HUMA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3)(a), as the clerk of the committee, I will preside over the election of the chair and the vice-chairs.
I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order and cannot participate in debate.
We can now proceed to the election of the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.
I am ready to receive motions for the chair.
Go ahead, Madam Koutrakis.
Are there any further motions?
It has been moved by Ms. Koutrakis that Mr. Morrissey be elected as chair of the committee.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. Morrissey duly elected chair of the committee.
Thank you for the nomination. Sometimes there are no choices.
Before we begin, I want to remind everybody to choose the language that you wish to participate in during the meeting. Make sure you're on the right channel so that you can fully participate.
Please refrain from tapping the microphone booms or doing any reaching to ensure the safety of our translators and interpreters.
If the committee is in agreement, I invite the clerk to preside over the election of the vice-chairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition.
I am now ready to receive motions for the first vice-chair.
Mr. Genuis.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
I can just say, first of all, congratulations to you, Mr. Chair. We look forward to working with you.
I'm pleased to nominate Ms. Rosemarie Falk as the vice-chair.
It has been moved by Mr. Genuis that Ms. Falk be elected as first vice-chair of the committee.
Are there any further motions?
I will now put the motion to the committee. It has been moved by Mr. Genuis that Ms. Falk be elected as first vice-chair of the committee.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Ms. Falk duly elected the first vice-chair of the committee.
Congratulations, Ms. Falk.
I believe that of the current members on this committee, you have the most extensive experience. You were here before me.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.
I am now prepared to receive motions for the second vice-chair.
Go ahead, Madame Desrochers.
[Translation]
First, let me congratulate Mrs. Falk and the chair.
I nominate Marilène Gill for the role of second vice-chair.
It has been moved by Ms. Desrochers that Mrs. Gill be elected as second vice-chair of the committee.
Are there any further motions?
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Now that we have dealt with the election of the executive of the committee, we will move to the adoption of the routine motions.
Is that right, Clerk?
To all members, especially incoming members, committees generally adopt routine motions that have been discussed by the various parties. These motions, if you choose to adopt them, ensure the orderly conduct of the meetings and ensure that everybody has their fair share of time in the meetings.
I believe that every member has received the routine motions. If you have them all, is it your wish to go one by one or simply to adopt them as presented?
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
I will move the following:
That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the Chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.
Is there agreement to adopt this?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Are we going to go through each one, or do you want to...?
If it's the will of the committee, Chair, I can read several, maybe to the bottom of the first page, and then someone else can continue, or I can put up my hand and read them all at once. It's whatever the committee wishes.
We forgot.... I was wondering where they were. The familiar analysts are sitting in the back of the room. I would invite the analysts to come and join me at the head of the committee. For the new members, these are your analysts for HUMA.
It's good to have you back. I'm sorry that I overlooked you. You're always there. I just assumed you were.
With that, we had a motion from Mr. Genuis on the first one. That was carried. We're now going down to “Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure”. I'm going to go through these. If it's good, I'll ask for a motion to adopt it.
Madam Koutrakis—
If you're moving a motion, the motion has to be.... I assume we all have the same sheet, but can we read out the motions so that they're on the record?
The clerks are nodding. I think that's the best practice.
It's each one. Okay.
The motion on subcommittee on agenda and procedure is as follows:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of four members, those being the Chair and one member from each recognized party, as designated by each party's whip; and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It reads as follows:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence published when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition parties and two members of the government party.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Chair, I move:
That, when travelling outside the Parliamentary Precinct: (a) the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of whether quorum is present, and (b) no substantive motion may be moved during such meetings.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I move:
That witnesses be given five (5) minutes for their opening statements; that whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance; that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six (6) minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows:
First Round:
Conservative Party
Liberal Party
Bloc Québécois
For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows:
Conservative Party, five (5) minutes
Liberal Party, five (5) minutes
Bloc Québécois, two and a half (2.5) minutes
Conservative Party, five (5) minutes
Liberal Party, five (5) minutes
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I move:
That only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee and only when the documents are in both official languages; and that all documents submitted to the committee in both official languages, that do not come from a federal department, members’ offices, or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau, be sent for linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members, and that the witnesses be advised accordingly.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The next one is on working meals. This is a big one. Don't complain to me about the lunch.
Go ahead, Madame Koutrakis.
[Translation]
Regarding working meals, I move:
That the clerk of the committee, at the discretion of the chair, be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Chair, I move:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I move:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff member at in camera meetings and that one additional person from each House officers’ office be allowed to be present.
That, during in camera meetings, committee members may be informed by the committee Chair of the MPs who have been designated as substitutes for permanent members, in order to know which MPs are authorized to speak and vote during these committee meetings. That only those who have been recognized and identified as such be authorized to speak, in keeping with the usual agreed rules of order and decorum.
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge.
[English]
The next one is on transcripts of in camera meetings.
Go ahead, Ms. Falk.
Mr. Chair, I move:
That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be securely retained by the committee clerk for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff; and that the analysts assigned to the committee have access to the in camera transcripts.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Chair, I move:
That a 48-hour notice, interpreted as two nights, be required for any substantive motion to be moved in committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that:
(a) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Thursday, and no later than 2:30 p.m. on Friday;
(b) the motion be distributed to members and the offices of the whips of each recognized party in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour;
(c) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to be a team player by offering to read one of the Board of Internal Economy motions, if you like.
[English]
Go ahead on technical tests for the witnesses, Madame Gill.
Oh, we're not there. Go ahead on orders of reference from the House.
[Translation]
You're right, we're not there yet. I move:
That in relation to orders of reference from the House respecting Bills,
(a) The clerk of the committee shall, upon the committee receiving such an order of reference, write to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee to invite those members to file with the clerk of the committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the committee consider;
(b) Suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given bill; and
(c) During the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, the Chair shall allow a member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Concerning technical tests for witnesses, I move:
That the clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the Chair advise the committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, concerning whips' access to digital binders, I move:
That the clerk of the committee be authorized to grant access to the committee's digital binder to the offices of the whips of each recognized party.
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you, Mr. Joseph.
[English]
Who wants to read “Maintenance of Order and Decorum”?
Go ahead, Madam Falk.
The motion reads:
That, during meetings, the Chair, if necessary, use his prerogative to suspend the meeting to maintain the order and decorum necessary to ensure the application of the House of Commons’ policies on workplace health and safety.
Thank you, Ms. Falk.
You've heard the motion. Shall it carry?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: That concludes the routine motions that have been presented to the committee and have been agreed to.
Thank you for that, committee. Those motions will guide us.
Ms. Falk, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Chair, and congratulations on your election to steer the ship. I appreciate it. I've enjoyed working with you in the past and I look forward to working with you in the future.
I would like to move a motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Jobs and Families, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, the Secretary of State for Seniors, the Secretary of State for Labour, and the Secretary of State for Children and Youth to appear separately before the committee, each accompanied by their officials, for a minimum of one hour, to discuss their respective mandates and key priorities in their service to Canadians.
I think that this is something that's quite standard. I know that in the past, this committee has been very good with doing that. I know that we've heard a lot about this being a new government with a new mandate, with a new leader and a new prime minister, so it would be great to have them at our committee to hear what their mandates are and also to be able to hear what they are planning to do for Canadians.
Committee members, the meeting is back in session.
We have a motion from Ms. Falk.
Ms. Koutrakis has the floor.
[Translation]
[English]
To me, it's unanimous.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Mr. Genuis, do you wish to speak on another matter?
Yes, exactly. Thank you, Chair.
Chair and colleagues, I want to raise the issue of student unemployment, which I think is critical for this committee.
We're headed into the summer, and I'm sure everybody saw the latest Statistics Canada report of very high unemployment rates among young people in general, but particularly high for returning students. We're in a situation now where more than one in five returning students are unemployed this summer. That's a source of hardship for those students, but it also raises significant questions about their futures and, by extension, the future of our country. Students need summer employment, often not only to be able to pay for their academic journeys but also to be able to acquire skills and experiences that they can then leverage for their next steps.
I know we're headed into a parliamentary summer break, but I want to propose that we consider doing some work collaboratively on the student unemployment issue to confront this real and present crisis of students being out of work and to see if we can propose, in a reasonable time frame, some solutions to the government along these lines.
I want to put forward a motion on that, Chair. There may be some discussion about aspects of it, and that's totally fine, but I've put it together as kind of a first volley about how we might approach it. I'll flip it to the clerk in both languages just after I read it.
The motion is as follows:
Statistics Canada has identified that more than 1 in 5 returning students are unemployed this summer. Therefore, the committee agrees that, in the face of this student unemployment crisis and given that Parliament did not sit at all this year until May 26th, this committee conduct a study of the student unemployment crisis pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consisting of at least 5 meetings and with all hearings to occur before July 31st, 2025. Parliamentarians must be prepared to get to work this summer so that unemployed students can get to work as well.
Colleagues, with the technology we have at our disposal now for virtual meetings, I do think having some summer hearings is much easier than it used to be. We are able to participate in hearings from our ridings, using virtual tools. To do five meetings before the end of July is a total of 10 hours. I think having that 10 hours of hearings in the course of a month and a half is reasonable and allows us, again, in a collaborative way, to hear from witnesses and to confront a very real and present crisis.
As I say in the text of the motion, our getting to work will allow young people to get to work. I don't think this is a study that should wait for the fall, because this is a critical time for young people who are missing these opportunities. We might be able to hear some testimony and put forward some recommendations in real time that would be very impactful for young people.
The motion is on the table now and obviously can be amended. I'd love to hear from colleagues if people want to take this up and proceed with it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
I just want to suspend for a few moments. We don't have it here.
Madame Gill, I'm going to suspend for—
The committee is back in session.
I will go to Madame Gill in a moment.
It's my understanding that everybody should now have the motion that was moved by Mr. Genuis.
With that, I am going to go to Madame Gill.
Madame Gill, you had your hand up.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't actually going to speak to the matter. I just wanted to indicate that I would like to speak once Mr. Genuis is done his presentation because I have a notice of motion also.
[English]
Do we have anybody on the motion that's been moved by Mr. Genuis?
We have Ms. Goodridge and then Madam Koutrakis.
Thank you.
Yes, to speak to this issue, I really appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair. When we were prorogued, I decided to take it upon myself to spend my time trying to connect with people I don't normally get a chance to connect with, primarily high school students. I took the opportunity to travel to many different communities in my riding, visiting with students of high school age. One of the things that shocked me most was how many times the students would bring up youth unemployment as one of their number one concerns.
As I started going through this, I asked them questions, such as how many of them had a part-time job. Generally, only a handful of kids in the class would raise their hands. When I would ask further how many of them wanted a part-time job, almost everyone would put their hands up. When I asked how many of them were actively applying for jobs, I had some students tell me they'd applied for upwards of 200 jobs and hadn't had a phone call back.
This is the real story. This is in Fort McMurray, where we have a relatively low unemployment rate compared to other parts of the country. As I started going through and asking other colleagues, I found that this is a serious issue facing us.
As we're approaching the summer very quickly, I think it is incumbent on us as politicians to make sure that we find out what the cause of this is, because this wasn't something that I was hearing when I was going to high schools last year. This is a new problem that was caused by the previous government, and it's incumbent on us as parliamentarians to get to the bottom of this sooner rather than later so that we can give a future to the next generation.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Goodridge.
I'm going to check. Does everybody now have the motion? It was circulated to your P9.
Okay, we all have it.
I'll go to Ms. Koutrakis on the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't think, colleagues, you'll find anyone around this table disagreeing about the importance of this issue. Obviously it's a very important issue, and it is a study that merits being looked at. However, I don't believe that having this study over the summer is going to solve the issue that one in five young people can't find a job. We just announced the Canada summer jobs program. We increased it by 6,000, so there are 76,000 new jobs happening right now for the summer.
I think this study needs to be done. I would say the timeline is probably a little problematic, especially if we want to invite witnesses so that the study will mean something. We have to make sure that we find the right witnesses and that witnesses are available to come. If it's amenable to you, perhaps we could have a friendly amendment that we adopt this as a study but not to have the five meetings before September. That way we'll give all the parties here at the committee the opportunity to determine witnesses and send out invitations to them. I think that the study will be better for it for all of us.
It is an important issue. We all agree that we need to look at it more closely, but let's do it the right way and not rush it through and end up with a study that doesn't really give us the fruits that we're looking for.
Chair, I want to speak on a point of order.
If we're going to have an amendment, we do need to know what's being removed and what's coming, or perhaps we can talk back and forth a couple more times and see if we can arrive at some kind of consensus in whatever way you want to do it.
However, I didn't hear specific wording. If we're going to debate an amendment, we need to....
The only thing I would ask is that we could change the date from July 31 to the end of September, so September 30.
Is everybody clear? Do you need that on paper and written? It's clear. It's changing the study timeline conclusion from July to September, as articulated by Ms. Koutrakis.
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
Thank you, Chair.
If I could speak on the amendment, I was just thinking this through, and I guess there are a couple of thoughts.
I think it is valuable to begin this work as soon as possible. I'm not proposing a study completed by the end of June. I agree that there are studies happening now on bills like Bill C-5 with a breakneck pace that's done sometimes. I think in this case that we can find a middle path that recognizes the urgency of it but doesn't say that we're going to do it all this week.
Thinking about what would need to unfold if we give ourselves a week to 10 days to identify witnesses, and then there's a period of a week to 10 days to invite and to schedule those witnesses, we would still be able to do these hearings, I think, fairly easily before the end of July.
I don't think that our having a hearing is, on its own, going to get all of these students back to work. However, I do think that we can, through a process of these hearings, hear ideas and magnify concepts that could be implemented by the government.
The numbers are pretty significant. I know that the minister and others have talked about the federally funded summer jobs program within that. We have over two million post-secondary students in this country. One in five returning students is struggling to find a job. This is clearly orders of magnitude beyond what has been proposed so far.
The other issue with the September 30 date is that I don't think it would be realistic to pack all these hearings into the last two weeks of September, if that was the idea. We're probably still with that, talking about some summer hearings anyway. Maybe we could say there could be five hearings before August 30, with the understanding that we're going to space them out. I would like to start early and think about how we can space them out. Maybe there are some witnesses who are ready to present to us right away and some who are ready to present later on. We can talk about whether the number of meetings is right as well.
I do think that doing some work on this, starting earlier in the summer and continuing, would make the most sense. I want to see if we can meet in the middle on a timeline.
For discussion, we do have a motion to amend that's currently on the floor. Is there anything further, Ms. Koutrakis, on your amendment?
To my colleague across the way, I'm sure that we could find a friendly way to make sure that we all get what we're looking for.
We agree that a study needs to be done. Doing it in the summer is not the ideal time to do this. Students are going to be unemployed, as you say. I happen to remain more positive that students will be employed. The government does have programs in place to help them. I don't see how a study in August, before the House rises again in September, is going to help the employment situation of our students over the summer. I really don't.
I think that if we're serious about doing a study like that, we should take our time and make sure that we put a framework in place that is going to yield a study that we can look to and that we can present, and we can make sure that we do it right.
I don't agree. I don't know what my other colleagues around the table feel, but I am not in agreement with that. I think that it's very reasonable to ask for September 30. All of us are going to be very busy in our constituencies. There's a lot of work to be done. Among all the MPs around this table, there are many newly elected members who are still getting their teams in place.
I just think we should be logical. This is about working together in a friendly manner to make sure that we all get what we're looking for. No one is saying no to the study; we're just looking at the timeline. I don't think that September 30 is an unreasonable timeline, given where we are in the schedule of this session that just started.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mr. Genuis. This is something that we absolutely do need to start and that we need to get done sooner rather than later. I think his recommendation of doing it until the end of August shows that we are serious about doing this. Quite frankly, I think students need to hear that their government actually understands and acknowledges that there is a problem. Saying that we can kick this down the road and wait until September to hash this out doesn't tell them that we're taking it with the urgency that they are telling us, very clearly—or at least that they were telling me in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake—was their priority.
I think that many of these students are making hard decisions. Can they actually go on to post-secondary studies? What is their fall going to look like? They're picking their classes right now, and they're making these decisions. If they can see that we are working on this, and hopefully they have a plan, then we can give them hope. Saying, “No, this isn't our priority. We're going to wait till September to see what this looks like” is not giving them that hope.
Thank you.
I just want to make sure that what we're proposing is not being misconstrued. We are not saying, “Let's wait until September to start the work.” We're saying, “Let's complete it. Let's extend the time of completion so we can take a little more time to get the right witnesses, to have the real discussion and to do the right study.” Maybe there is a way to come in at the ground and commit to having maybe one or two meetings over the summer, agreeing on who the witnesses are and who we're bringing, and then inviting them and scheduling it.
I also agree that I don't think we're going to be in the same place if we just wait and cram everything into September, so that's not what we're proposing here. I just want to extend the time so that there's more time to prepare. I think we're ready to have a couple of these meetings over the summer, but to complete it at the end of August.
There are a couple of ways committees can make decisions. They can make decisions by motion or by understanding. If we can just identify what our understanding would be around scheduling, then we can adopt the amendment in that spirit.
I think it would make sense if the chair would endeavour to schedule these meetings in a periodic way, not so it's, say, September 29, and we're going to get extra time in the evening when we're already back here to we try to do a whole bunch, but we would try to have a couple of meetings in July, one or two meetings in August and a meeting in September.
We don't want to be too rigid about that, but if we have an understanding that we're not going to end-load this and that we're going to begin the work—I mean, I think it does make sense to try to get started sooner rather than later—and if we can agree to that in a spirit of co-operation, then I think we probably have an understanding that we can move on. Is that fair enough?
The clerk can clarify, but at the end of the committee meeting, you have motions and then agreements of the committee. I just want to put it out there for discussion. There could be agreement by the committee that the chair would seek to schedule these meetings in a relatively evenly spaced out fashion, rather than all at once. If people don't agree to that, then we have to be a bit more rigid, but if that's our understanding, then that works for me.
Currently before the committee is an amendment to the motion that moves the conclusion date, the completion date, to September 30. The only significant part of the motion was about the 10 hours—or was it? I don't have it in front of me.
I'm sorry, but I can make this simpler.
If people like the direction I proposed, then we can adopt the amendment, and then I can propose another amendment that gives some guidance to the chair about trying to schedule the meetings in an even way, as discussed.
Is that what people want?
Just to clarify, would we have the amendment that it's to the end of September, or until between now and September 30, and then you would make another amendment asking the chair to start working on scheduling those meetings?
Maybe I'll propose an additional amendment that says that the chair should endeavour to schedule one to two of those meetings per month during that period. Is that fair enough?
What I would like to deal with, because you can't come back, is the first amendment, which was to move the timeline to September 30, unless you're making an amendment to the amendment.
Chair, as part of the debate on the first amendment, can I subamend it, or am I outside the scope of the original amendment to propose this?
I'm okay, because we seem to be arriving at a consensus. We have an amendment and there seems to be some consensus for September 30, but more clarification is needed on the scheduling of the meetings.
Chair, I will add a subamendment, then.
After the date, I will add, “and that the chair should endeavour to schedule one to two of these meetings per month.”
The clerk has just asked me to repeat it: “The chair should endeavour to hold one to two of these meetings per month.”
I'm giving you a little wiggle room, Chair, but I don't want you to use it.
The verbiage would be, “Statistics Canada has identified that more than one in five returning students are unemployed this summer. Therefore, the committee agrees that in the face of this student unemployment crisis, and given that Parliament did not sit at all this year until until May 26, this committee conduct a study of the student unemployment crisis pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consisting of at least five meetings, and with all hearings to occur before September 30, 2025, and that the chair should endeavour to schedule one or two of these meetings per month. Parliamentarians must be prepared to get to work this summer so that unemployed students can get to work as well.”
Thank you, Clerk.
Does anybody have any questions on the motion as it was phrased by the clerk, which accommodates an amendment and a subamendment?
Go ahead, Madam Koutrakis.
I'll get the clerk to read the motion that reflects the amendment of Madam Koutrakis and the proposed subamendment of Mr. Genuis.
One more time, Clerk, read the motion as it would now be phrased.
“Statistics Canada has identified that more than one in five returning students are unemployed this summer. Therefore, the committee agrees that in the face of this student unemployment crisis, and given that Parliament did not sit at all this year until May 26, this committee conduct a study of the student unemployment crisis pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consisting of at least five meetings, and with all hearings to occur before September 30, 2025, and that the chair should endeavour to schedule one or two of these meetings per month. Parliamentarians must be prepared to get to work this summer so that unemployed students can get to work as well.”
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't know if my colleague, Mr. Genuis, takes the summer off, but I think everyone works during the summer, and more than full time, too.
I just wanted to comment on the subamendment, which I will vote against, of course. This seems to me to be a way around Standing Order 106(4). I think it's very clever of my Conservative colleagues to give a study priority by imposing dates rather than by going through the usual procedure to ask for a meeting under Standing Order 106(4). After all, it's usually up to the subcommittee to meet and decide on the order of priority for various studies, and I'm sure there will be several notices of motion on the table.
I just wanted to put that observation on the record.
[English]
That's where I'm going. Thank you, Ms. Gill.
Given that I see no consensus in the room, I'm going to begin with a vote on the subamendment.
So that we're clear, the subamendment by Mr. Genuis to the amendment of Ms. Koutrakis would read as follows: “That the chair should endeavour to schedule one or two of these meetings per month”. We're voting on that one. Then the amendment would be the date in September.
Are we clear, Madame Gill? Good.
Okay, seeing no further discussion, Clerk, I'll call a recorded vote on the subamendment of Mr. Genuis, which would request the chair to schedule one or two meetings per month on the motion, if it is adopted.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
The Chair: We will now go to a vote on the amendment, which moves the timeline to September 30.
Clerk, we will have a recorded vote on the amendment of Ms. Koutrakis.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll now call a vote on the motion as amended.
Clerk, we'll have a recorded vote on the motion of Mr. Genuis, as amended.
(Motion as amended negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
Chair, I have a hard time understanding what happened in the vote, because we had a discussion in which Liberal members said they wanted this study to happen on student unemployment. They got the adoption of their amendment, which extended the study until September 30, yet they still voted against the study.
If we're serious about addressing the issue of student unemployment, we put forward a motion to do that. Then the Liberals amended this motion, and then they voted against it anyway. That's pretty surprising.
I don't want to sour the first meeting by suggesting that there was insincerity, but can we come to some kind of understanding about whether you want to address the issue of student unemployment or not? We're interested in doing that. If that means meeting in August or in September instead of in July, that's not my preference, but that's okay. However, you just voted against studying student unemployment at all.
Can we come to some understanding, or do we have to go out and observe that there wasn't interest in studying this issue after all?
I hope we can come up with something together, so I'll put it out for discussion.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer