Human Resources Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

[The Clerk]

Yes. It reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the difficulties rural Canadians face, in particular seniors; that the committee invite experts and departmental officials to testify; that the committee hold at least five meetings; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madam Kusie, does that reflect your amendment?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

It does. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have Madame Ferrada on the amendment.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask my colleague a question about her amendment.

My understanding is that the purpose of my colleague's motion is to have us study the issue of seniors living in the regions. But if the study is about problems for the entire rural population, we wouldn't be studying only seniors.

I would have preferred a more focused amendment that specifies the kinds of problems affecting the seniors we would be studying. If the study covers problems being experienced by the entire rural population, we would be missing the real objective, which is to study problems that specifically affect seniors.

My view is that the current motion targets seniors. Otherwise we could be talking about all kinds of problems, different sorts of problems being dealt with by different populations. That means that we would be missing the point of the motion.

I'd like to hear from my colleagues on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Kusie, before I go to Madame Chabot and Mr. Long, do you want to respond to Madame Ferrada?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

My general belief is twofold. One is that when we have broader studies, it allows for greater goodwill within this group, because it's like the buffets that we have lost sight of during this pandemic. There's something for everyone. That's really important as we think about working together for Canadians. It's not really a big deal, in my opinion, to expand it.

The reality of these committees and these studies, Mr. Chair, is that regardless of what the scope says, and we hear calls of relevance all the time in the House, members approach these studies how they want to, when all is said and done.

I don't know why we don't harness the goodwill of the committee. We passed a lot here. I heard you remark with much satisfaction at the end of the last committee meeting that everybody got something. Isn't that really the way these committees should be?

It's really not a big deal in my opinion if we expand it to all rural Canadians, in particular seniors. It's a small act of goodwill for what really is an endless number of studies that we have before us now. I'd be shocked, looking at the calendar, if we got through more than our top four, and we're heading well into the double digits here.

Let's pass this. I'm not confident we'll get to it in this Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Kusie.

We have Madame Chabot, followed by Mr. Long, Mr. Ruff and then Mr. Van Bynen.

Madame Chabot, you have the floor on the amendment to the motion.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am troubled. That may be putting it a bit strongly but nevertheless I find both the amendment and the motion itself disconcerting. We are being asked to conduct a study on problems faced by Canadians living in rural areas across the country. But what specific problems are we to study? Do they pertain to services or housing? It's not clear. We're being asked to conduct a study on the circumstances faced by rural Canadians, and seniors in particular,

In Quebec, there are organizations that work on problems specific to rural communities. One such example is Solidarité rurale du Québec. Even before the motion was amended, I found its scope rather broad. There must be an objective underlying this motion. Why would the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Conduct a study on rural Canada? What specific problems are we to address?

I'm going to abstain from voting because the wording is unclear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Mr. Long, you have the floor, and we're debating the amendment.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Certainly, props to Mr. Van Bynen for the motion, but with respect to the amendment, I would argue that it's out of scope. When we're studying seniors, that's under the purview and mandate of this committee. When you widen that to rural Canadians, it's definitely out of scope for this committee. I can't support that amendment. We need to focus on seniors, which is a responsibility of HUMA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Mr. Ruff, you have the floor on the amendment.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'll just address Mr. Long's point. We're the human resources committee, so I don't think it's out of scope at all. It's well within scope.

Madame Chabot makes some valid points, too. We should maybe narrow this down a little, not from the amendment perspective but just on what issues specifically rural Canadians face. That's a valid point.

I've stated this in the House before. One of the reasons I got involved with federal politics was the ever-increasing rural-urban divide. I really think we need to figure out how we get all Canadians working together. This is a specific issue that is worthwhile. The amendment takes us to that bigger sort of thing.

I don't have the stats in front of me for all of the ridings for all the members here, but I would bet money that my riding likely is a significantly older demographic than most of the other ridings around the table, and the issues that apply to seniors apply to all rural Canadians in a lot of ways.

I'd make a proposal. If Mr. Van Bynen's open to it, why don't we just pause this one and rework it so we can address the concerns of Madame Chabot and our concerns on our end and then get to the issues that we need to resolve here in the next 20-some minutes of prioritizing the remaining things.

Those are just my two cents, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

Mr. Van Bynen and then Mr. Coteau and Madam Zarrillo.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I am in agreement with what Mr. Long had to say. My concerns are that things are very different in rural Canada, for seniors specifically. If we get into a much broader analysis or study, we're going to lose the impact of what I'd like to accomplish, and that is to get a better understanding of the support infrastructure.

For example, in many urban areas you'll have seniors centres that have not been established in rural areas. The transit infrastructure is not there. Access to reliable Internet services is not there. There's social isolation in rural communities for seniors. That impact, I think, has been far more dramatic and highlighted during this last pandemic.

My concern is that the seniors group is a very high-risk group that needs a good understanding in terms of what we can do to support them because of their age, but also the nature of their location and the community structure they're living in. I think that we would lose an awful lot if we broadened that to include everything. That would be like an effort to boil the ocean. That's not going to provide us the kind of information that I'm seeking, which is very specific toward seniors, the impact of being more isolated, and how we can put forward some recommendations that could be considered for the government to deal with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Madame Chabot, you still have your hand up. Unless it's new, I'm going to Mr. Coteau.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I had lowered it, but I raised it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Mr. Coteau, Madam Zarrillo, Madame Ferrada, and then we will go to Madame Chabot.

[Michael Coteau]

I want to thank Mr. Van Bynen for the motion. I think it's very timely. It's very specific. Members opposite want to amend it to expand the scope of it, but there's no question, looking at the original motion: The member has a specific area of focus that he would like this committee to look at, and that's seniors and how they're impacted in rural Ontario and Canada as a whole.

It's interesting, because about half an hour ago, a member from the opposite side said that student hunger, bringing that forward, was silly and it was time for us to get serious. We have a short timeline. At the same time, what this amendment is doing is opening up the scope to make it so wide and not specific. It's doing the exact opposite of what the member argued half an hour ago.

If any of the members on this committee want to introduce a motion that is wider in scope and looks at different issues, they have the opportunity to do that, but to take the original motion and its intent and dilute it in such a way when it's obvious it's focusing on rural Canada and seniors is taking away from its intent.

I take this issue very seriously, just like I take student hunger very seriously, and I think we should focus on the specific scope of what the member's trying to achieve here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

We will go to Madam Zarrillo next, and then Madame Ferrada and Madame Chabot.

Madam Zarrillo, you have the floor on the amendment.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Speaking to the amendment that would widen it, there is a lot of conversation, even in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, about the rural-urban divide. It's definitely a conversation that we need to elevate. I'm concerned about the hollowing out of our rural communities due to the lack of existing public services and infrastructure in those communities. I definitely like the idea of an expansive study. I'd love to see an expansion of our economy go out into rural communities. I'd like to see the government invest in more public infrastructure and more social supports.

I'm thinking about immigrants and about the refugees who come to this country. In my riding we've had a number of refugees come in over the years. They put them into these high-density urban centres, because the social services and the support networks are there, but the housing is totally unaffordable. Finding employment is really difficult.

There are a lot of issues here. I'm sorry to say that I think the amendment potentially needs to be a bit narrower. I'd like to focus on public infrastructure and social supports that are missing in those rural communities for seniors, but also for all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

Next on the amendment is Madame Ferrada and then Madame Chabot.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm an MP, but not in a regional riding. However, my 72‑year‑old mother lives in one. Conditions for seniors in rural communities are truly difficult. I am worried that unless we conduct a study focused on seniors, we will dilute the stated intent.

I'll come back to this subject—I'll mention my mother's case once again, and say hello in case she happens to be listening—to point out that things like transportation are more difficult for seniors. For example, when seniors lose their driver's licence there is no transportation available in their region. It's therefore very difficult for them to get around.

There is also the matter of activities for seniors living in rural areas, which is truly problematic. I'm also thinking of the problems they might have in simply trying to get to the supermarket. It can sometimes be two, three or five kilometres from their house. For seniors in regional communities then, the challenges are much greater than for other segments of the population.

I wouldn't want to mitigate the intended purpose of a study on conditions for rural seniors. That's why I believe this motion is very important. I would have liked an amendment like that, and it seems to me that if we dilute the intent of the motion there is a risk that we will miss out on an opportunity to address an extremely important issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Ferrada.

Next is Madame Chabot and then Madam Kusie.

Madame Chabot, you have the floor on the amendment.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

More broadly, the situation we have just described with respect to rural communities, where more problems might be encountered than in cities, applies to seniors, and also to other categories of residents. For all such instances, I think we need to do something. I'm worried that this might not happen in each of our respective provinces.

In my riding, it's a reality that also concerns health and social services centres, organizations, our municipalities and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités. I don't see how a federal study could deal with all of that. These issues are already being addressed in each of our jurisdictions and I hope that no one opts out.

I don't see why the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities would conduct a study on that and do not believe that it's part of its terms of reference.

As for seniors, I agree that their transportation challenges and the fact that they have more trouble getting around are problematic. I'm happy about the fact that this is being dealt with in Quebec and it is of concern to us. Once again it's not that we are not in favour of the objective being discussed, because we are all concerned about these situations, but rather trying to remain within the committee's terms of reference. I would even go so far as to say, with respect to the status of seniors, that we have agreed to complete the study that our committee had begun.

Could we complete the study, write the report and then see if there are certain aspects to put in perspective afterwards?

Could we do a targeted study?

Are there any factors that do not appear to have been considered?

There have no doubt been some instances of testimony about specific issues affecting seniors in rural communities, but I can't remember any. Can we expect to see the recommendations and the report so that we can avoid having to do the same work twice? Our goal is to come up with concrete and pragmatic solutions for the future.

Thank you.