:
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 110 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
As you have noticed, the room makeup is a bit different, and there's a reason.
Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of important preventive measures.
To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.
All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. We've noticed that. Please use only an approved black earpiece.
By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down—face down, Ms. Falk—on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table as indicated. I'm sorry for picking on you, but it was just obvious.
Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines. This is serious. There were incidents, and the internal economy committee had extensive meetings and came up with these options.
The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and to reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your co-operation.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.
I have a few comments for members appearing online and in the room. Please wait until I recognize you by your name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For those appearing virtually, please use the “raise hand” icon on the bottom of your Surface device and wait until I recognize you.
I remind you that all comments should be addressed through me, the chair. As well, you have the option of choosing to speak in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation services are available through the headset. I ask those in the room to please check the globe icon at the bottom of your service and choose the language of your choice. If there's an issue in interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 26, 2024, the committee is commencing its study of the subject matter of supplementary estimates (C) for 2023-24 and the main estimates for 2024-25.
I would like to welcome our witnesses. We have Kamal Khera, Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities.
Welcome, Minister.
From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Isabelle Mondou, deputy minister, and Gaveen Cadotte, assistant deputy minister, anti-racism strategy and action plan.
From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Kristina Namiesniowski. She is senior associate deputy minister of the department.
We also have Andrew Brown, the associate deputy minister, and Brian Leonard, director general and deputy chief financial officer, corporate financial planning.
Madam Minister, you have five minutes or less for opening comments, after which we'll go to questions.
You have the floor, Madam Minister.
:
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, colleagues and committee members. Thank you again for inviting me here today. I'm very happy to be here to discuss the important progress we have made as we work toward building a more accessible and inclusive Canada.
As the minister responsible for diversity, inclusion and persons with disabilities, my goal is to create a more accessible and inclusive Canada where everyone, regardless of their ability or identity, is included.
I'm pleased to report that when it comes to creating a more accessible Canada, our government has taken significant steps, thanks to the Accessible Canada Act, under which our government launched the first-ever disability inclusion action plan.
The action plan has been our road map for creating a more accessible Canada, in partnership with the disability community. Under this plan, we have been working to make our economy and workplaces across the country more accessible through the disability inclusion business council and by investing millions of dollars through the opportunities fund.
We've also been breaking down barriers in communities across the country through the enabling accessibility fund.
Most recently, we unveiled budget 2024, which is our plan to make life fairer for every generation of Canadians. In this budget, we reached another significant milestone under the action plan by announcing $6.1 billion for a new Canada disability benefit, thanks to the relentless advocacy of the disability community. This is the first federal benefit especially designed to support some of the most vulnerable working-age Canadians with disabilities. This benefit fills a program gap in the federal government's social safety net between the Canada child benefit, old age security and other mechanisms that we put in place. The disability benefit is intended to supplement, not replace, existing income support measures. Also, we will continue to call on provincial and territorial governments to do their part and not claw back what Canadians receive through the Canada disability benefit.
I also want to take an opportunity to talk a bit about the work we're doing when it comes to creating a more diverse and inclusive Canada. I firmly believe that as a country, our greatest strength is our diversity. You know, I always say that in Canada, diversity is a fact, but inclusion is a choice. It is that choice that our government has been very deliberate in making.
Since 2015, our government has been working with community partners to combat racism and hatred in all its forms. Back in 2019, we launched Canada's anti-racism strategy. Very soon we will be launching the brand new anti-racism strategy 2.0, which incorporates lessons learned from the first strategy, expanding its scope by enhancing our whole-of-government approach to combatting systemic racism in all its forms.
In 2018, Canada recognized the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent. Since then, we have committed $860 million to better support Black communities right across the country. Just recently, our government reaffirmed our support by announcing our support for a second International Decade for People of African Descent, while also noting that Canada's domestic efforts in support of the decade have already been extended through 2028.
At the same time, we know there has been an alarming rise in hate, both here in Canada and around the world. As a government, we have always been clear that hatred has no place in Canada. With budget 2024, we have taken a significant step in this fight against hate by investing $273 million through Canada's first-ever action plan on combatting hate. Thanks to these critical investments, we will be able to better support communities in law enforcement reform, tackle the rise in hate crimes, enhance community security, counter radicalization and increase support for victims.
Mr. Chair, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, my goal is to build a Canada where everyone, regardless of their ability or identity, is included. We know building a stronger, more accessible and fairer Canada for every generation isn't just the right thing to do: It's also the smart thing to do, and the Canadian thing to do.
Our government remains steadfast in our commitment to celebrate diversity and promote inclusivity, because we know that as Canadians, we're always stronger together.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to take any questions.
:
Thank you, Minister, for being here to join us at our committee.
I want to start by thanking you for the work you have been doing around anti-racism and all the work around the Canada disability benefit. I want to thank you for the work you have been doing, because I think we're in a place where we continue to build. We're part of a government that has brought forward new programs in a way we've never seen before.
Over the last 30 or 40 years, we haven't seen new national programs at this level being developed. I think establishing dental care, a national child care program, a student nutrition program and this historic benefit plan that you have brought forward is quite extraordinary. Thank you for the work you have been doing.
Today I want to talk about your work around anti-racism. I know the new strategy is being brought forward. You started off by saying that there was a lot learned during the last strategy. I would be interested in hearing about that, but before we get into that, I would like to just make a comment around where we are as a country when it comes to racism.
As you know, Minister, I did a lot of work in Ontario. I was the minister for anti-racism, where we put forward our own strategy. Back in 2015-16, we saw a drastic increase in online hate. I thought it was isolated specifically around that time period, but I have seen over the last several years a drastic increase in online hate and also in hate incidents in general.
It is our job as politicians to identify it and to track it and to collect the data—no data, no problem. That's why it's important for us to collect that information and to put in place anything we can do to mitigate the growth of that type of hate and stop it.
I want to thank you for the work you have been doing. You mentioned expanding the Decade for People of African Descent. I know that in my community, in the Black community in Toronto and across this country, there have been a lot of efforts made there. I just want to say thank you.
I also want to comment on one more piece before I ask you for a bit of those learnings and maybe go into a bit more detail around the strategy.
Last week we saw the pull into a camp where there was an alt-right organization. That's what the major media have said. Up until this point, I haven't heard the Leader of the Opposition even comment on it. I do think it's important.
Yes, someone can stumble into a place. You can be in a place and realize, “Wait a minute; what am I doing here?”, and you can speak on that. You can speak to the issue and you can apologize for those actions, but I have heard nothing from the Leader of the Opposition.
I want you to reflect on why it is important for us to address racism head on and talk about these issues. What is this plan going to do to move us along as a country?
I think it's important for us, especially in this day and age, to stick together and build off of what made this country so successful. It was what you said at the beginning, which is that it's our choice to be inclusive.
I will turn it over to you, Minister, for comment.
:
Thank you so much, Mr. Coteau, for all the work that you have done and continue to do as a champion. You and I have had many conversations around the work in addressing systemic racism within our own institution, because we know that it's real.
At the same time, we certainly see the rise in hate across this country. I know that there are many incidents outside the country that are having those effects in our community. It's really important, first and foremost as Canadians and particularly as leaders, that we denounce hate when we see it. It shouldn't be an “if and when”; when we see it, we should call it out. We have to be deliberate about doing that, because it's a responsibility for each and every one of us.
You're right. We see the cozying up to dyed-in-the-wool supporters and white supremacists, and not denouncing that is quite shameful. It's not just reckless; it's quite dangerous. I think we need to be very attuned to what is happening, whether it is online or in our communities. I think we have to be doing a lot of work on that front.
I'm very proud of the work that we're leading, particularly with Canada's action plan on combatting hate. In fact, this really is about taking a whole-of-government approach in addressing hate, whether it is supporting grassroots organizations and building support there or whether it is enhancing security infrastructure programs within the public safety purview or collecting data. At the same time, it's about supporting victims, because we've seen incidents across the country, unfortunately, so we need to make sure that we're supporting victims as well.
In this particular budget, we've put forward $270 million for Canada's action plan on combatting hate, a plan that will address exactly the type of thing that you have mentioned. At the same time, soon we will be launching Canada's newest anti-racism strategy, which we'll be talking about. We want to ensure that Canadians see themselves in the work that's been happening. The world is not what it was a few years ago, and I think we need to be attuned to those realities and ensure that we're constantly working towards building a very inclusive Canada.
Good morning, Madam Minister. Thank you for being here.
I pinched myself when I read in budget 2024 that a maximum amount of $2,400 per year was announced for the Canada disability benefit. That's $200 a month, or, as the groups representing people with disabilities put it, $6 a day, starting in 2025.
As I understand it, you're not complying at all with the Accessible Canada Act, which was enthusiastically welcomed last year by all the groups consulted—I'd even say with jubilation and almost a hand over the heart—to show that, this time, we were there.
The act provided that the eligibility criteria, the conditions under which benefits would be paid, the amount of the benefit and the method of calculation would be defined by regulation, among other things, according to the “nothing without us” principle.
This is important for the government. The regulations were due to be tabled a year later, in a month's time.
We still don't have any regulations, there was no consultation with the people concerned for whom those regulations were to be defined, and now a maximum benefit of $2,400 is being announced as of July 2025.
Madam Minister, do you agree that what is historic is the total violation of the act?
:
Madam Minister, you're not answering my question.
For the first time, you want to make an election announcement, when the act clearly states that you must consult the people concerned on the regulations to be tabled.
I'm not even talking about the progress reports you had to present here to the committee and in other places in the House six months later.
You've almost violated the act, and you're telling us it's the first time.
It would be better if there was no first time and things were done properly.
How will you guarantee that, within a month, we will assure people with disabilities that they'll get regulations that correspond to the purpose of the act, which is to lift people out of poverty?
Welcome to the minister.
I'm very pleased that you're here because you really are accountable for the decisions that were made in the budget, and we want to get to the bottom of it today.
Minister, the budget announcement on the Canada disability benefit proved that your government ignored the input of persons with disabilities and have decided to legislate poverty for persons with disabilities rather than reduce it.
People with disabilities called for an adequate benefit, one that was easy to access, one not subject to clawbacks from provinces and territories. Your government has chosen to do none of these things. This government never seems to run out of money for handouts to giant corporations and rich CEOs, but when it comes to the critical support promised to people living with disabilities, suddenly the offer is crumbs. Two hundred dollars a month is offensive, and you've seen the response from Canadians. They are not happy.
Why did you choose to ignore years of input from the disability community and bring forward a $200 benefit that is tied to the inaccessible disability tax credit?
:
Thank you. I'm going to go back to my time here.
What we have seen here today is the minister answering every single question with the same response. If you're just watching this....
People are looking for some answers, Minister. With all due respect, this is your file. That's done. What you've been doing for the last hour here or however long we have been here, is done.
The disability amount is $6 a day. It's $200 a month. When the former minister, , testified in this committee about Bill on October 31, 2022, she said, “It really will lift a significant number of people out of poverty, big time.”
People are watching at home. They can't afford to live. An Ontario man is applying for MAID because he's homeless. People with disabilities are applying for MAID.
Give Canadians some answers here today. It's been asked around this table multiple times: Do you think $6 a day is going to lift people out of poverty, or was your former minister wrong?
:
I'm going to tell you the story that the two folks in my riding shared with me. It's how they describe what you have given them. I want you to answer what they said.
To them—and these are their words—the Liberal-NDP government is like a trust exercise. You told them you were going to catch them. It's the trust game that you play with somebody when you say “Fall back into my arms and I'll catch you.” You told the people in the disability community that you would catch them when they fell. You gave them these promises. Then, in their words, not only did you not catch them, but you stepped out of the way and didn't tell them.
That is how they feel. They are applying for medical assistance in dying because the homeless rate under this is astronomical. The highest record usage of food banks is happening under this Prime Minister.
To come in here and to tell people you have done this first-ever announcement and it's wonderful, you might as well go be the Maple Leafs' coach and tell them that their effort was great.
This is ridiculous. I think people deserve an answer.
I know you care. You have to care or you wouldn't be in this position, but people are genuinely applying for medical assistance in death because they cannot afford to live and you're sitting here telling them $6 a day is significant.
Do you think people with disabilities should be applying for medical assistance in dying, yes or no?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Fragiskatos.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, as we know, Canada is a wonderful country that is extremely diverse. That diversity is part of what makes Canada such a rich and prosperous place. It is my view—and I'm sure you will agree—that political leaders representing a country such as Canada have a responsibility to bring people together, to promote the diversity that makes us a stronger country based on shared values and to condemn any far-right extremist groups that threaten that social cohesion.
We know that the Conservative leader, Mr. Pierre , has been hosting secret fundraisers with who knows who, but last week it came to light that the leader of the Conservative Party visited an encampment set up by individuals linked to Diagolon, a group that promotes violent rhetoric and hateful views and espouses white nationalist objectives.
In fact, over the weekend, the leader of Diagolon posted this message on his Telegram channel: “Conservatives need to wake up to [the] reality that they are in physical danger, that their families will be targeted and there is no way any version of peace can exist with these people freely roaming about. We cannot coexist, so someone has to go.” The message continues to call for a civil war in Canada, telling Diagolon followers to prepare for a civil war and stating, “War is coming, act accordingly.”
What is your reaction to Mr. 's affiliation with these extreme groups that do not believe Canadians of different faiths or ethnicities are able to coexist and that “someone has to go” or otherwise it would lead to war?
:
Thank you for that, Mr. Gerretsen.
To your question, I quite frankly think that it's not just disgusting or reckless; it's actually very dangerous. I think we all know of the rise in hate that we're seeing right across this country, which is deeply concerning and upsetting. I think that standing up to hate shouldn't just be.... It's the right thing to do, and as a leader, you should be standing up against hate.
As I mentioned earlier when I was talking about our action plan on combatting hate, we have put forward $273 million in this budget, quite frankly because of the rhetoric we're hearing across this country. The should be ashamed of cozying up to the Diagolon supporters, a far-right terrorist organization, and I think he should also be held accountable for it. I think Canadians ought to ask him where he actually stands. He has not denounced it yet.
It's also very telling to Canadians that all he cares about is gaining political power and not the actual issues that are affecting Canadians right now. I think that being associated with such far-right extremist groups that incite violence and misinformation is reckless. It is dangerous and, quite frankly, Canadians ought to know where he actually stands.
What we have here is a motion that was not put on notice. I know that the person who moved this motion isn't normally a member of this committee, so he may not be aware, but this committee had agreed to notices of motion.
What we have here right now is the talking about main estimates. That's the purpose. As well, in just a few minutes, another will be coming in to talk about main estimates.
With respect to notices of motion, I'll read what we agreed to as a committee. We said:
That a 48-hour notice, interpreted as two nights, be required for any substantive motion to be moved in committee, unless a 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 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; [and]
(c) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day;
and that [when] the committee is holding meetings outside the Parliamentary Precinct, no substantive motion may be moved.
Again, we are here on main estimates and we are meeting with ministers, so this motion does not appear to be in order at this time.
Before I get to that, I also am aware that the motion is relevant to the ministry at hand that is appearing before the committee, and I will take that into perspective. I will allow that it is relevant for the . It falls within that spectrum.
I take your point of order as valid, Mrs. Gray, but at this stage, I'll allow the debate to continue.
I'm going to Mr. Coteau, and then—
:
I will accept a comment from you, and then Ms. Gray has challenged my ruling, so....
No. Actually, I'm going to stop it there. Ms. Gray has challenged my ruling when I ruled that the motion is relevant because of the ministry that is involved, but Ms. Gray has the right to challenge.
With that, it's left to the committee to uphold the decision of the chair or opine on the decision of the chair.
Clerk, please take a recorded vote. Shall the decision of the chair to allow the motion to proceed be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
The Chair: With that, I take it the chair's decision has been upheld.
We'll go to Ms. Ferreri, who had—
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: It's Mr. Coteau.
The Chair: Actually, you're correct. It's Mr. Coteau. I didn't see that.
I'm going to Mr. Coteau. Then I'm going to Mr. Gerretsen.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will be supporting this motion. I think that in this day and age in this country, when we have politicians—but not only politicians, leaders of specific parties—getting involved with relationships and encounters with extreme far-right organizations, to not stand up to make an actual claim to denounce it is unacceptable.
You know, I can understand. I'd give the the benefit of the doubt that he goes.... You know, he made a silly mistake. He pulled over and didn't know, perhaps, who the folks were, and saw some signs that attracted him to that specific spot. Then he gets there and realizes what he's gotten himself into. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not spoken of or denounced this issue—and this is the guy who wants to be prime minister of this country—is completely unacceptable.
As someone who has fought racism and hate for my entire political career, and also as someone who's been a victim of racism and hate, to have the not take a position on this and to act as though it's just another day on the job is completely unacceptable. I would say that not only does he have to denounce what he's done, but he has to apologize to Canadians for what he's done, because it is completely unacceptable.
We're living in a world today where we see hate increasing. When we look around the world, we see the growth of far-right extremism. It is important that the take a strong position and denounce hate and this specific incident and apologize to Canadians.
I would like to thank the member for introducing this motion at our committee.
A motion has been put forward here to T-bone a really important discussion with ministers, one that is particularly important for the disability community.
This is what happens. We're here and we're doing this and we're playing this game, and guess who loses? Canadians do, disability folks, whom we've talked about already, who were given, through this budget 2024 of “fairness” for all generations, $6 a day. These same disability advocates are requesting MAID because they can't afford to live, because under this housing costs have doubled, food bank usage is the highest in history and the country is in complete chaos and disarray.
On the motion, with all due respect to the comments made by Ms. Ferreri, if we had just voted on my motion after I tabled it, the minister would probably have already answered all of our questions and left by this point.
The reality is that Conservatives don't want to vote on this motion. It's why they're putting up roadblocks. It's why they're preventing us from even trying to entertain the motion. It's why they now have to face a difficult decision. The difficult decision is to either vote in favour of this motion—which is the right thing to do—or to vote against it.
However, to my Conservative colleagues, the absolute worst decision you could make is to try to filibuster on this motion. If you try to filibuster this and just sit there and talk endlessly—
Mr. Chair, in my opinion, the worst thing Conservatives could do right now is filibuster this, because they'll drag out the inevitable and show Canadians they are not willing to stand up for what is right. What is right is very clear in this case, Mr. Chair: Conservatives should vote in favour of this. Had they done that right after I introduced it, this issue would have been put to bed already.
Better yet, if the Conservatives ask their to do the right thing and apologize, I'll withdraw my motion. On social media, put out a post saying, “I made an error.”
Mr. Coteau is absolutely correct. If he just made an error and it was a case of bad judgment, why is it so hard to say it's a case of bad judgment and he shouldn't have done that, Mr. Chair? That's what he should have done. The reason he won't do that is that he's afraid of the political outcome of trying to distance himself from these extreme groups.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I would respectfully ask my Conservative colleagues to vote on this matter. Vote yea or vote nay, but don't filibuster. If they filibuster, Mr. Chair, all they're doing is showing they are willing to not do what's right in the interest of trying to save their reputation from the actions he took last week.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is a Liberal government member. We have Liberal ministers here to defend their records on the estimates, on people with disabilities and on how they're representing labour. They chose to interrupt the meeting to bring this motion. There are consequences to that, as I've talked about. Look at what we could be talking about right now.
However, Mr. Gerretsen chose to do this. He knew Conservatives would want to speak about this. He knew his ministers would be interrupted. In fact, that's what this tactic is. The tactic of this motion is to disrupt this committee so that we can't hear from the minister defending this paltry $6 a day they're giving to people with disabilities. My colleague was asking great questions on that, and the minister was clearly unable to answer those questions. In a desperate attempt to protect the minister, Mr. Gerretsen brought this motion. It would appear he's desperately trying to protect the , whose appearance was also disrupted because we're debating this motion.
As I said before, there are a lot of things we could be talking about with the ministers. Instead, we're stuck talking about why this meeting was interrupted by this motion. It could have been brought at any point. The ministers weren't going to be here on Thursday. However, this is clearly designed by a government that has a lot to hide. They're trying to hide their ministers when they come to this committee to answer for the decisions they've made.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the interjections by my colleagues from the Liberal government, who chose to bring a motion when their ministers are appearing before our committee. I can assure you that it's not something that would happen when there's a change of government. We would respect our ministers coming to committee to give evidence. We wouldn't interrupt their appearance with a motion. What we're missing out on....
I'm guessing we now have a long speaking list on this motion. I know there are other members on this side who want to speak on this motion. I know there are members of the Liberal Party who keep putting their hands up, wanting to speak.
We've now interrupted two ministers because you guys thought you'd bring a motion to the committee so we can't hear from them to answer the questions.
I want to go back to what we could be talking to the Minister of Labour about. The letter from the CBTU on April 10, which was literally a week ago—
:
I think I get the opportunity to respond to those comments, actually.
Mr. Chair, I apologize if I used the wrong term. Yes, it should be persons “with” disabilities. I meant no disrespect when I was using that terminology. What I do think is disrespectful is what the member for Kingston and the Islands has done in the middle of a meeting specifically designed to hear from the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities about how people with disabilities are getting $6 per day day. Instead of allowing that to happen—that's what should have been happening at this meeting—if the member wants to talk about disrespect, the disrespect is bringing a motion that interrupted the evidence of the minister and interrupted questions from committee members, including members from the Bloc and the NDP. They were asking very good questions of the minister, and I'm sure that they wanted to ask more questions of the minister. I know that they also think that giving $6 per day to help persons with disabilities cope with the current affordability crisis—a crisis that has been caused by the inflationary spending of this Liberal government that is making life unaffordable and includes the carbon tax.... All of these things are having a massive impact on affordability for Canadians, and the minister has offered $6 per day to help with that.
Misusing a word or misspeaking accidentally, as I did.... I do want to say that I apologize if I've offended anyone with the words that I used. I did not mean to do that; it absolutely was not my intention. However, I wonder if the member for Kingston and the Islands is going to apologize for interrupting the appearance of the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities when there were members of the committee who had questions for the minister, questions about how $6 per day is going to actually make life more affordable for them, questions about how they are going to deal with the affordability crisis that all Canadians are dealing with. I know that my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP had good questions. They were asking very tough questions of the minister, and we had more rounds of questioning to actually go forward on.
I wonder if the member for Kingston and the Islands wants to apologize to the members from the Bloc and the member from the NDP for taking away their time to question the minister today by bringing a motion. Now I wonder if he wants to apologize to the member for the NDP, because it would appear that we're not going to get to the Minister of Labour and Seniors. I bet you she has questions for the Minister of Labour and Seniors on all of these things.
I think perhaps I've said enough.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm absolutely disappointed that we are at this point. I'm very disappointed that the NDP is doing the Liberals' bidding once again.
As has been said, the Minister of Labour and Seniors was supposed to start a while ago. We also have the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities here. The regular members of this committee know how difficult it is to actually get a minister here to be accountable for the decisions that they, as well as their departments, make. I absolutely cannot believe that the NDP once again is in the back pockets of this Liberal government when I know that MP Zarrillo has been a champion for those with disabilities. They are always first and foremost when we are doing studies or when we have a minister. I am shocked—very, very shocked—that she wants to take away time from both ministers. I would hope that this will not happen in the future.
Mr. Chair, I move that the committee proceed to the appearance of the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities to address the failure of the Liberal government so that she can address her government's failure to deliver the Canada disability benefit.
:
I will go with my original position. I view it as dilatory and I'm putting it to a vote.
Madam Clerk, can we have a vote on whether the committee chooses to return to the minister as a witness and adjourn debate on the motion?
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The Chair: The committee has made a decision. We will end with this.
Committee members, order.
I am returning to the witness, Ms. Khera. There is one question for the Bloc and one question for the NDP.
For her 2.5 minutes, Madame Chabot—
Mr. Chair, if I may, I think it's also important to recognize that in the budget, we have put in a significant amount of funding to particularly ensure that we make the DTC, the disability tax credit, barrier-free.
We actually expect more people to apply for the DTC. The funding in the budget is to ensure that we will pay for the DTC costs, so the costs won't be to the individuals with disabilities.
There are also navigator supports we have put forward that will help community organizations that are helping individuals with disabilities get that extra support. At the same time, we're ensuring that we work with community members who have been doing this work at the forefront. There's been the work that's been happening—
I certainly wish there were more women elected and sitting around this table, because we can actually do two things at once: We can denounce white supremacy and look out for persons with disabilities. That's not possible between the Cons and the Liberals, who had their little debate today. It's also why, after Conservative governments and Liberal governments, over a million Canadians with disabilities are still living in poverty.
To the minister, I would say that this is such a large breach of trust that has come out of this $200 per month through the DTC. It's not what advocates asked for. It's not what the disability community asked for. Even worse, it's not what the lowest-income persons with disabilities asked for.
I'm going to go back to the comments about the CRA having a committee. The minister talked about a committee. Advocates have told this government that automatic eligibility to the CDB is as easy as an addition to the mandatory T5007 statement, and then the CRA can facilitate automatic enrolment in the Canada disability benefit.
Why didn't the government act on this?
:
Mr. Chair, if I may, I want to clarify two things for my colleague.
The CRA has a disability advisory committee that works in tandem with the work of the disability tax credit, ensuring that people with lived experiences.... It's actually doing the work to ensure that we can make the DTC as barrier-free as we can.
With the investments we're making, we expect that more people will actually apply for the disability tax credit. With the investments we're making in this budget, there will be costs that the Government of Canada will pay for, the costs associated with the DTC.
At the same time, we are putting in significant funding so that organizations on the ground—and many of them have been part of the work that has gotten us to this point—will be able to help within their own communities, will be able to help support individuals with disabilities.
I think we all have a role and responsibility. We can all play a bigger role in making sure that more people can apply for the DTC, which also is a gateway to other federal and some provincial benefits that exist.
Thank you.
:
Committee members, we are now resuming what's left of the committee's two hours.
We have with us Mr. O'Regan, ; Sandra Hassan, deputy minister of labour and associate deputy minister of employment and social development; and Brian Leonard, director general and deputy chief financial officer, corporate financial planning.
Minister, you have the floor for five minutes or less, as it is my intention to allow the committee one round of six minutes each. That should take us to about 5:40 or 5:45. It depends on how long you are.
Minister, I'm sure you've seen the letter from the CBTU with respect to the job situation at Stellantis. I could read it to you, but I'm not going to. One of their key things is that NextStar is refusing to sign a memorandum of understanding with the CBTU guaranteeing the hiring of local Canadian contractors. The unemployment rate in the Windsor area is 8.1%.
In your role as Minister of Labour, which is to protect unionized workers, have you demanded that NextStar sign a memorandum of understanding with the CBTU to guarantee the hiring of local Canadian contractors for the Stellantis plant? If you haven't, why not?
Everything you've asked for, or everything you could do, was not my question. My question was very specific. I'm asking what you've done.
The CBTU is very clear in their letter. They are saying there are 180 local skilled trades workers in the Kent-Essex region, “millwrights and ironworkers [who] are unemployed and available to perform” this work. In fact, “Canadian workers are now being replaced by international workers at an increasing pace”. It goes on. This was on April 10. They're demanding that a memorandum of understanding be signed by NextStar with the CBTU on hiring Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers.
My question to you was this: Have you demanded this? Have you, in your role as the Minister of Labour, gone to NextStar and said, “You need to sign a memorandum of understanding with the CBTU”?
:
Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues.
Minister, thank you for coming.
I will say that it's shocking but great to see this newfound support for Canadian unions and workers from the Conservative Party. It's shocking, but I'm glad to see it.
I want to talk to you, Minister, about Bill . As you know, we just studied Bill C-58. We did hear a lot of great testimony from witnesses that I think really cut through the smoke, if you will, and brought clarity to a lot of myths, particularly the misconception that unions and workers want to strike, that it's what they want to do and that this legislation would potentially impact that.
We had Sean Strickland in from Canada's Building Trades Unions. He said that anybody who suggests that unions want to strike, that it's what they want to do and that they can't wait to get on the picket line, is “not in touch”. They're not in touch with today's economy and labour realities.
We know that this legislation will actually bring people to the bargaining table. You've always said, through many strikes, that the best deals are done at the bargaining table. We know that these are the best deals that happen for workers. I'm wondering if you can expand just a bit on Bill and why it is so important, and then, in contrast, how right-to-work legislation, which seems to be favoured by the , could be detrimental to workers.
Thanks, Minister.
:
None of this is very easy. I'd come back to B.C. last summer for two weeks—frankly, two weeks too long—where, again, we're talking about the BCMEA, representing the employers, private actors, and we're talking about the longshoremen's union, and again, private actors. We entrust these private actors with our supply chains, particularly out west, from Ontario westward. This had a huge effect on the economy. Every day I would go down and check into the hotel for one more night, thinking it would be the last, but that went on for two weeks.
Just to build on that, we have started a process. I was never happy with just getting a deal. There was something fundamentally wrong with what happened there. Frankly, if you're going to trust people with something as important as the supply chains of this country, then you'd better make sure it's working well. Clearly it wasn't. I wasn't convinced that the fundamental issues behind that dispute had been resolved. We are now starting an industrial inquiry commission. This is something that has been called for. We just announced the commissioners. This is big news. This is going to be big news. They will diligently go about their work over the course of the next year. They will talk to people.
Look, one of the things that you find is that it's not just the idea of banning replacement workers; part of that legislation is also coming to an agreement on what a maintenance of activities agreement would look like. What are the things that have to remain whole? What can we all agree on that have to be maintained? Using replacement workers just adds to the instability. It adds to the insecurity of so many workers. It adds to a feeling of just complete and utter disrespect.
Can you imagine, Mr. Long, going to work one day, and a dispute happens, and then somebody just walks by you and goes about your job?
I get the feeling that you want to ask a follow-up.
Thanks for that. I know you could talk at length about it, as I could too.
I want to also talk about what happened yesterday across the country. I was very thankful that I had a late flight so that I could attend the national day of mourning in Saint John at the Frank and Ella Hatheway Centre. It was an amazing turnout. There were probably 300-plus people there, obviously mainly members of unions. It was a wonderful, heartfelt ceremony.
As you have said in regard to setting the bar for workers' rights, when Canada raises the bar, countries around the world follow. Can you speak to how we have worked and continue to work to improve the rights of workers in Canada?
I think one of the most important things we have done is to include mental health in occupational health and safety. It sounds like it should have been done a long time ago, but we're doing it.
The day of mourning causes you to reflect on a lot of things. I attended two, one with the CBTU here in Ottawa and also with the Canadian Labour Congress. There are too many people who have died due to work-related incidents in this country. There were about a thousand in 2022, which is the last year that we have full records for.
If you work with the provinces.... Provinces are responsible for roughly 94% of the workforce in this country, while 6% are with the federal government, and we continue to sit down and work with unions and union membership on the ways we can protect the workers of this country in each workplace. It is not for a lack of diligence on anybody's part, to be honest with you, but we continue to have to do better. We continue to have to move each other along.
Good morning, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being here. I would have liked to hear your opening remarks, but you can send it to us in writing.
During the study of Bill , we had the pleasure of hearing from representatives of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. They told us about their staff. I found that quite troubling, personally. I found that the team was quite weak, not in terms of quality, but in terms of the number of employees.
Have you set aside the necessary resources to make Bill C‑58, which is ambitious and which we hope to be able to improve and pass, enforceable?
:
Mr. Minister, I do want to express our concerns to you.
Let's look at the current situation at the Port of Quebec. There's a lockout, with replacement workers, for more than 18 months. That leads me to ask you two questions.
First, what is the government currently doing to try to resolve this impasse?
My second question has to do with timelines. Let's say that everything goes well, that the anti‑scab bill is passed, that it receives royal assent this fall, and that it comes into force 18 months later. This gives those who are going to be in conflict plenty of time to organize themselves, lock out workers and hire replacements. This gives the runners the chance to deviate from this very important bill while they can. That's the impact of the delay.
:
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the minister and the staff who have come here today.
Yesterday was the national day of mourning, which honours workers who have died, have been injured or who fall ill due to their work.
In that backdrop, and as my colleague has asked, when will the government stop punishing over 100,000 injured workers who have faced GIS clawbacks and denials in the past year? What actions are you and your department taking to end this injustice to injured workers?
We don't see it in the budget. Other provincial payments are exempted. Will you move to add payments from workers' compensation programs to be exempted or to be added to the exempted list, and when?
It was about the care workers, the care economy and the gendered nature of that work, and how it's time that the care economy receives the respect and attention it deserves. These workers, as I mentioned, are mostly immigrant women and gender-diverse people.
I was pleased to see in the budget a proposal to launch a sectoral table on the care economy, as well as the intention to launch consultations on the development of a national caregiving strategy.
I wonder if you could expand on those two pieces. Give us some information about what each piece is, what timelines you have in place and how you see them rolling out.
It may have been highlighted during COVID, but for four or five decades, there's been a lot of amazing research. People have been doing this work, and their voices just haven't been heard for four decades. I think about the women economists who have continually tried to push this issue.
My question is about the advocates who have recently started their journey to support the care economy and to highlight those workers, as well as the advocates who have decades of research. How can they reach you? How can they get involved in the sectoral table, and how can their voices be heard about this national caregiver strategy?
I just want to add one point, because I heard a story of a palliative care worker who worked in homes. Their work was looking after someone who's dying. Immigrant care workers who are working in palliative care get no time for any grieving. They get no time to transition from one working home to another. That is one point that I really want to make sure of. All of them are so important, but I don't want this one around palliative care to get missed.
I also want to very quickly talk about persons with disabilities. We've heard at this committee before about the Canada disability benefit and working-age Canadians. I saw you sitting there today when we were talking about the labour code and the ability to self-identify for accommodation as a worker. If you're in a working situation, you can self-identify as having a disability, whether it's physical or mental, and receive accommodation.
I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on how that could transition over to a Canada disability benefit that is an income supplement for the working age. Is there some kind of equity solution that would be equal to what people in the labour force receive?
:
Thank you, Madame Zarrillo.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. We'll let you go from the committee. We are now beyond our time. It was 5:40 when we began.
Could I have agreement? We have a draft press release prepared to invite the public to submit briefs for the study on Bill . It has been circulated. Do the members approve of the draft? It's not controversial. Do I see consensus to release that?
Madam Clerk, I'm sensing a consensus.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Minister and staff, for appearing in an abbreviated format, which spared you from speaking for five minutes.
The meeting is adjourned.