consult with the clerk.

    We will suspend for three minutes. Thank you.

     Thank you, committee members. The committee will resume.

    For clarification to the committee, I may not have totally heard Madame Chabot's discussion about wanting to move her subamendment. To be clear and fair, the option before the committee is to rescind the vote on the amendment and then we'll go to Madame Chabot's subamendment and let her introduce her subamendment to the amendment.

    We'll do that if it's agreeable and nobody is in disagreement.

    I see Mr. Ruff's hand up.

    It would be my intention to ask the committee to—

    Mr. Chair, it seems to me I asked to speak before Mr. Ruff did.

    Okay.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Chair, I asked to speak before you made a decision, which I agree with. I wanted to say to those watching and listening that, in the spirit of cooperation—those were my exact words—I clearly announced that I was ready to put forward a subamendment to the effect that, at the January 31 meeting, we would call the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to appear in the first hour, and the officials to appear in the second hour. I think that is a very good compromise between my initial motion and Mr. Long's amendment.

    Here is the wording of the subamendment:

    Thank you, Madame Chabot.

    We will go to the clerk to be clear, but first I'm going to Mr. Ruff, who had his hand up, and then we'll have Mr. Long.

    Go ahead, Mr. Ruff.

    Thanks, Chair.

    I just want to make sure it is crystal clear that on page 1006 in chapter 20 of the big green book House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it reads, “When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is put to a vote first.”

    Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

    The confusion was that, as chair, I did not hear clearly or was not clear on Madame Chabot's intentions, so I have gone back and consulted on that.

    Go ahead, Mr. Long.

    Thank you, Chair.

    The only thing I would say to that.... I know we're debating a subamendment, but I just want to make sure that we don't break precedent.

    We voted on the amendment. With the greatest respect—I hold Madame Chabot in the highest regard—Madame Chabot voted on the amendment and didn't once say, “Hold on, where's my subamendment?” That's what I'm struggling with on this. Madame Chabot vaguely mentioned a subamendment, but there were no real specifics to it. She then voted on the amendment and never said another word.

    That's what I'm struggling with.

    Thank you, Mr. Long.

    Go ahead, Madame Chabot.

    Mr. Chair, you are probably right that I haven't been alert enough in terms of the procedure for subamendments and amendments. I thought you were going to consider my subamendment. True, I still have some things to learn about procedure. However, that doesn't change the fact that I submitted my subamendment properly. I believe everyone can recognize that. The committee members did not receive the wording of my proposal, just as we had not received the wording of Mr. Long's amendment.

    Committee members, given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate it if you would proceed in accordance with the intent that was submitted.

     Thank you, Madame Chabot.

    I will go to the clerk to be clear, but I'm going to ask the committee to consider rescinding the vote it took so that we can then go back and vote in sequence, which would be Madame Chabot's subamendment to Mr. Long's amendment. Then we will vote on Mr. Long's amendment. Then we will return to the main motion as amended.

    Do I get agreement from the committee—thumbs-up on that—so that I can get a sense from the committee?

    Chair, I don't think we will rescind it. We did the vote. With the greatest respect, we voted. I personally say that we've already voted on the amendment, so I'm not in favour of rescinding—sorry.

    Chair, as a point of order, I would just offer that we have to be careful that we are not going to start breaking our House of Commons Procedure and Practice here. This is our first committee meeting back, on a Friday, with lots of things going on—an amendment, a subamendment—and it does get confusing, but it's clear from the record. She moved a subamendment. I just think that we should follow the common practice. If it is the will of the committee to defeat that subamendment, then the vote will determine that.

    Let's just follow our procedures and we'll get through this. We can finish and we can get on to the business at hand next week, based on the will of the committee.

    Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

    I'm going to ask Madam Clerk, is the amendment that was voted on in order?

    Is that the amendment of Mr. Long?

    Yes.

    It was in order—

    Was the amendment of Mr. Long that was voted on in order?

    The text received was in order in terms of under the mandate and the work of the committee. Is that what you are referring to?

    Was the vote in order as well?

    Well, that is a decision of the chair and the committee as to what it decides to do next.

    I'm going to ask Madame Chabot if she would like to move—so we can clear this—a new motion along the same lines. Then we can proceed to vote on this.

    That was my question. I want to know if I could introduce a new motion. If I can, rest assured, I will.

    Yes.

    I still would like to set the record straight.

    I hope we all realize that, as a matter of procedure, we have just blithely ruled out calling the minister to appear on a very important issue.

    With respect to my subamendment, I recall that I had my hand up on the screen when the vote was taken on Mr. Long's amendment, but I was told that the vote was in progress.

    It's neither black nor white, however. Some errors in procedure were made, but after the break you told me, Mr. Chair, that you were prepared to consider the subamendment. I understand that we do not have a consensus on that. I am therefore prepared to put forward a new motion.

    Mr. Chair, could you please give me a moment?

    Okay. Thank you, Madame Chabot.

    We will proceed, then, with Madame Chabot's introducing the new motion.

    Madame Chabot, whenever you are ready....

    On a point of order, Mr. Chair, my understanding is that we cannot debate two motions at a time. We need to go back to the motion at hand before going to another motion.

    Madam Clerk...?

    I'm sorry, Madame Ferrada. I meant that Madame Chabot would introduce a new amendment. It's an amendment.

    Madame Chabot, you have the opportunity to introduce a new amendment.

    Thank you, Madame Ferrada.

    You aren't making it easy for me, so I must put forward a new amendment.

    The wording of the new amendment will be in the same spirit as what I thought I had made clear was a subamendment, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

    My amendment will therefore be to invite the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for the first hour and Service Canada officials for the second hour on Monday, January 31.

    Is that clear?

     Thank you, Madame Chabot.

    I'm going to ask the clerk to give us direction, so that everybody is clear on where we're going.

    We have an amendment by Mr. Long that was voted on and now the committee is considering an amendment by Madame Chabot.

    Is Madame Chabot able to amend her motion?

    Ms. Chabot cannot amend her motion. Her original motion is still being debated by the committee.

    Would Madame Chabot's amendment be out of order?

    A member cannot amend their own motion.

    Can Madame Chabot proceed by making an amendment to Mr. Long's amendment?

    There was a vote on the amendment by Mr. Long, and it was decided upon. The committee is returning to the debate on the main motion, which is the original motion moved by Madame Chabot.

    The committee has heard the procedural direction.

    Madame Chabot, it does not appear that you can move an amendment to your motion.

    Go ahead, Mr. Ruff.

    Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    We got that Madame Chabot can't do it.

    It's clear—

    Someone else can do it.

    The amendment has been passed and you're not rescinding it. Again, I express my concern about misusing procedure.

    When we go back to the original motion to vote on it, I'll be confused. Based on the amendment, I don't know how we.... I guess we can still do it; it's just because there's no timeline in the original motion. If we pass the original motion, the minister would still be forthcoming, if I understand that correctly.

    If not, I'd like some clarity on that procedurally as we debate this and vote on the main motion. I'm more than willing to move the subamendment that Madame Chabot has proposed to the committee.

    Madame Clerk, I believe any other member of the committee could move an amendment and it would be voted on. As it was indicated, the mover of a motion cannot amend their motion.

    Mr. Ruff, do you want to make a similar amendment?

    I'm willing to make that amendment, but I'm still trying to understand this.

    Procedurally, if we vote on the main motion and it passes, because there are no specific timelines directed from that, if I remember from what was emailed to everybody.... There is a timeline. It's no later than February 4 for those ministers to appear.

    My assumption is that we'll get exactly what Madame Chabot wants and we'll get what Mr. Long wants. We'll get the officials appearing here on Monday, and then we'll get the ministers appearing no later than the fourth. Both could work here; we can get the amendment that's already passed and we can still get the original motion adopted.

    If that isn't the case and I've misunderstood that, I am willing to move the new amendment to the amendment or the amendment to the main motion, whatever it is, to make this happen to go forward. I guess it's not a subamendment to the amendment, because it's already been voted on; it would be an amendment to the main motion. I think the main motion is still in order and it doesn't take away from the amendment that was made.

    A point of order, Mr. Chair.

    Go ahead, Madame Martinez Ferrada.

    I’m sorry, but I’m quite confused at the moment about procedure, and I think several other committee members are as well. Would it be possible to ask the clerk to read the motion as amended by the adopted amendment?

    I'd like us to start again.

    Reset the clock on the motion that has been voted on with the amendment. We can then proceed and see if other members want to present an amendment to the motion already adopted with the amendment, and we can move forward and get everybody on the same page.

    Does that make sense?

     Thank you, Madam Ferrada. That's where I was going to go.

    We do have an amendment that was voted on and carried. I'm going to ask the clerk to read the motion as amended.

    Madam Clerk, take it slowly.

    Mr. Chair, just by way of clarification, the vote on the amendment by Mr. Long was five yeas and six nays. It was defeated. That was the amendment by Mr. Long. As such, we will be returning back to the original motion of Madame Chabot.

     A point of order, Mr. Chair.

    An hon. member: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

    A point of order.

    It was not defeated.

    An hon. member: It was not defeated.

    Mr. Wayne Long: No.

    Madam Clerk, there seems to be confusion on the vote.

    It was six yeas to five nays.

    I have five yeas and six nays.

    On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we've seen these numbers switch back and forth three or four times now. I'm 100% clear that it was six in favour and five against—100% clear—so I don't know where this new number is coming from.

    In the recorded division—

    Madam, with respect, can you reread what you have for votes? Can you reread that?

    I have Mr. Long, yea; Mr. Coteau, yea; Mr. Collins, yea; Mr. Van Bynen, yea; and Ms. Martinez Ferrada, yea.

    I have Mr. Jeneroux, nay; Ms. Kusie, nay; Mr. Benzen, nay; Mr. Ruff, nay; Madame Chabot, nay; and Madam Zarrillo, nay.

    Madam Zarrillo, I believe, voted yea—I believe.

    I'm going to suspend for a moment to consult.

    We'll suspend for five minutes.

    Thank you, committee members. I'm going to....

    The only one who didn't say anything....

    Madam Zarrillo, could you confirm your vote on the amendment that was voted on? Was it nay or yea?

    Chair Morrissey, I said the word “yes” on my vote.

     Okay. That's what I thought I heard at the time.

    I do have some comments, but I'll wait until we decide what we're doing here.

    Therefore, the vote was indeed six yeas and five nays.

     If you give me a moment, I can read out the motion as amended.

    Thank you, Madam Clerk.

    The motion as amended reads as follows:

    That is the motion as amended.

    Committee members, you have heard the motion as amended. Is there any further debate or any other discussion?

    Go ahead, Mr. Ruff.

    Thanks, Chair.

    As Madame Chabot had introduced her amendment earlier, and it's inadmissible for her to make that amendment to the now amended motion, I will so move what she had read into the record.

    Could we have that repeated, Mr. Ruff—or Madam Clerk, if we have that?

    If the clerk could do it, that would make my life easier. Again, I'm not writing everything down here, as we're in committee.

    Madam Clerk, do you have that?

    I would ask that Mr. Ruff repeat his amendment, please.

     I so move what Madame Chabot had already introduced as a potential amendment to the amended motion.

    Madam Clerk, when you have the clarification, please read it slowly into the record so that committee members know what we're discussing and possibly voting on.

    I'm looking for clarification from the committee as per the—

    Mr. Chair, I'll interject, and Madame Chabot can intervene if I'm getting this wrong. It's that Minister Gould appear for one hour on Monday the 31st, and officials for the second hour.

    That's clear. Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

    Madam Clerk, could you read that back, when you have it, to the committee?

    Madame Ferrada, do you have a comment while we're waiting for the clerk to clarify?

    I'll wait for the clerk to read the amendment again. I just wanted to make a comment on the amendment.

     The amendment as proposed reads, “That the officials appear in front of the committee for one hour on January 31, 2022, and also public servants of Service Canada on January 31, 2022, for another hour, on the subject of the processing times that exceed the goal of a 30-day service standard for responding to Canadian employment insurance claimants at Service Canada.”

    Chair, that isn't what I moved. I specifically moved that the minister appear for one hour on Monday the 31st, and officials for the second hour.

    Can Mr. Ruff kindly submit that in writing to the committee, please?

    Absolutely. Give me a moment.

    Mr. Ruff is doing that because there seems to be some confusion between what's being recorded and what Mr. Ruff said.

    I will go to Madame Ferrada and then Madam Zarrillo.

    Do you want to talk about something, or wait until we have clarification on the exact amendment that Mr. Ruff is putting forward?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I understood what my colleagues Ms. Chabot and Mr. Ruff proposed.

    I would like to come back to the amendment that was originally put forward and that was adopted by the members of the committee. It also reflects the willingness to take time at the next committee meeting to talk about committee business.

    Indeed, there are many other issues that we look forward to studying, such as housing, health, disability care and benefits, and labour shortages. There are still many other issues that we need to study, so we need to balance the work of the committee and allow time for other studies as well. Having officials for an hour will allow us to deal with this issue, which is extremely important, I would remind you, but it will also allow committee members to discuss the next study to be undertaken. I hope we will have time to discuss it next Monday.

    For that reason, I cannot support my colleague's amendment.

     Thank you, Madame Ferrada.

    Madam Zarrillo.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I will wait to see what the decision is, but I just want to bring up that I've seen in the past many things that have happened in committee, not just this committee but in other committees that I've watched, that have been outside of the procedure book or have been out of order. For example, I've seen in this HUMA committee in the past where the mover of a motion has amended the motion and it has been accepted even though it wasn't in order, and it moved forward.

    It just shows how difficult it is for group decision-making tables to question things that they know are incorrect or out of order.

    On this one, I'm not going to say that I know the book. It's right here, and I don't have the time to look at it, but when a motion gets moved to the floor and an amendment happens, the amendment gets dealt with before the motion. If there's a subamendment, that would be dealt with, but I've never seen a motion come to the floor, an amendment comes—and I'm not disputing that there wasn't a subamendment or that it wasn't addressed—but then on that main motion we haven't voted on yet we get another subamendment. I just have to say that I'm uncomfortable with the on-the-fly stuff we are doing right now and I think that's why we ask that things come to the committee with 48 hours for true consideration.

    I'll just revisit the fact that this is a very serious situation. There is critical need for EI recipients to receive their entitlements when they are expecting them, and the technical and potentially fraud-related problems with their distribution must be resolved immediately. It is my understanding, from briefing notes, that ESDC is aware of this, has begun implementation, and has committed “to support clients on a priority basis when their benefits have been impacted as a result of identity theft.”

    I'll also note for people who might be watching this meeting who are wondering why we are going back and forth on procedure when they haven't received payments for months, please, if you are a victim of this fraud, please make a phone call to the police, to the Canada Anti-Fraud Centre, to the two national credit union bureaus, including Equifax and TransUnion, and also to your banks and creditors to report the fraud.

    I will also reiterate at this point that it seems to me to be reasonable to get answers to the question of how to get people the benefits to which they are entitled and that we do have competing priorities in this committee that I'd like to get to.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

    Next is Madame Chabot, and then Madam Kusie has her hand up.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    If we want to talk at length about what is happening today procedurally, we can also wonder about the fact that had to make the committee wait to check the outcome of a vote.

    Of course I will support the amendment that I was ultimately not able to put forward myself, and I thank my colleague for proposing it for me.

    I don't agree with the reason given for opposing the proposal. Some people think it will be terrible if we don't spend an hour on Monday, January 31, at the committee's first regular meeting, studying the motions put forward by each party. Personally, I am much more concerned and troubled by the fact that people are without income because they have been waiting for their EI benefits for about 15 weeks or even for seven months.

    As I said in my presentation, the world will continue to turn even if the committee doesn't take an hour from its January 31 meeting to discuss members' motions. If the committee feels that it is more urgent to discuss these motions than to deal with known problematic situations, then we will simply have to add an hour to the committee meeting or meet as a subcommittee to do an initial sorting of the motions, as we have already done. There are different ways of managing our schedule.

    In short, speaking to our motions shouldn't be more important or more urgent than hearing from a minister and her officials on an issue where Canadians are waiting and appealing to us.

     Thank you, Madame Chabot.

    I have Madam Kusie.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to make sure that all committee members are clear that now that we have voted on the amendment, the original motion has been dismissed. The original motion no longer exists now that we have the amendment. I want to make sure that all members are clear on that.

    I also want to say to people who are watching, to anyone who is watching out there, if you are a victim of this problem that we seek to address, then you will want your member of Parliament to ensure that they get the ministers here, the people who are at the highest level, to ensure they have these responses for you, as a citizen and as a victim. Make sure—demand—that your member of Parliament is calling for the ministers.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Madam Kusie.

    Madame Chabot, your hand is up. Do you want to speak? No? Okay.

    With that, I'm going to ask the clerk to read—so we've got it right—Mr. Ruff's subamendment. Or is it an amendment?

    Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

    It's an amendment to the motion as amended.

    As amended—okay. So we're clear.

    Right now, Mr. Ruff has moved that the motion be amended by replacing the words “officials appear in front of the committee for one hour” with the words “committee invite the Minister of Families Children and Social Development to appear for one hour before officials”.

    Mr. Ruff, is this okay?

     That's good.

    So that we're all clear, again, we're voting on an amendment to the motion as amended.

    Again, Madam Clerk, read it one more time, and then we're going to a vote.

    The motion as amended would read “That the committee invite the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to appear for one hour before officials, for one hour on January 31, 2022, on the subject of the processing times that exceed the goal of a 30-day service standard for responding to Canadian Employment Insurance claimants at Service Canada.”

    Thank you, Madam Clerk.

    I'll ask for a recorded vote.

    I know we're voting right now, but I had my hand up before the vote, Mr. Chair.

    The amendment that was read to us does not seem to indicate that the officials will be with us during the second hour. I just want to make sure they'll be present.

    Excuse me, Madame Chabot. I'm sorry. There is no translation.

    There's no translation. We did not get that. Could you repeat that, Madame Chabot?

    The amendment that was put forward was that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development be present in the first hour of the January 31 meeting and that her appearance be followed by a meeting with officials in the second hour.

    Given the way the amendment was read, I just want to make sure that the officials will still be here in the second hour.

    I should point out that I had my hand up before the vote.

    Madam Clerk, the motion was read twice. It was clear what we're voting on.

    We'll continue with the vote, Madam Clerk.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: The amendment has been defeated. We will now proceed to a vote on the motion as amended.

     Please go ahead with a recorded vote, Madam Clerk.

     Mr. Chair, can I please have the motion read one more time before I vote?

    Madam Clerk, please read it one more time for Madam Zarrillo. I just want everybody to be clear.

    It reads as follows:

    Can I get clarity on who's in the “officials” bucket?

    That is not in the motion, Madam Zarrillo. That will be determined by the committee.

    Okay.

    I was following this process where we had a motion on the floor. Then we had a subamendment. Then we had a sub-subamendment. The sub-subamendment wasn't considered, but the subamendment was considered. We voted on it. Then we went back to the original motion, which we didn't vote on, but there was another subamendment that came to it. So the subamendment that I thought we voted on....

    I'm just wondering where this motion came from. I'm just asking for clarity. I want to make sure I know exactly what I'm voting on.

    Well, we're in the middle of a vote, Madam Zarrillo. It was read several times. It is now prudent that the committee continue and finish its vote.

    Chair...? Or maybe I'm not allowed to....

    No, committee, we're in the middle of a vote. The motion was read. It was made clear to everybody.

    Madam Clerk, could you continue and finish the vote?

    (Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The main motion as amended has been carried.

    Mr. Long, you had your hand up, and then Madame Chabot.

    Thank you, Chair.

    I'd like to move that the committee do now adjourn.

    Committee, there has been a motion to adjourn.

    Those in favour?

    Mr. Chair, I had my hand up because I wanted to reconsider my vote.

    Okay. Thank you....

    Go ahead, Madame Chabot. Sometimes you're moving in and out of the “hands” status, and—

    I want to vote against the motion.

    Madam Clerk, did we not conclude the vote?

     I provided the fact that it was six yeas and the vote was concluded. I received all of the votes.

    The vote was concluded, Madame Chabot.

    I'll go back to Mr. Long and then Madame Kusie.

    On a point of order, I believe the vote count was wrong.

    Anyway, I had my hand up before, Mr. Chair.

    It was six nays and five yeas. That vote was also recorded incorrectly.

    No, it wasn't.

    Madame Clerk, what was Madame Chabot's vote?

    I recorded Madame Chabot as a yea, pour.

    That's what I heard as well.

    The vote was carried and we moved on.

    Mr. Chair, according to procedure, I can reconsider my vote. I don't want to reconsider everyone's vote, but just mine. I am voting against the motion.

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    Is that allowed under the procedures?

    As far as I know, it is.

    Madame Clerk, could you answer that?

    You would have to ask the committee if they have unanimous consent. The unanimous consent of members is required.

    Thank you.

    Does the committee give its unanimous consent for Madame Chabot to change her recorded vote?

    An hon. member: No.

    The Chair: We do not have unanimous consent.

    We will then move to Mr. Long. You had your hand up.

    I'm sorry.

    Mr. Chair—

    Go ahead, Madam Zarrillo.

    Mr. Chair, I raised my hand, not against unanimous consent, but to say that if Madame Chabot is changing her vote, I would also appreciate the opportunity—

    Madam Zarrillo, it takes just one individual to deny unanimous consent. There was no unanimous consent. The vote is as recorded.

    Madame Chabot, before we move to the vote on adjournment—

    I'm sorry. I would like to make the same request that Madam Chabot made, to revoke my vote.

    Do we have unanimous consent?

    An hon. member: No.

    Mr. Chair, if I might interject, what might have happened is that one member voted one way and meant the other, and another member voted one way and meant the other.

    In the end it's still a wash, if you will. Even though the recorded vote may be.... It still comes out the same.

    We need to move on and deal with the motion to adjourn.

    We have a motion to adjourn.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thank you, committee members. I look forward to seeing you on Monday.

    The meeting is adjourned.