Evidence of meeting #134 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)) Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Committee, the clerk has advised me that we are ready to proceed in public now, since you voted to go in public.
With that, I have to open the floor because consideration of the draft report cannot be considered while we're in public.
We'll go to Mrs. Gray and then to Mr. Fragiskatos.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I want to say that the report we were to be discussing today was a draft report, but we can't talk about it because that was going to be in camera. Delaying the work of this committee is unfortunate because we do have timelines, especially going into a constituency week next week when the committee is not sitting. Any time we're delaying the work that has been set by this committee, it just delays things. We know there are only so many sitting weeks before Christmas, so all of that really does delay things.
On that, just to talk about the schedule of the committee, one thing that we at the committee were looking at was having ministers come to committee and talk about their mandates. Also, that was expanded. We see now, with the schedule that's been put forth, that we have less time with the ministers and this makes it really difficult.
For example, when a minister comes for only one hour, the minister does their statement, which could be five to 10 minutes, and then there are questions, which basically means that members from the official opposition would likely have only two or maybe three, if we're lucky. We have four members on this committee. When ministers come for only an hour, that means that not every member of this committee is able to ask questions of ministers, which means they're not being represented.
When you look at each of the ministers who report up through this committee, they have vast portfolios. To have a minister here for only an hour makes it very limited. Even if you just pick one issue that their department is dealing with, it makes it almost impossible to really properly ask the minister. As well, there are estimates that the ministers would come to speak on. Based on that, it makes it really difficult for us to properly question ministers.
We also know that the minister who's responsible for disability has put off meeting with this committee. There have been motions that have been put forth—and this is separate from what I'm talking about with coming and talking about mandate or main estimates—and we still don't have a commitment from the minister of disability to come to this committee. I'm not sure why she hasn't agreed to come to this committee. Some of what we've talked about, and the original motion for one of them, was originally discussed by this committee back in February. Now we're looking at nine months since the minister knew she had to come to committee. That hasn't happened as part of that study. In addition to that, we've called the minister to come to talk about her mandate and the main estimates. I don't believe we have a date for the minister of disability as part of that. Those are two things that we're actually waiting for the minister to come to this committee on.
It's really unfortunate that this committee isn't agreeing to have the ministers come and answer about their portfolios. We know that there is a huge number of issues that do flow through this committee. We have the minister responsible for employment. When you look at the employment numbers, they are on a trajectory where unemployment keeps going up.
When you look at housing and all of the issues around housing, we do have a number of studies that this committee has done on housing. However, we need to hear from the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities as well.
Then there's diversity, inclusion and persons with disabilities. We have labour. We have seniors, families, children and social development, citizen services. These are vast portfolios. To have the ministers only come for one hour to talk about their mandate and also potentially to talk about supplementary estimates when we might only get a couple of rounds of questions is not acceptable.
Part of the job of this committee is to work on all of these portfolios and to hold the ministers to account. We really need to be hearing from these ministers in a more appropriate way. I know, even in past times, the other committee members have really shut it down, where we've had two ministers come at the same time—or even three ministers—which diminishes that even more. There are lots of questions that we need to ask. We hear from our constituents in our communities. We hear from stakeholders who flow through all of these departments, and we have lots of questions to answer.
Sometimes we'll write to a minister's office and it might take, depending on the minister, as long as six to nine months for their office to respond to something. That's the role of the official opposition, and that's the role of the opposition—to question ministers so that they can justify the decisions they're making and answer the tough questions.
When we don't have the ministers coming to spend the time here when they're needed, it does make it a lot more difficult for us to do our jobs within our portfolios, because we're meeting with constituents and also stakeholders. They're asking us whether we're pressing the minister on this or asking the minister about that, because quite often they're in the weeds on the issues that are important to their stakeholders, whether they're a membership-based organization or an organization that focuses on certain things that they're advocating for—for example, persons with disabilities, a lot of those organizations. They'll say that this is what's important to them and ask whether we're asking about that. However, it makes it really difficult when we don't have the ministers here often and for much time.
There are only so many questions and so many topics that we can ask them about. That's why it's really important to have the ministers here longer and to have them here to answer questions that all members are able to ask. As I said, during a one-hour time period, we might only get two rounds, which means that if we have two members, then that's only two members asking questions.
This does make it very difficult for us to hold the government to account and to ask the questions that we need to. We also might have different issues that we're bringing forth with different recommendations or different suggestions that we can also discuss during those times. Without having the ministers here for a very long period of time, again, that makes it much more difficult for us.
As we're looking at our calendar and the schedule from now until Christmas, I know that we do have some other studies that we're completing. I see on the calendar that the committee has invited back the other witness from the CNIB, who wasn't able to participate due to translation issues. Ironically, that was on a study that had to do with disabilities and persons with disabilities.
As a reminder, as we're looking at the calendar, it was Conservatives who had put forth a motion to extend that study and not close it, so that we could hear from the minister responsible for disabilities and inclusion, because she did not come to the other meetings that were scheduled. We asked for the study to be kept open and extended so that we could hear from the minister responsible for disabilities and hear from that stakeholder who wasn't able to participate. It's good to see that's on the calendar now, but that was because Conservatives had pushed for that.
Looking at the translation issue, it was incredibly ironic that this was a study that had to do with hearing from persons with disabilities or those who serve or advocate for them, and here we had someone who wasn't able to participate. I know that was part of House administration rules and the committee has put forth questions about that, but that is also on our calendar.
Because the minister didn't come, and because of that issue, that has taken another day from committee, which is good, because we do need to hear from the minister and from that other witness who wasn't able to participate. However, there are also other things we're waiting for at this committee. To hear from ministers about all of their portfolio—
Conservative
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
It's not easy to have this in my ear while somebody is talking in the room. There's a lot of chatter in the room, which makes it difficult for me to follow what's going on.
Chair, I would just ask you to please ensure that the room is quiet so it is easier for us.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
You are all adults and know the rules. Mrs. Falk has a valid point. Please keep the side conversations to a minimum.
Mrs. Gray, go ahead.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just for any of those listening, on occasion—here's another translation issue, actually—what will happen at these committees is that we'll get feedback in the earpieces. You're actually hearing people talk at the same time. It's sort of like an echo. This is an ongoing problem that we've had. I know that the chair and the clerk have gone back to House administration on this, but it is an ongoing issue. Sometimes it's not a matter of actual translation. It's a matter of just hearing, because the volume in the room isn't very high and you actually need to have the earpiece in order to be able to hear what's being said. Some of it does appear to depend on what room we're in and on the set-up of the translators. It is an ongoing problem. We have commented on it many times, and for some reason we seem to be having the issue here again today. I don't know if this is the room. They also had to turn off a monitor due to sound issues that we've had in this room before. This is an ongoing issue.
To get back to what I was discussing in relation to the business of committee and ministers coming to committee, even when we look back, I think it was a year ago that the ministers were to come on estimates. It was past the date when they were to come. They were pushed off. There are certain deadlines that this committee has to follow and that all committees have to follow. The ministers actually were coming well into the new year, which does make it more difficult. When we're looking at the issues that the ministers have to come here to discuss, it's really important. We want to be questioning ministers on their entire portfolio, especially since sometimes we'll hear ministers make comments and we're not sure where they're coming from. One of the ministers was—
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
There's a lot of speaking on the other side. Could you please ask members to keep it down a little? I can't hear.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Coteau. That has already been raised.
Mrs. Gray, you have the floor.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll comment too that if multiple people have their mics on then you do get feedback as well.
Again, we've heard ministers or parliamentary secretaries make comments in the House of Commons, and you're sort of questioning, “Where does that come from?” The opportunity to ask them those questions would be when they come to committee.
There was a minister just last week who made a comment about Canada summer jobs, and I was looking at her thinking, “Where does that come from?” That is not something that came through this committee. It's not a recommendation that came through the study we had on the Canada summer jobs program. It's not something that was brought forth in the Conservative dissenting report when we did that study.
When we do have the ministers here, those are the kinds of things that we can question them on. Where is that coming from? Where are you hearing that? Is that a new policy? That's why it's really important for us to have ministers here for a good length of time to talk about their mandates and also about the main estimates.
There are a number of ministers we have not had here at this committee to even talk about their mandates. With the cabinet shuffle that happened several months ago, we have not had those ministers here to talk about their mandates. There are new ministers in those portfolios. Their mandates, for a number of them, didn't necessarily change from the former appointments. However, it behooves us to have those ministers come here so that they can tell us where their priorities are and how they fit into what those mandates are. We haven't even had an opportunity to do that with the cabinet shuffle that happened a number of months ago.
There might be another cabinet shuffle happening, with some ministers potentially stepping.... They might move things around because there are some people on the Liberal side who have announced that they're no longer running in the next election. There might be another shift as well. If that does happen and if it does involve this committee at all, we should be allowed to have those potentially newly appointed ministers come here to talk about their mandate and where their focus is. That's why it's so important, as part of the work that we do at this committee, to be really questioning the ministers.
I'm meeting with a number of stakeholders within all of the parts that fall within my role specifically as shadow minister for employment, workforce development and disability inclusion. I'm meeting with a lot of different stakeholders, and they're bringing forth a lot of issues to me. I really need the opportunity to be questioning the ministers on that, specifically the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, and also the minister responsible for persons with disabilities. We haven't had those ministers here for quite a while.
It's really important that, when we do have them here, we have them for a good length of time so that all members on the official opposition side do have an opportunity to really question them. Regardless of their shadow portfolios, they're also representing their constituents. Their constituents ask them, “The next time you see the minister, can you ask these questions?” We all get asked that, and if we're not given the opportunity, then it makes it more difficult for our jobs.
Our jobs are to bring the voices of our communities here to Ottawa. One of the ways to do that is through committee work and asking ministers the important questions that we're hearing from our residents and also, if we're a shadow minister, within our portfolio. That's why it's so important to have ministers here for a good length of time. One hour is simply not enough to cover everything that we have to, which includes mandates, main estimates and any other issues that we might want to ask about. Sometimes, too, the ministers will bring their officials, and then they might turn to the official to answer questions, and that takes even more time.
The ministers should be expected generally to come in the fall because that's when the main estimates are. We've also asked the ministers to come to talk about their mandates. When we look at our calendar going from now till Christmas, we just know for many of the ministers that they'll be here for just an hour, but we don't know when. They haven't committed. It's really not a surprise that a minister should be coming to committee in the fall, and it shouldn't be a surprise that they should be expecting to answer questions, and yet we don't know when many of the ministers are coming here.
The committee has the authority to have ministers come for longer. Ministers only coming for an hour to cover off all the things that we need to cover off is really not long enough. That's why we need to have them here for longer, or we need to have them come back, because there's just not enough time to ask the ministers everything that we need to ask them.
Again, going back to my shadow portfolio, I'm meeting continually with stakeholders from across the country, many of whom are in person here in Ottawa when they come and have their Hill days. Many people I'll meet on Zoom in order to get the feedback from them. They'll say, “How are you advancing this? What are you doing?” Of course, we can recommend studies at committee. We can put forth motions at committee to call different people here. We've done that before—for example, when we called the CEO of Air Canada here to talk about the issues relating to persons with disabilities.
We can question ministers when they come here to talk about their mandates and/or the main estimates. That's really what our job is, but it makes it more difficult when many ministers might only come once a year. I can think of a couple of ministers whom we haven't seen at this committee for a year now. There are always emerging issues that happen. Quite often, in a number of motions, we add that ministers also appear, and quite often that isn't agreed to. Therefore, it makes it more difficult because the only time we can question ministers is when they come for the main estimates or when they come for mandates.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Chair.
Chair, I'm just hoping that you could refresh us as to what the topic is. With respect, MP Gray is all over different topics. Could we, through you, ask MP Gray to maybe come forth with the motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
There was no specific topic when we went in public.
Mrs. Gray, you have the floor.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We don't have an agenda for this time here, but here we are in public. Therefore, when we came out of in camera to go into public.... Based on that, most of what I've been talking about is ministers coming to committee.
The other thing that we should really consider at this committee as well is when we do have ministers coming here, when we do have stakeholders coming here, it's really important for us to be able to question and ask them.
One thing with this committee that is a challenge from a time perspective is that we do have a fair amount of legislation that comes through this committee. That really does sometimes delay our ability to do a number of different studies. Legislation is important. Of course, government legislation is first, and then private members' bills as well. There always seem to be a number of private members' bills that do come through this committee, specifically around EI. It seems to be a topic from all parties where there are different private members' bills that come through. I know my colleague here, Rosemarie Falk, had a great private member's bill that had to do with.... It was so good that, in fact, the Liberal government took the idea of the private member's bill and put it in their omnibus bill, I believe, in the fall economic statement.
I'm glad to hear from members opposite that she did a good job in it. I do agree.
Just to refresh our memory, that had to do with people who were adopting or who were intended parents. That was a great piece of legislation to have parity for the amount of time that those people would go on EI, as opposed to people who had birthed a child. I was really proud to actually second that piece of legislation and to speak to it. Also, as a person who is adopted myself, it actually meant a lot to me. Thank you very much.
It's really great that our members can put forth that type of legislation. I was really happy to see that that did go through all the stages, although it then got stuck, because the government did not give it royal assent, unfortunately. Then they put it in with their own legislation. I guess they wanted to have credit for it.
You're the one who deserves the credit, Mrs. Falk, absolutely.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
It was very impactful to hear from many of the stakeholders from across the country who supported your legislation.
I know we have other pieces of legislation that have come through here as well—private members' bills that have been really well thought out.
I know our colleague, Ms. Vien, from Quebec, has a great piece of legislation that will be coming to this committee. I know that it was supported. I believe it was supported unanimously in the House—I'd have to look back. That was another really great Conservative piece of legislation that will be coming to this committee soon. It will take priority over other things, because it is a private member's bill. We also know, for private members' bills, that there are timelines that have to be met or else you have to ask for extensions. That's really important.
Some of these pieces of legislation or some of these recommendations really do come from wanting to support families. However, also we know that families are having an incredibly difficult time. We know that food bank usage is higher than it has ever been before. We heard incredible amounts of testimony at this committee on that particular topic.
In particular, when we were doing a study on intergenerational volunteerism, we heard from a number of not-for-profit organizations that gave very impactful testimony on how their not-for-profits were really suffering, because their donations were down. They were losing volunteers. They were saying that there were a number of volunteers of theirs who then had to become clients, unfortunately. We heard from some not-for-profits that had lost volunteers who were seniors, because they had to go back to work in order to pay for their basic necessities. We heard the record numbers of food bank usage. I know we had one witness, actually, from my community, from the Central Okanagan Food Bank, who talked about the increases in numbers.
I've talked about this quite a bit, and I've seen this, too, with other members of this committee, where we want to represent our residents. I always made it a goal coming here that I wanted to bring the voice of my community to Ottawa, and really made it a point to bring forth witnesses who could testify on a whole number of different topics. There are lots of witnesses who have testified here who might have worked in an industry for 30 years and never testified at a parliamentary committee before. It was really impactful for them to bring forth their voices here. I'm always thinking about who might fit with this study, who might be an expert in their own way, and bring their voice here—if not within my community, then from British Columbia. I think sometimes here you have the Ottawa bubble, as they call it, where you're hearing from lots of the same witnesses. I think it's important to hear from witnesses from all across the country.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Mr. Chair, the many people watching us—we are very popular, of course—must be wondering what we are doing.
We set an agenda, which included an in‑camera meeting. A member of the governing party asked for it to be a public meeting, but we still do not know why.
I am addressing you, Mr. Chair, because I do not know enough about procedure. I would like to move a motion to have us to revert to in camera and proceed to orders of the day, as planned.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I'm having a hard time hearing Ms. Chabot. I'm hearing the French. Her French is on the English channel, which has the interpreted English on the same channel. I'm having a very hard time hearing what she is saying.
