Human Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good morning, committee members. The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum and the sound tests have been done, so we are ready to begin. I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 99 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person or by using Zoom.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute your microphone when you're not speaking. Interpretation is available. You have the option to speak in the official language of your choice. If there is a disruption in translation, please get my attention by raising your hand or using the “raise hand” function. I will suspend while that is being corrected.

I would also like to remind members to please, when you can, speak a little slowly for the benefit of the translators. I would ask those in the room to keep your earpiece away from the microphone when you're not using it, because it can lead to feedback that could harm the hearing of the translators.

Please direct all questions through the chair. Wait until I recognize you. As I said, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand and I will recognize you.

I want to thank Ms. Gray for sitting in and chairing Monday's meeting of the committee. Thank you, Ms. Gray.

At that meeting, it's my understanding there was unanimous agreement to resume debate on the motion that was being discussed at the conclusion of that meeting. It was a motion moved by Ms. Falk at the start of the meeting.

I will first give the floor to Ms. Falk to reread her motion. Then I will go to Mr. Fragiskatos for an amendment to the motion.

Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Just to reread the motion, it states:

That the committee express its concern about the progress made towards the goal of a Canada without barriers by 2040, and that it report its opinion to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Falk.

According to your agreement, Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Yes, thank you, Chair. I do wish to amend Ms. Falk's motion. I'll read the amendment slowly for translation purposes. The amendment reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee express its concern about the progress made towards the goal of a Canada without barriers by 2040 and undertake a study of no less than three meetings to review the government's progress towards meeting the goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040; 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]

Thank you. It's my understanding the amendment has been circulated in both official languages.

Is there any discussion on the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos?

Ms. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to see you here.

On this motion, I think that with the amendment, with what we heard there—and we looked back at what Mr. Fragiskatos said that day about doing a study and having three meetings—that was sort of the general tone. We saw just this morning, just before the meeting started, what the actual wording is. We questioned Air Canada at that time, and I think MP Falk's intention was kind of broad, because it was very short and the committee expressed its concern about the progress made towards the goal of Canada being without barriers by 2040. When we add in this part about the study, the study is very specific and is about reviewing the government's progress, and that's what the amendment says.

Basically with the way it's reading now, it has what the intention is but then the study was to be a bit broader, concerning Air Canada and perhaps other airlines. This actually says to “review the government's progress”, so this is very specific about the government, which could be part of this surely. However, since we had Air Canada here, it was a little broader. I think this is getting very specific. Also, just the way it is, it says “government's progress”. The wording makes it sound as though the government is progressing as opposed to it talking about what the status is.

I think a lot of what is in here doesn't reflect the intention based on where it came from and the original comments that day.

Also it has completely changed. Rather than just saying that we're doing a study, it says “table a comprehensive response to the report”, whereas MP Falk's motion said that it should “report its opinion to the House”, so that completely changes what the intent of that was as well. It didn't keep that part in, so it's changing it quite substantially.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

It's Mr. Fragiskatos and then Madame Chabot on the amendment.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, you don't need to hear this from me—you're a very able and respected chair—but if it were changing the motion of Ms. Falk very substantially, it would be out of order, and clearly it's not out of order, so there's that.

More to the point, however, I'm quite surprised with the response we've heard from our colleague. Here we heard from the head of Air Canada the other day in testimony that I think affected all of us. We have many constituents who have had experiences and challenges. I personally read into testimony about the challenges of one particular constituent, and Ms. Zarrillo, who brought the initial idea forward to summon Air Canada, did basically the same.

I see nothing wrong with our looking at this in a study, in three meetings no less, examining these matters and, yes, looking at what the government has done. I expect the opposition would be very willing to critique the government's progress. Let's examine that. Has the government done a good job on this file? What improvements need to be made? What I could take from Ms. Gray's comments is that the government has made such substantial progress that they don't want to examine that, that they're somehow afraid of looking at that in greater detail. That's interesting, and the Conservatives are apparently on record as saying that this morning.

Unless they wish to turn course here, which we can do, I think this is a very reasonable amendment. We can delve into the details and look at it on behalf of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you. The amendment is in order.

We now have Madam Chabot, Ms. Falk, Ms Ferreri, and then Ms. Gray.

Madam Chabot, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I received the proposed amendment to Mrs. Falk's motion, which she just read, I found it somewhat intriguing. This is a proposal to examine the government's progress, but I don't think it captures the intent of the original motion.

The beginning of the amendment is fine. It says, “pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee express its concerns about the progress made”. We have concerns, and that's why the motion was moved.

However, three meetings is too many.

I will therefore move a subamendment. First, I suggest that we request a study that will take at least two meetings. That should suffice. Then I would replace the words “to review the government's progress towards” with “on”. The motion would therefore ask that “of at least two meetings on progress towards meeting the goal of a barrier-free Canada”. This subamendment would bring some neutrality to the proposal.

In short, the idea is, we express our concerns and conduct a study lasting at least two meetings on meeting the goal of a barrier-free Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

We are now on the subamendment by Ms. Chabot.

Is there any discussion on the subamendment?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I think it's a reasonable subamendment and I think we should go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Gray, go ahead on the subamendment.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that we shouldn't do a study in my comments. I was just clarifying the type of study we should be doing.

I wanted to clarify that after Mr. Fragiskatos's comments earlier.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

Seeing no further discussion, I will call for a recorded vote on the subamendment by Ms. Chabot.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We will now deal with the amendment as subamended.

Go ahead, Mrs. Gray, on the amendment as subamended.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move a subamendment.

This is being circulated now. After the words “a Canada without barriers by 2040”, I would like to move that we add “and given the testimony heard by the committee on February 5, 2024 that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee hold no less than two meetings to study the progress towards a barrier-free Canada; that the committee invite the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Canada's chief accessibility officer, the Auditor General of Canada, Canada's accessibility commissioner, disability advocates and federally regulated industry representatives;”.

That would be the end of the subamendment.

To be clear, it would then be followed by “and that it report its opinion to the House”, which was already in the original amendment.

The intention of this is to clarify that this would be a fulsome study. We heard testimony during the last meeting from Canada's chief accessibility officer, who had a serious incident with Air Canada. We know the Auditor General of Canada has done an audit on persons with disabilities in transportation. We have not had the Auditor General here yet on this. She wrote to this committee saying she could come to committee. This would be the perfect time to put this together because of this particular study we're doing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Just so I'm clear, it is two meetings, because the committee—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

The committee just amended it to two. Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay.

I'll get the clerk to read the subamendment of Ms. Gray, just so that we're clear. Then I'll go to Mr. Long.

Please read the subamendment.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Ariane Calvert]

It reads as follows: "That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee express its concern about the progress made towards the goal of a Canada without barriers by 2040 and undertake a study of no less than two meetings to study the progress towards the goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040; that the committee invite the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disability, the Auditor General of Canada, Canada's chief accessibility officer, Canada's accessibility commissioner, disability advocates and federally regulated industry representatives; 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]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Long, and then....

Ms. Falk, did you have your hand up?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Yes. I thought you'd acknowledged me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I had, yes. Go ahead, Ms. Falk. Then we will go to Mr. Long.

We are now on the subamendment by Ms. Gray.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

At the last meeting, when MP Fragiskatos brought up turning it into a three-meeting study, I'd thought that was a great idea, especially because we had only Air Canada at our meeting. I know, and I'm sure everybody around this table knows, that there are also other airlines that have treated people with disabilities horribly. It is not just Air Canada. I think this is a great opportunity, brought forward by MP Fragiskatos, to be able to look at this a little bit more wholesomely, make a study out of it and report it to the House. I think absolutely this is in line. MP Gray mentioned how we haven't had the AG here yet, who had specifically done a report and written to us, asking to come here.

I think this is great. I think just expanding it or taking the study and giving the opportunity to people who can come here to speak, or who have the authority to speak, to these items is imperative.