Evidence of meeting #137 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Foothills, CPC
Minister, will you answer the question?
How often were you lobbied by SNC-Lavalin to make this change to your department's procurement rules?
Minister of Accessibility
Mr. Chair, if it helps, I'm actually appearing tomorrow at OGGO on supplementary estimates. Perhaps I can answer that question tomorrow when I'm there in my capacity at OGGO.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Again, we are here to talk about the supplementary estimates. I don't see the relevance of this question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
I would agree with that.
Mr. Barlow, your time is continuing now. Please get to relevance.
Foothills, CPC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Ruimy and Minister Hajdu, I'm trying not to be partisan, but the minister just brought up, in her five-minute speech, everything the Conservatives did wrong and everything she's doing right. That has nothing to do with supplementary estimates. I'm asking some of the questions about what I believe your Liberal government is doing wrong and is unethical. You don't want to answer it; you don't want to face it. That's your decision, but our decision as members of Parliament is to ask questions that our constituents want answered.
Minister Hajdu used all her time to slam Conservative policy. We didn't put an attestation on the Canada summer jobs program that 1,500 groups were denied. The Liberal government did that. I think I can ask the questions that I need to ask.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
With very little time, I'm going to refer the member to page 1016 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. Under “Estimates”, “Consideration in Committee”, it says, “The questions and discussions at these meetings are generally wide-ranging, although the rule of relevance does apply.”
This is not an issue of censorship. This is an issue of relevance. You have very little time left.
Foothills, CPC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, but still you are taking away my opportunity to ask questions.
Minister Qualtrough, with Bill C-81, we had more than 200 amendments put forward, and we heard from disability groups that are extremely upset that none of those amendments were accepted, because they want to see some teeth in that legislation. Are you working with the Senate to put some teeth into Bill C-81?
Minister of Accessibility
Yes, we continue to work both with disability organizations and with senators to make Bill C-81 the best law it can be for Canadians with disabilities.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Thank you, everybody, for being here today.
We're here to discuss the supplementary estimates. I will focus my time with Minister Duclos.
There are some funds of $7 million for the implementation of the agenda for sustainable development goals, SDG. Keeping in line with that, I want to talk about housing and homelessness. There's no question that this country has been facing a national housing crisis. It didn't happen overnight. This has happened with decades of poor thinking and vision. In fact, in my riding we see this every single day, and it's challenging. How do we move forward? It's not just the federal government. It has to be all orders of government working together to fix this crisis.
I was one of the first people to do a round table on the national housing strategy. I was glad to see what I saw come out in the national housing strategy. To point out a couple of things, the government doubled the funding for the homelessness partnering strategy. In my riding and the greater Vancouver area, that means about $14 million per year to fight homelessness. Likewise on housing, according to the numbers I've seen in my riding alone, the government has invested more than $1.3 million in new housing projects, in addition to subsidizing more than 2,200 housing units. These are real things that affect people in my riding, in my home. British Columbia is one of those epicentres where we have challenges that we need to work on.
My question is twofold. First, how is the government working to implement the national housing strategy so that the money that's already flowing continues for the next decade? Second, with the current homelessness partnering strategy funds ending this year and the new homelessness strategy funding starting April 1, what's the government doing to make sure there are no gaps in the funding?
Liberal
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
Thank you, Dan, for reminding us of the importance of affordable housing across Canada. Of course it impacts families, children, seniors, women living in circumstances of family violence and many others. It impacts their abilities to be well and live safely. It also has an impact on communities. If we want our vibrant communities and cities across Canada to keep prospering, we need to have middle-class workers housed safely and affordably. Otherwise, construction workers, clerks, teachers, nurses, police and other people will not be able to live in the cities in which they need to work.
That's a clear crisis, and you're very good at highlighting it. In B.C. and the Lower Mainland in particular, this crisis is terrible. That's why we needed a new era of housing leadership and partnership on the part of the federal government, something that was lacking for too many years.
That came through the launch of the first-ever national housing strategy a year and a few months ago, in November 2017. This is a historic step for the federal government to assume its responsibilities, to make sure that every Canadian has access to a safe and affordable home. It's a $40-billion plan, a 10-year plan, a long-term plan, because this is what stakeholders want. It's also something that is going to decrease homelessness by at least 50%, take unacceptable housing conditions out of housing needs—more than half a million families—and as you said, lead to an era of partnership with municipalities, cities and provinces that we haven't seen for decades.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Thank you very much.
In keeping with the sustainable development goals, one of those goals is SDG 4, “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.
When I look at that, in the last two studies that we've done here in HUMA—on motion 110, about parents who've lost a child, and the last study that we're just wrapping up, about episodic disabilities—in both cases it points to an EI program that is trying to find the best ways to support people in the most difficult of times.
I know that your mandate letter called for an EI review. Is that review something that will take place? Will you be looking at cases such as what we've been exploring in these two studies that we've concluded?
Liberal
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
Once again, there is a clear link with the ability of our families, children and workers to live well.
You will know that, when we were elected in 2015, there were five special benefits. All of these five special benefits—and I won't list them—have been improved, made more flexible and more generous.
We have also added two new benefits: a family caregiver benefit, for people to be able to look after adults who are either sick or injured, and a new parental sharing benefit, which will be launched just a few weeks from now in March. That is going to help 97,000 families across Canada achieve, for example, greater gender equality, the ability of men and women to have the opportunity and the responsibility of sharing more equally the joys and the challenges that come with having both a work and a family life. That is a historic step towards making more of our parents able to fully take part in the labour force, towards reducing income poverty and towards enhancing gender equality.
In 2019, this is where we need to be.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you.
My first question is for you, Minister Duclos, because I believe that you did not answer my colleague's question. He asked you when employment insurance will be reformed.
Today, representatives from the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi are on Parliament Hill. They have come to show us how the Employment Insurance Act is sexist. Indeed, officials have told this committee that, currently, six out of ten workers have no access to employment insurance. When these statistics are broken down by gender, you see that 30% of women and 50% of men have no access to employment insurance. So seven out of ten workers who pay into employment insurance every week from every paycheque have no access.
Before Christmas, people from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses came to speak to you about the issue they call the “black hole”. There were workers from the North Shore, from the Gaspé, and from New Brunswick who have seasonal jobs. They came to tell you that conducting pilot projects is not enough. A thorough reform of employment insurance is needed, of how benefits are calculated and how eligibility is determined. Real reform is needed.
Just before that, Marie-Hélène Dubé came to visit you. Six hundred thousand people signed her petition to say that 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits are not enough. The section in the Employment Insurance Act on sickness benefits has not been reformed since 1971.
After being elected, I participated in the first opposition day organized by the NDP. We wanted results and we decided to talk about the Liberals' employment insurance program. All day, I was told by the government that they were going to vote against our proposals because they wanted to do better. The same thing happened when I tabled my Bill C-245 on a strategy to fight against poverty. You told me that you were going to vote against it because you were going to do better. This led to a three-pronged strategy.
This is why I am using the time that I have today to once again table the motion that I tabled last May 4; I consider it a priority. Motion M-201, which was tabled in the House last week, says much the same as the motion that I tabled here about one year ago.
Between now and the election, we will not have the time to implement your employment insurance reform. Nor will we have the time to design a true strategy to fight against poverty. However, we could have the time to address the issue of the inadequate length of time for employment insurance benefits. The current maximum is 15 weeks, which affects the most vulnerable people.
There is a new reality: one out of two Canadians will have to deal with cancer at some point in their lives. The committee can and must begin quickly, as stipulated in my motion:
... a study of a minimum of six meetings on the Employment Insurance sickness benefits program to examine specifically, but not exclusively;
a. if the program meets the real needs of its claimants;
b. the impact of the length of benefits on the claimants and on their recovery;
c. the program accessibility;
d. the population affected by this program and their characteristics.
Mr. Minister, we want to hear from you, most specifically about the 15 weeks. I know that my government colleagues will once again adjourn the debate to prevent us from voting on this motion. In the meantime, we will go back to the House and debate motion M-201, which says much the same thing as mine, when we could do it here.
As a government, you have the opportunity to decide what we discuss. You are deciding to introduce motion M-201 in the House, about the 15 weeks of employment insurance, when we could have discussed it here one year ago. This is what I don't understand. I want to see results for people now and that's what I'm waiting for.
February 26th, 2019 / 1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Chair, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
(Motion agreed to)
