Irek Kusmierczyk

[Windsor Journalists, April 7th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard it said that stories create communities. For decades, my community has been home to three of the best storytellers in Canada. They are journalists representing print, radio and television who have signed off on their last assignments.

Jim Crichton anchored CTV News Windsor for 21 years. Anne Jarvis was an award-winning reporter and columnist for the Windsor Star for 32 years, and Tony Doucette spent 38 years at CBC, including 16 years as the host of Windsor Morning. Together, they were the pen, the voice and the trusted source for tens of thousands who tuned in or turned the page to make sense of our world. Anne said it best:

This job was an adventure every day. I’ve covered prime ministers and premiers,...

But often, those who inspired me most were ordinary people who enriched the community in all kinds of ways.

I thank Anne, Jim and Tony for sharing their talents and enriching our community by helping us to tell our stories.

[Automotive Industry, March 31st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to think how one announcement can transform an entire community, but that is exactly what happened last week in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh.

Our federal government secured a $5-billion investment that will see the first battery factory in Canada built in my hometown of Windsor. That partnership with Stellantis and LG will create 2,500 auto jobs in our community. It is the largest automotive investment in the history of Canada and it is the largest single investment in the history of Windsor—Tecumseh. Residents describe it as transformative. What this does is it helps a community that has seen its fair share of valleys build a bridge to prosperity for generations to come.

Windsor-Essex is the automotive capital of Canada. We build things better than anyone else in the world, and with federal leadership on climate change, we are ready to lead our country’s transition to a zero-emission future.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague for his story and for his words. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this proposed amendment.

Our employment insurance program is there to support Canadians when they are unable to work or unable to find work. Over the past several decades, governments have amended the EI Act to adapt to Canada's changing employment environment. In that same tradition, the bill we are debating today seeks to change an existing program to address evolving circumstances. However, we need to ensure that any amendments to the EI Act are considered in the full context of the new reality. Please allow me to outline some of the reasons that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion opposes Bill C-215.

Parliament has already approved an extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. We are working hard to implement the extension this summer to better support Canadian workers. In contrast, an extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52 weeks, as proposed in this bill, would incur an estimated incremental cost of over $2 billion per year, which is $1 billion more per year than the extension to 26 weeks. It could impact labour-market attachment and participation by providing additional income support to many workers who are not expected to return to work, and could result in a drop in employer-provided sickness benefit coverage, leading to more claims against the EI program.

Sickness benefits within the EI program are a short-term income replacement for temporary work absences due to illness, injury or a quarantine. When Canadians are facing illness or injury, they deserve to feel confident that the EI program is financially supporting them and protecting their jobs as they recover. Unfortunately, we recognize that some workers use the maximum number of weeks of EI sickness benefits available to them before they are healthy enough to return to work.

A worker who needs more time to recover from an illness should not have the added burden of coping with financial stress, which is why in budget 2021 our government pledged to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. The permanent extension of the EI sickness benefits, expected to be in effect by the end of this summer, will provide Canadians with additional time and flexibility to recover and return to work. Other supports are available to workers who may be eligible for longer-term illness and disability, including the Canada pension plan disability benefit, benefits offered through private and employer insurance, and financial supports provided by the provinces and territories.

The current 15 weeks of temporary income support available under EI sickness benefits provide an amount equal to 55% of the worker's average weekly insurable earnings. In 2022, this maximum weekly amount is $638. In 2019-20, on average, workers used approximately 10 weeks of EI sickness benefits. However, just over one-third of workers used the full 15 weeks of sickness benefits available. That told us there was a need to extend the number of weeks available to provide more time to recover for those suffering from longer-term illness. That is why we have committed to increasing the maximum number of weeks from 15 to 26 weeks. We think this strikes a good balance.

The increased number of benefit weeks is a positive change to the EI program, but the government has a much bigger picture developing that must also be addressed. When the COVID pandemic struck, it quickly exposed inadequacies in the EI program. It taught us that EI has not kept up with the way Canadians work, nor has it kept up with emerging trends in labour markets. The gradual and continued emergence of gig workers and self-employed Canadians in recent years is perhaps the best example. The CERB and the Canada recovery benefit helped many of those 2.9 million people keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. It is clear that the EI program was unable to adequately respond to a major crisis like the COVID pandemic, hence the necessity for the government to introduce a series of emergency benefits.

On the positive side, the government is grasping the unique opportunity to bring the employment insurance program into the modern era and to make it more inclusive. Indeed, it is a major component of the mandate letter for the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

Last summer, the minister joined the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to launch the first phase of a two-year consultation on the future of the EI program. To reach as many Canadians as possible, the minister asked her department to launch a consultations portal, which included an online survey, where all interested Canadians could share their views. The survey was open from August 6 to November 19 last year and drew more than 1,900 responses. Approximately 60 written submissions came from a cross-section of labour, employer and other groups.

The minister personally attended many of the 10 national and 11 regional round tables to hear feedback on how the EI program could better serve Canadians. Input was received from more than 200 stakeholders across the country, including employer and employee organizations, unions, academics, self-employed and gig worker associations, parent and family associations, and health associations, just to name a few. The overarching goal is to bring forward a vision for a new and modern EI system that is simpler and more responsive to the needs of workers and employers.

The first round of the consultations focused on key priorities relating to improving access to EI, including how to address the temporary emergency measures that will expire this fall. We are also examining whether the EI system meets the evolving and diverse needs of Canadian families, like, for example, how to make maternity and parental benefits more flexible and inclusive for adoptive parents. There are differing views, obviously, but I know the minister has found a unanimous commitment on the part of both employer and employee representatives to develop a modern EI program that is resilient, accessible, adequate and financially sustainable. The government is planning a second phase of round-table consultations by the summer.

Aside from the information, advice and recommendations from the round tables and online consultations, there are several other reviews, evaluations and reports already available. In particular, there was some excellent work in 2021 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which included 20 recommendations on modernizing the EI program.

In conclusion, the EI program has been a crucial part of Canada’s social safety net since 1940. As I mentioned earlier, EI has become the most complex system within the Government of Canada. Reforming EI for the 21st century is essential, and the government is moving with pace to get it done and, more importantly, get it done well.

[COVID-19 Economic Measures, March 28th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, we are proud of our track record in terms of supporting seniors. One of the first things that we did for seniors was to restore the age of eligibility of OAS back to 65 from 67. We enhanced CPP. We raised the GIS for single seniors. We introduced the special tax repayment for those who receive OAS and GIS. We invested half a billion dollars for seniors' essential services and supplies during the pandemic, and we provided a one-time $500 payment to seniors 75 and older. Of course, this year we are increasing OAS by 10%.

We have been there for seniors before the pandemic. We were there for seniors during the pandemic, and we continue to be there for seniors. We recognize that they are some of the most vulnerable Canadians in our society.

[COVID-19 Economic Measures, March 28th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I think all of us agree that, during the pandemic, so many of our most vulnerable Canadians and constituents were severely impacted and, of course, seniors are at the top of that list in terms of the challenges that they faced. However, contrary to what my colleague is suggesting, the financial support needed by more vulnerable Canadians remains available and has been there from the start of the pandemic. From the onset of the pandemic, the Government of Canada has been implementing measures to help those who need it most.

Today I am going to focus on an additional program available to provide temporary income support for the most vulnerable in Canada. This additional support came through Bill C-2, which we tabled in December 2021 and was promptly passed, thanks in large measure to the NDP. This bill enabled us to provide benefits to Canadian workers whose employment was impacted by COVID-19 in designated lockdown regions. In light of the omicron surge, Bill C-2 proved to be very forward-looking. Among other things, the bill introduced the new Canada worker lockdown benefit. It also extended the weeks available for the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

I am not going to go into too much detail, but I will briefly explain what the new Canada worker lockdown benefit is. The benefit provides income support of $300 per week through to May 7, 2022, to eligible workers who are directly affected by a public health lockdown order related to COVID-19 in their respective region. Eligible workers can apply within 60 days of the lockdown in their designated region to receive the benefit retroactive to October 24, 2021. In December 2021, in response to public health restrictions brought about by the omicron variant, we temporarily expanded the Canada worker lockdown benefit definitions so that more workers would be eligible. This temporary definition ended on March 12, 2022.

My colleague's question implies that the government is using financially vulnerable people as the basis for economic recovery and that assertion is false. The truth is that some beneficiaries received overpayments because of, for example, the Canada emergency response benefit advance payment. We are in the process of identifying those overpayments, and we will proceed with recovering them. By the way, flexible repayment options are available to prevent undue hardship for recipients.

Canadians are at the very heart of every decision this government makes and, yes, financial support is there for more vulnerable Canadians.

[Government Programs, March 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is well timed, and I share his urgency on this issue.

The Government of Canada has been there for persons with disabilities throughout the pandemic, and we are still there for them.

Our response to the pandemic took people with disabilities into consideration. We provided money to support seniors and students with disabilities.

We funded a one-time tax-free non-reportable payment of up to $600 to help persons with disabilities weather the crisis, and since the beginning of this benefit in October 2020 and until December 2021, Service Canada issued payments to 1.75 million individuals, for a total value of $815 million. Now we are in the process of mapping out a disability inclusion action plan, which includes financial relief through a Canada disability benefit.

The benefit has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities and their families.

I thank the member again for his advocacy and his sense of urgency on behalf of his constituents.

[Government Programs, March 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the tragic story of Hayden and Rebecca hurts all of our hearts deeply. This story is the centre of our work. It is what drives our work each and every single day.

My friend and colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre, raises the important issue of how the Government of Canada is supporting our most vulnerable.

I want the House to know that we are working on setting up the Canadian disability benefit.

In her mandate letter that was published on December 16, 2021, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion was instructed to move forward with our campaign platform commitment for the design, introduction and implementation of a Canada disability benefit act and a Canada disability benefit for low-income working-age persons with disabilities. The need for this benefit is clear.

Despite the progress that has been made in recent years, Canadians with disabilities continue to face persistent barriers to full economic and social participation. Prior to the pandemic, the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability painted a troubling picture of economic disparity. At the time of the survey, working-age Canadians with disabilities were over two times more likely to be living in poverty than the general population, at 21% to 11%. The situation is even worse for those with more severe disabilities and for women, indigenous peoples, LGBTQ2 and racialized Canadians with disabilities.

Over the past year, the global pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated the entrenched inequities faced by Canadians with disabilities. A recent survey tabled by this very member, the member for Kitchener Centre, showed that two-thirds of respondents with disabilities indicated that they were having difficulties meeting their financial obligations or essential needs as a result of the pandemic. I might add that it was a survey garnering almost 18,000 signatures.

The Canada disability benefit would address these inequities head-on. It would reduce poverty and support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities, but we cannot say much yet about some of the specific aspects of the benefit, and that is because we want to engage provinces and territories to ensure the benefit supplements, rather than replaces, existing benefits and income, so in the spirit of “nothing without us”, we are engaging persons with disabilities and the disability community directly in the design of the benefits.

That is essential. Canadians with disabilities know better than anyone what economic obstacles they face and what supports they need to achieve financial security.

We know Canadians with disabilities are eager to see these benefits implemented, and we now have a golden opportunity to move forward with a postpandemic recovery that includes people with disabilities.

I thank the member for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of Hayden and Rebecca and their legacy.

[Canada National Parks Act, March 21st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, that is right.

We joined the minister and dozens of local partners at Ojibway Park to announce our government’s commitment to create seven new national urban parks, and Ojibway was among them. It was a historic day.

Since that day, we have been busy putting in the work to make Ojibway national urban park a reality. Just this past January, our federal government provided the City of Windsor with $600,000 to begin assessments and consultations and to carry out a joint work plan with Parks Canada.

In short, the first concrete steps toward Ojibway national urban park are already taking place, and that process is being led by the good people at Parks Canada, who have experience and expertise in leading good processes that create good parks. We are not alone in that process.

Windsor is one of five cities where we have signed agreements with municipal governments, and we are working with provincial governments, indigenous partners and stakeholders to develop national urban parks that will form part of a national network in Victoria, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Halifax and Windsor.

The key point is that each of these cities is unique. Each presents specific opportunities and specific challenges in establishing a national urban park. Last August, we announced $130 million to support the creation of national urban parks in the five cities mentioned. This is part of the $2.3 billion over five years committed to Canada’s nature legacy of budget 2021.

Like the Parks Canada process currently under way, Bill C-248 also seeks to create a new national urban park. However, Bill C-248 introduces a flawed process that is not based on public consultation. Instead, it would harm the authentic and organic relationships and engagement required in the successful creation of a new urban park.

Let me talk about the Parks Canada path we are currently on and note how Bill C-248 departs from it. The name Ojibway national urban park refers to parcels of land that, together, are known as the Ojibway Prairie Complex. The first thing one needs to know is that the Ojibway Prairie Complex is an assemblage of properties that includes four municipal parks, a provincial nature reserve and other natural areas in the western part of Windsor.

There is also a desire to include a federally owned parcel of land under the management of the Windsor Port Authority called Ojibway Shores, and potentially other private parcels of land in the surrounding area. As one can see, the area is complex with multiple partners. Bringing the municipal and provincial governments, indigenous partners and other stakeholders together is a complex undertaking, but we are confident Parks Canada has the expertise to bring that about through consultation and engagement.

Bill C-248 would have the effect of unilaterally transferring these parcels to the federal government without any engagement or dialogue. That is simply wrong, and it creates the possibility that constitutional, legal and other issues and challenges may arise.

The Parks Canada approach is different. Our approach is centred on public consultations. We are also exploring a range of governance models in the creation of national urban parks. We are working with other implicated federal departments for a whole-of-government approach to any transfers of land. As well, we are engaging in the breadth of consultation a project of this complexity demands.

First and foremost, that means engaging, in the spirit of reconciliation, in a nation-to-nation dialogue with indigenous partners. Thorough and open consultation with indigenous partners on this proposal is essential.

Bill C-248 presents indigenous partners with a finished design without any consultation. That is a serious omission and error. As one can see, public consultation is at the very heart of the Parks Canada process currently under way. Bill C-248 is a shortcut that skips public consultation in favour of a fait accompli.

Consultations are required not only with indigenous communities but also with many additional levels. At the Ojibway announcement, I talked about the fact the protection of Ojibway has always been a grassroots community effort led by many partners.

For example, the Essex County Field Naturalists' Club completed the first-ever bioblitz of Ojibway back in 2014, which gave us the first true sense of the biodiversity in Ojibway. There is also the Friends of Ojibway Prairie, the Citizens Environment Alliance, the Environment Committee at Unifor Local 444 and the Essex Region Conservation authority.

This also includes folks like Tom Henderson, chair of the Public Advisory Council of the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup, Nancy Panchesan of Save Ojibway, and Jonathan Choquette of Wildlife Preservation Canada.

The Parks Canada path we are currently on is rooted in community and makes sure these diverse voices will be at the centre of its design from the start. Let us remember that the creation of the Rouge National Urban Park, which was led by Parks Canada, only came about after major consultations that included input from over 20,000 Canadians.

This is a legacy project, not to be undertaken lightly. In that regard, we will engage closely with indigenous partners to ensure that national urban parks, wherever they may be, provide space for indigenous stewardship, for voices and stories and for connections to land and water based on indigenous knowledge and values. Together we will define the boundaries, the requirements and the objectives of the park. Together we will find consensus on mechanisms to operate the park.

While I appreciate my colleague’s desire to proceed quickly, process matters. Parks Canada staff are working actively on this as a top priority, moving from assessment to agreement to full designation of an Ojibway national urban park. Bill C-248 is a shortcut that pre-empts and undermines all of the important work that I have outlined. Furthermore, the governance regime it proposes may not be suitable for the Ojibway national urban park, nor for the other urban parks we are working to create for cities across Canada.

Flexibility in governance models is key. Some may end up being administered through Parks Canada. For others, third party administration may be more appropriate. Others may require a hybrid solution. This bill assumes a single governance model, the authority of the Canada National Parks Act, and I would remind the House that for the park to be established under this act, the federal Crown would need a property interest in all lands within the park’s boundaries. We simply do not have that at this point.

This may well be an option worth exploring, but without giving a full hearing to other possibilities, we cannot know whether another option would be more suitable. Reaching agreement on a governance model will require flexibility and compromise, and that selection must be made in a spirit of collaboration, communication and respect, and founded upon mutual interest. Parks Canada already has in place a process to create national urban parks. It is based on the expertise of Parks Canada.

In summary, this private member’s bill presents us with a competing path to creating an Ojibway national urban park and to creating similar urban parks across Canada, but it is a fundamentally flawed process. Let me tell members how the Parks Canada path that we are currently on is better.

First, whereas public consultation is at the heart of the Parks Canada process, Bill C-248 presents a finished product and, as such, is top-down and unilateral. Second, whereas indigenous communities will play a lead role in the design of the Ojibway national urban park through the Parks Canada process, Bill C-248 does harm to that relationship by establishing an urban park without dialogue and consultation with first nations. Third, whereas the Parks Canada process understands that there are different partnership models worth exploring in consultation with local stakeholders, Bill C-248 rejects a bottom-up made-in-Windsor solution.

In short, Bill C-248 is a unilateral declaration that ignores the partnerships and voices necessary for long-term success. I applaud the enthusiasm and initiative of the hon. member for Windsor West, but Bill C-248 leads us away from the Parks Canada process and away from the values of stewardship, collaboration and community that are the very essence of an Ojibway national urban park. I hope he will contribute these efforts to advancing the Parks Canada process.

[Canada National Parks Act, March 21st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-248, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, Ojibway national urban park of Canada. I want to begin by acknowledging that the land I am speaking from today is the ancestral and unceded territory of the Three Fires confederacy of first nations: the Ojibwa, the Odawa and the Potawatomi.

The bill in front of us today was introduced by the member for Windsor West, and I share his enthusiasm for the creation of an Ojibway national urban park in Windsor. In fact mere days after my election in 2019, the MP for Windsor West invited me to his office one Friday evening to talk about my new role. Ojibway was one of the things we talked about. We both recognize that Ojibway is a precious gem unlike any other.

Compared to Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto, Ojibway is a postage stamp of land, but in its 300 hectares, Ojibway contains rare Carolinian forest and tall grass prairie. It also has the most biodiversity in all of Canada with hundreds of plants, reptiles and insects, and other wildlife. Eighteen months after my colleague from Windsor West and I met in his office, we joined Minister Karina Gould and dozens of local partners at Ojibway Park to announce our government’s—

[Russia's Attack on Ukraine, February 28th, 2022]

Madam Chair, I wanted to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and for talking about solidarity. It is such an important word. It was exemplified by the people of Ukraine over the last number of days. They have really shown us an example of that word and what it means.

This weekend I had a chance to participate in a rally in Lanspeary Park in Windsor—Tecumseh. It was organized by two very strong women and local leaders: Leisha Nazarewich and Carol Guimond. Many people at that rally asked, as Canadians, what we could do to show solidarity with the Ukrainian Canadian community. That is my question to my hon. colleague.