Bill C-22

Canada Disability Benefit Act

An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act

This enactment establishes the Canada disability benefit to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. It sets out general provisions for the administration of the benefit and authorizes the Governor in Council to implement most of the benefit’s design elements through regulations. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act .

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for her strong advocacy, both for Canadians with disabilities and for a guaranteed livable income.

As she rightly points out, Canadians with disabilities need immediate support. In addition to moving forward and improving Bill C-22, we need to press to ensure that the benefit is funded as urgently as possible and press for emergency supports in the interim. As of now, though, the Canada disability benefit is not in the supply and confidence agreement with the governing party and the NDP, and important items that are, such as dental care, are being moved on more quickly as a result.

Could the member share her advice for what all members can do to get all parties to put funding the Canada disability benefit at the top of the priority list?

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

Mr. Speaker, before the House rose for the summer, all members called to put in place, without delay, a Canada disability benefit, and so I want to start by thanking the minister for respecting the will of the House and bringing Bill C-22 to the floor for second reading today.

I would also like to thank every member for their support of my unanimous consent motion that brought unity to this place on an issue of human rights and dignity. It is clear everyone in the House wants to get to work on improving the lives of persons with disabilities.

I look forward to working with all members to get the best possible bill passed, so we can put money in bank accounts and eradicate poverty among persons living with disabilities.

I also want to express my gratitude to all the organizations, individuals and allies who have done the heavy lifting to get us to this pivotal point. Their work has been difficult and powerful. Every meeting, email, phone call, letter, research paper, round table, media campaign and petition has led us to this point. I thank the disability advocates and allies in my own riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, including the amazing staff and members of Community Ventures Society, Share, Kinsight, Inclusion BC, Special Olympics British Columbia, Douglas College, Community Volunteer Connections, Lelainia Lloyd, Elaine Willis and Merle Smith. They have shared their skills and stories of the barriers that people with disabilities navigate every single day in this discriminatory and ableist world.

I acknowledge that the disability community has had to do much too much heavy lifting to fight for their basic human rights and equity. They should not have to face such discrimination, and I raise my hands to all of them for the work they do. I know their fight will continue even after the Canada disability benefit becomes law because the discrimination that persons with disabilities experience in this country is a moral, systemic and systematic failure that perpetuates in communities across this country. New Democrats are committed to doing the work for change.

New Democrats want to see Bill C-22 become law as soon as possible. We want people with disabilities to be legislated out of poverty. We want to see the funding for this new benefit in the next budget, and we want this new benefit to get to people right away.

We hope the Liberal government is committed to the same goal, but there is still work to do. This bill, as it currently stands, lacks the details, as many of my colleagues have mentioned. It lacks the details needed to know if it will achieve the goals it sets out to achieve. There is no clear eligibility, no details of how much the benefit will be or even when people can expect to start receiving it. This bill lacks the accountability and measures needed to be successful.

If this were an NDP government bill, it would have looked very different. New Democrats would have outlined how we will eliminate poverty, not just express an aspiration to reduce it. Canadians have waited seven years for this promised benefit, yet there are no details of what it actually means, and people with disabilities are no closer to having money in the bank. This is unacceptable. The Liberal government has a responsibility to tell Canadians how this bill is really going to improve their lives. How will it do what it aspires to do? What are the tangible ways it will help?

With the rising cost of food and the skyrocketing costs of housing and rent, too many persons with disabilities are suffering. COVID-19 has only amplified existing inequalities. People with disabilities have disproportionately been affected by loss of employment, social isolation, lack of access to transit and recreation. For those with immunity risks, just going out for necessities is still a risk.

Throughout the summer, too many tragic situations have happened. This is not new suffering. It is just an amplification of how dire the situation is, and it speaks to why the Canada disability benefit must be fast-tracked so it can help those who are suffering and save lives. The stakes are high when dealing with lives, and that is why Canadians need to have assurance that this benefit will be adequate, will reach the people it needs to reach, and will be fast-tracked.

Poverty is a reality for almost one million people with disabilities. Poverty is not an accident. It is legislated. This is because there is no national framework to protect their basic needs. The longer the government turns away from the promised Canada disability benefit, the more dire the situation becomes.

I want to share just a few of the stories from women who have reached out to me. For anonymity, I am just going to share their stories without names.

Here is the first one: “I’m trying to find remote work part time but if I make over $200 a month, Doug Ford will take it back provincially. We desperately need help and no three-year study is needed. It's been done. So many studies. Why the Liberals are stalling as more people are applying for MAID. My daughter is 21, epileptic with a blood disorder, also on disability, and she said, 'Mom, maybe we should consider MAID.'”

This is the second one: “This Canada disability benefit needs to get approved by all federal parties and 'fast-tracked!' This has nothing to do with working or not, as many cannot work! MAID is not a substitute for government aid to help pay for rent, groceries and medicine.”

Here is the last one I will share today: “I sacrificed many comforts to make life almost affordable. I share an apartment with two others above a store. The room I sleep in is not legally allowed to be called a bedroom because it has no window. It probably used to, but now the space between my building and my neighbour has a roof. I chose it because it made it easier to find roommates, and it's quieter. But it gets so hot in the summer that I can't sleep. My roommates keep their doors closed most of the time, so I get no natural light or fresh air at home. But it's better than the alternatives.”

I hear in these voices and the voices of many a call for urgent action. The rising cost of living is not slowing down, yet persons with disabilities are forced to wait for the government to see them, to prioritize them and to fulfill a promise it made years ago.

Since 2015, the Liberals have spoken about the importance of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty and the need for dignity, autonomy and human rights, yet their actions and their timelines have not matched their words. The Liberal government does not seem to understand the importance of this bill and how the lack of urgency is hurting people. It is beyond time that the Liberals do better.

Where past governments have failed, this House cannot. We can, through a united voice, hold the government to its promise of a Canada disability benefit that would actually lift people out of poverty and improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable Canadians who are falling further and further behind. This is a historic opportunity to end legislated poverty for persons with disabilities. The government can end it by delivering some of the most significant national income security advancements for Canadians with disabilities in over 50 years. Economists predict that poverty in Canada would be reduced by as much as 40% by eliminating disability poverty. I will repeat that number: 40%. I ask members to imagine that in Canada.

Done right, Bill C-22 has the potential to uphold the human rights and dignity of persons with disabilities and truly ensure they do not live in poverty. The key to the success, which many other members in the House today have also expressed, is that the amount of the benefit must be adequate. It must be enough to meet the basic needs of persons with disabilities.

In Canada, we have an official poverty line that spells out the amount needed to cover the basic needs of everyday life. It is a marker of the minimum income that people need to survive, yet that measure has failings, as it does not take into consideration the additional costs of a disability. That is why the government must work closely, as has been said in the House today, with other levels of government to ensure that Canada's disability benefit is truly a poverty reduction benefit with no clawbacks of any current federal, provincial or territorial disability programs.

Inclusion Canada says it this way: “provide a guaranteed adequate income floor for working age persons with disabilities.” This is what the committee has clearly expressed over and over again. A national benefit must be adequate.

Over one million people with at least one disability in this country live in poverty. Done right, this bill would legislate a million people out of poverty. Let us get it right, and let us do that quickly.

I reiterate that adequacy cannot come with clawbacks. The number one worry about this new benefit in the disability community is that any new income support program would result in clawbacks somewhere else. The Liberal government has already shown a pattern of introducing income support programs only to claw them back. This cannot happen. In the past, New Democrats have successfully fought for Liberal government clawbacks to be reversed. We do not want to have to do that again. There needs to be protection in this bill for no clawbacks.

I want to take a moment here to talk about choice. There can be no legitimate conversation on human rights, dignity, autonomy, or individual choice when people's most basic needs, such as housing, food, clothing and medication, are not met due to poverty. Governments say that everyone has equal and inherent rights, but we only need to look at the government's failure to deliver pandemic supports to persons with disabilities during this pandemic to remind ourselves that people living with disabilities are continually left behind.

The continuing exclusion of persons with disabilities in government decision-making and in budgetary commitments, and the insurmountable barriers to full and equal participation in civic life, have led some of the most vulnerable in our society to consider ending their lives, not because they choose to die, but because they see no way to live.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to offer people with disabilities equal protection under the law, including the income supports they need to survive. This is long-standing discrimination that needs to be corrected. Low-income persons with disabilities require, at minimum, a bill that commits to adequacy without clawbacks. It is a matter of life and death.

New Democrats share the disappointment of the advocates and allies who spelled out their needs and concerns, shared their stories and took part in years of consultation with the government, only to have eligibility details missing from the bill. No one knows who would receive this benefit.

People with disabilities are relying on the government to fast-track this benefit to deliver support without delay. The government has had a full year, seven years actually, to add that to this bill, and it makes no sense to New Democrats that the government has not been able to clearly articulate who will be eligible.

As New Democrats, we are concerned that, without the details, the government will leave people behind. We saw this during the pandemic. Even though persons with disabilities were already more likely to live in poverty, persons with disabilities were the last group to get emergency supports from the government. While corporations benefited from quick and decisive government action on emergency supports, persons with disabilities were an afterthought, and when those supports did come, only a third of people who needed it actually received it because access to those supports was underpinned by a deeply flawed disability tax credit system.

The disability tax credit does not work for those living in poverty. New Democrats support the calls from disability organizations and individuals for eligibility criteria to include persons with disabilities already eligible for provincial, territorial and federal disability programs. The government cannot rely solely on the disability tax credit, and the government must overcome its internal data problems because getting help to people must not be limited by the logistics of an antiquated system.

Eligibility must also be accessible, consistent and dignified. For too long, governments have added the burden of excessive reporting requirements to persons with disabilities, including checking in and having to empty out their pockets in front of a government employee. This is a barrier that takes away a person's autonomy and dignity. It is essential that eligibility for this new benefit is modernized and does not strip people of their dignity.

In closing, Canada aspires to be a world leader in the eradication of poverty, and here is our chance to make that a reality for persons with disabilities. This bill needs to ensure adequacy, support and eligibility. Promises are not enough. The persons living with disabilities in this country deserve the adequacy that they are entitled to. I look forward to working with all of the House at committee on this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today as the Bloc Québécois critic for disability inclusion.

The government has introduced a bill that aims to improve the financial situation of Canadians with disabilities and of working age. The bill is intended to address certain gaps in the social safety net, which includes old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit.

I think that this is an important goal, and I can say right now that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle. We believe that it is important that Canadians have access to a strong social safety net and that it is the government’s role to ensure that they do. Today’s Quebec is built on these same principles, and we can only support any initiatives in this vein that could be of benefit to Quebecers.

However, as it stands, Bill C-22 is woefully incomplete. Beyond the principle of solidarity and financial assistance for people with disabilities, the government gives no details on the form the benefit will take. We all know that the devil is in the details. We believe that this is a major shortcoming and that the bill should be enhanced and, especially, fleshed out.

Right now, 22% of Canadians live with a disability. That is almost one out of every four. Unfortunately, we know that almost a third of all Canadians with disabilities live under the poverty line and that the unemployment rate for most of this group is higher. In Quebec alone, 37% of people with disabilities live on an income of less than $15,000 a year.

In the government’s online survey, which we heard about before actually getting a hold of it through the library, 70% of respondents indicated that financial security should be the government’s main priority.

The same respondents indicated that they found it hard to cover the costs associated with living with a disability. These include housing costs, medical costs and the cost of goods and services to assist people with disabilities.

It is also important to remember that the pandemic made their financial hardship even worse. The COVID-19 crisis had an impact on the general health of Canadians with disabilities, and many had a hard time obtaining the assistance and services they had access to before.

The government finally decided to send out a one-time payment of $600, an amount that is wholly insufficient to provide relief and help people meet their present and future needs. Frankly, it is high time that the government took this seriously. People with disabilities have waited long enough.

A majority of groups and unions are in favour of this benefit, but only because the existing federal programs fall short. For example, the people with disabilities who are most in need cannot access the disability tax credit.

Just 2.2% of the population in Quebec applies for the tax credit, even though 16% of Quebeckers live with a disability and are eligible. It is complicated to apply for the credit and not everyone with a disability is eligible. Furthermore, as one of my colleagues pointed out, there is an issue with the French word “handicap” and its meaning. There is a difference between the meanings of the French words “incapacité” and “handicap”, and some people do not consider they have a “handicap”.

The minister's action plan for people with disabilities includes employment, but its definition of disability and associated issues needs updating. Eligibility, for one thing, needs to be clear.

I would also like to talk about the registered disability savings plan, the RDSP, a federally subsidized program that enables people with disabilities to save a lifetime maximum of $90,000. Only 26.6% of Quebeckers eligible for the disability tax credit participate in this program.

The point is, there are programs, but people, especially Quebeckers, do not really know about them, and they tend to be flawed. We know that 59% of people believe that supports available to people with disabilities fail to ensure a decent quality of life. The government needs to realize that, and it is time to get serious about dealing with this issue.

Now, 89% of Canadians support a benefit for persons with disabilities. In Quebec, it is 91%. Plus, 66% of Canadians believe that the ability to work and to receive financial support are the most important factors to consider in determining measures to improve financial security.

Bill C-22 seems to be moving in the right direction there. However, at this point, I cannot say for certain whether Bill C‑22 addresses the public's concerns. It is essentially a blank page. It sets out the broad principles, but all of the details, criteria and dollar amounts will be decided through regulations to be made by the minister.

I am going to take the liberty of pointing out a few aspects that should be clarified, in order to help the government flesh this out. When will this happen? Our biggest concern is that the government has not given itself a timeline.

The federal government is planning a three-year consultation process to work out the details of this benefit. Many people are concerned that the process is going to drag on and the benefit is not going to be created any time soon.

While it is important to recognize the value of consultation, it must not become a barrier to implementing measures that are needed now. We cannot let the government drag this out with endless consultations, as it did with employment insurance reform, even though the solutions are clear.

I should add that it is very disappointing that we are debating this Bill C‑22 now when a similar bill had been introduced in June 2021. Unfortunately, Bill C‑35 died on the Order Paper because the Prime Minister got election fever. Sadly, people with disabilities are the ones who are now paying for that delay, because they are still waiting.

Who will receive this new benefit? Those are the people the minister must focus on. Bill C‑22 is rather mum on that question. Other than mentioning working-age persons with disabilities, it does not define anything.

The Bloc Québécois believes the benefit should cover as many persons with disabilities as possible, which is why it is important to have a broad, modern definition. Most importantly, the benefit needs to be easy to use and understand. I think we need to learn from our mistakes.

What will be the actual financial repercussions of this benefit? No one has any idea how much money will be granted. According to several groups, this benefit needs to lift people out of poverty, and we agree. It is not enough to reduce poverty.

Again, we have no clear idea of the terms of the benefit, other than the fact that it targets working-age people and will be considered an income supplement.

Bill C‑22 merely states an intention to reduce poverty. What we need, in the long term, is to eliminate poverty, not just reduce it.

How can we do that?

Finally, the government's bill gives absolutely no indication as to how this benefit will be created. The bill does not say if Ottawa itself will deliver the benefit or if the federal government plans to transfer the money to Quebec and the other provinces for them to deliver the benefit. It is not clear whether this benefit will be paid on top of what already exists in the provinces. It is mentioned, but not specified.

Virtually all the terms and conditions of the benefit will be determined through regulations made by the minister; they have not been included in the bill. Members will therefore understand why I feel so uncomfortable voting blindly for such a bill.

I hope the minister will listen to this one point that I really want to emphasize. Overlap between programs must be considered. Programs already exist in Quebec and in the provinces to support things like health care costs, transportation allowances, grants for special equipment, employment supports, and the list goes on.

The provinces must be allowed to adapt the program to their own realities. It is imperative that the federal government respect provincial jurisdictions and existing programs, and the new benefit must complement what already exists, as called for by all the stakeholders. We are waiting for the government to clarify these issues.

I would like to add that we believe that helping people with disabilities must not stop there. In fact, the throne speech promised an action plan for this issue, but we are still waiting for it.

According to the government's latest consultation, 45% of respondents said that they would prefer being reimbursed for disability-related costs as a way to improve their financial security, and 28% want tailored measures to ensure they have income security at different stages or transitions in their lives. We need to be able to increase assistance when someone with a disability experiences a change in their financial situation or a decline in their health. In addition, 17% want better access to existing government supports and services.

It is good to create new programs that meet a need, but we must also ensure that we optimize the programs that already exist. We must also improve employment assistance. I would remind members that 59% of Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 are employed, compared to 80% of Canadians without disabilities. That shows that we have a problem. These people want to work but do not have the same opportunities as those who are not disabled. Furthermore, Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 earn less than Canadians without disabilities. In fact, those with mild disabilities earn 12% less, and those with more severe disabilities earn 51% less. That is a substantial difference.

Therefore, there is an equity issue that we must address. Of those consulted, 67% noted they need to be equipped to succeed through workplace accommodations; 57% want help developing skills and obtaining appropriate training to get a job; 51% said they want support looking for quality jobs; and 70% said that employers must provide a work environment that is supportive of persons with disabilities. The government must tackle all these issues.

In closing, I would like to reiterate a few key points. The Bloc Québécois supports the general principle of the bill because it is high time that people with disabilities, particularly those living in poverty, got the help they need to live a decent life.

However, the government needs to do its job. People with disabilities deserve better than a blank page and statements like “we will see” and “trust us”. We hope that the minister will soon give us more details so that we can comment on the substance of the bill, not just the form.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and Liberal members have been very clear. We want an economy that works for all Canadians, and Bill C-22 speaks to that. It would ensure that we give more disposable income to people with disabilities.

The minister talked about how there is a disconnect in the issue of poverty for a person with a disability who is turning 65. The member opposite seems to want to mock the bill by challenging whether it will take effect. The Conservative Party of Canada can recognize what the government has been talking about: enabling Canadians to be actively engaged in the economy as full participants. Let us fight poverty.

Will the member be clear in her indication of support for the bill and its quick passage?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her efforts to ensure Bill C-22 is the first bill debated in this fall session. She said earlier that no person with a disability should live in poverty. Everyone in this chamber would agree with that. However, we also know that this bill has no specificity about the amount of the benefit, who will be eligible for it and what will be done to prevent clawbacks.

I wonder if the minister could share with us what she will do to ensure no person with a disability, regardless of their age, is living in poverty in this country.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved that Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today for second reading of Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit.

I would like to acknowledge that I do so on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

In 1967, during the 27th Parliament, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson rose in the House of Commons and stated that no senior should live in poverty, and the guaranteed income supplement was born.

In 2016, our government stated that no child in our country should live in poverty, and the Canada child benefit was born.

Today, I begin with the following declaration: in Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty.

The values that drove past governments to reduce poverty and create benefits for seniors and children are the same values that have created the bill before us today. I am talking about equality, fairness and inclusion, Canadian values, values that guide us and define us as a country and bring out the very best in us.

Let me begin by also telling the House about my community, the disability community. The disability community is vibrant, talented and diverse. Twenty-three percent of Canadians identify as having a disability. We are the largest minority. We are a family member, a friend, a neighbour and a co-worker.

Let me also share a harsh truth. Working-age Canadians with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty than working-age Canadians without disabilities. The poverty rate for working-age Canadians with disabilities in 2017 was 23%. The situation is even worse for individuals with severe disabilities, women, indigenous people, LGBTQ+ and racialized Canadians with disabilities.

When the pandemic hit, the situation only got worse.

In a recent Statistics Canada survey, two-thirds of respondents with a disability said they had difficulty meeting their basic financial needs because of the pandemic. That is why Bill C‑22 aims first and foremost to reduce poverty. It aims to close the long-standing economic disparity experienced by many Canadians with disabilities.

Canada has a bold poverty reduction strategy and has set ambitious targets, including reducing poverty by half by 2030. The three pillars of Canada's poverty reduction strategy are living with dignity, fostering equal access to opportunity and inclusion, and improving resilience and security. These are the aims of Bill C‑22.

The Canada disability benefit would close the gaping hole in the federal social safety net for people with disabilities between the Canada child benefit, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. It would provide continuity and assurance.

A common experience within the disability community is one of immense relief and often celebration at turning 65. Why? Because at age 65, OAS and GIS kick in, because there is income security, often for the first time in a person's life. In fact, the poverty levels of persons with disabilities decreases by almost 60% between the ages of 64 and 65, from 23% to 9%. For persons with severe disabilities, it goes from 31% to 11% just for having their birthday. Canadians should not have to wait until they are 65 years old to experience even a modest degree of financial security.

We are also at a unique point in history where the first generation of persons with more complex disabilities are outliving their parents. Thanks to lower infant mortality rates and advances in medicine, people are living longer. This is certainly to be celebrated, but it also means that we must ensure there are adequate supports available to everyone throughout their entire lifetimes. We must reassure and demonstrate to families that worry about the future of their loved ones that these supports will be there when they are gone.

How did this come to pass? How is it that in a country such as Canada, so many of our people live in such dire circumstances? How can we speak of equality of opportunity and fairness when such inequality exists? To understand the roots and extent of poverty that exists within Canada's disability community, we have to look at the history of how persons with disabilities in our country have been treated. That history is not a proud one. I believe it is not one with which we, as a country, have come to terms.

Historically, persons with disabilities have been discriminated against, marginalized and excluded. Ours is a history of institutionalization, of lobotomization, of sterilization. We took away people's ability to make decisions for themselves. At one point in our history, we outlawed the use of sign language. We did this to our people. We took a medical approach to disability that told people they were broken and in need of fixing, and a charity approach to disability that told people they were objects of charity and pity, in need of saving. Individuals with disabilities were denied the opportunity to make choices, to control their lives and to develop their potential.

Most Canadians are not aware of the pain and trauma that institutions, including federally run institutions, caused people with disabilities and their families, and we are not working with awareness of the aftermath of this trauma.

Bill C-22 would give us the opportunity to send a clear message to working-aged persons with disabilities and, quite frankly, to every person with a disability that we will no longer sit by and watch them struggle to make ends meet, struggle to live with dignity, struggle as they live a life of uncertainty and poverty, that the equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they wish, as afforded to every Canadian, is theirs as well.

Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like to place the benefit in the general context of the government's efforts to foster the inclusion of people with disabilities. Bill C‑22 builds on the work done in the past six years to create a country that is more fair, accessible and inclusive.

In 2016, we launched a national dialogue and consultation process that culminated in the enactment of the Accessible Canada Act. This historic legislation aims to realize a Canada without barriers by 2040. It is the most important step forward for the rights of Canadians with disabilities since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

The Accessible Canada Act lays out key principles that are guiding government decisions and actions as we work toward a disability-inclusive Canada. These include that all persons must have the same opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have regardless of their disabilities, and that persons with disabilities must be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures. With Bill C-22, we are remaining true to these principles.

The bill before us today is also informed by our pandemic work and what we learned throughout these past years.

In April 2020, we formed a COVID-19 disability advisory group to advise me, as minister, on the lived experience of persons with disabilities throughout the pandemic and to inform the federal government's response. It was the counsel of these individuals that led to actions like additional support for seniors and students with disabilities, as well as the one-time payment and other measures to help persons with disabilities mitigate the economic shock of the pandemic crisis.

The inequality that was exposed and worsened by the pandemic also led to the creation of Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan. This is a plan that will modernize and revolutionize the way the federal government supports persons with disabilities.

The action plan has four key pillars: financial security, employment, accessible and inclusive communities, and a modern approach to disabilities. This action plan will challenge our government and the networks and systems we operate in to do better. It will challenge Canada to be better. This is not a box we need to check off the list; it is a road map on how we consider persons with disabilities in all aspects of our society going forward. The development and implementation of this action plan is being done in collaboration with the disability community.

In Canada, we are moving beyond the disability community mantra of “nothing about us without us”, in recognition of the fact that every decision the government makes, every program that is designed and every service that is delivered impacts persons with disabilities. We have moved to the shortened version of “nothing without us”, because everything is about us.

In this spirit, we conducted an online survey to ask Canadians what was needed in the disability inclusion action plan and how it could make a concrete difference in the lives of people. Over 8,500 people responded. We have met with hundreds of members of the disability community and other experts, including through disability community-led engagement and indigenous-led engagement.

The disability inclusion plan is a work in progress, but what the community has made clear to us, what we know for sure, is that poverty reduction will be the key metric by which we measure its and Canada's success, and we know that the Canada disability benefit must be the cornerstone of this work.

Bill C‑22 will create this benefit. It establishes the major principles and general provisions of the administration of the benefit, and authorizes the Governor in Council to implement most of the elements of the benefit by regulation.

Along the same lines as the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, the benefit will be based on income and help low-income, working-age Canadians with disabilities.

The framework format of this legislation is intentional. Not all details are contained in the bill. Why is that?

First, in the spirit of “Nothing without us” and in recognition of the fact that governments have too often imposed ways of doing things on people with disabilities, we are collaborating with the disabled community on the benefit's design. People with disabilities are in the best position to know what they need. They are familiar with the challenges and barriers that prevent them from achieving financial security.

The 2021 budget includes funding over three years to ensure people with disabilities will actually participate in the process, and work is well under way.

We are also doing important work with the disability community on the fourth pillar of the disability inclusion action plan to reform eligibility criteria for existing federal disability programs and benefits.

As well, we need to work very closely with provinces and territories. Bill C-22 recognizes the leading role the provinces and territories play in providing supports and services to persons with disabilities, and the importance of engaging with them in developing income supports and other support services.

The success of this benefit and the number of lives it will change will directly correspond to the work being done with provinces and territories on benefit interaction. Fundamentally, the Canada disability benefit would be an income supplement, not an income replacement. Like the GIS, it would not be intended to replace existing provincial and territorial support. Each month, it would put more money directly into the pockets of low-income persons with disabilities.

We are working with provinces and territories to make sure this new benefit would align with and complement services, benefits and supports, because we cannot have a situation anywhere in this country where income supports are clawed back, or wraparound services are cut off, because of the Canada disability benefit. The disability community is concerned about this and has called upon provincial and territorial governments to not claw back existing income or other supports. These concerns are top of mind in every conversation I have. I am pleased to report that conversations in this regard are going well with the provinces and territories. There is a shared commitment to improving the lives of persons with disabilities across this country.

In conclusion, Bill C-22 would allow Canada to create a thoughtfully designed benefit that would give financial security to working age persons with disabilities. As we move to debate this bill, I want to remind my colleagues that Canadians support the creation of the Canada disability benefit. According to a recent Angus Reid survey, nearly 90% of Canadians are in favour of the benefit.

Support for the benefit was also expressed in an open letter to the Prime Minister and me from 200 prominent Canadians, including former parliamentarians, academics, business and union leaders, economists, health care professionals, and disability advocates. The urgent adoption of the CDB legislation was also called for in an open letter signed by nearly half of the members of the other place.

That support is echoed in nearly 18,000 signatures on a House of Commons e-petition, and that e-petition asks that we fast-track the design and implementation of the benefit, and that we involve persons with disabilities at every stage. This was echoed in the House on May 10, when members of all parties unanimously supported the motion put forth by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam to put in place the Canada disability benefit without delay.

I hear from Canadians almost every day who are anxious to have this benefit in place. I too am anxious to have this benefit in place. This bill could be a game-changer in the lives of so many people.

I want to thank members of the disability community who, for generations, have called for government action to support the financial security of persons with disabilities. What disability rights advocates have fought for and have achieved matters, and it has made a difference. Make no mistake. It is because of their efforts that I stand here, in this place, as a woman with a disability, and as Canada's first-ever minister responsible for disability inclusion. It is because of their efforts that we are debating Bill C-22 here today.

I urge every member in the House to do the right thing and support this legislation. I urge them to join me and declare that no person with a disability in our country should live in poverty. Let us not miss this opportunity.

Persons with Disabilities

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House with my colleagues. The petition I am tabling today is quite timely, given that the House is going to debate Bill C-22. The petition, which was started by Jeff Leggat, a constituent of mine in Duncan, refers to the fact that far too many Canadians with disabilities are living below the poverty line. There are about 1.5 million Canadians who are living in a state of legislated poverty. The petitioners who have taken the time to sign this e-petition are calling upon the government to end this current practice and ensure that Canadians living with disabilities have a federal disability benefit of $2,200 per month.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, we have done so much as a government to help persons with disabilities, and I was honoured to reintroduce Bill C-22 in the House several weeks ago. We are working with the disability community to ensure that their needs and wants are reflected in the bill and that we lift as many people out of poverty as we can with the new Canada disability benefit.

We are about to release our first-ever disability inclusion action plan. Financial security is a key pillar of that plan, as is employment. We are going to make sure we get this done.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, since 2015, we have taken historic steps toward building a barrier-free Canada. In addition to the $112 million from budget 2021, with budget 2022 we are investing nearly $300 million in disability inclusion, including an employment strategy for persons with disabilities and funding to support the creation of materials for persons with print disabilities.

Moving forward, we are committed to implementing the disability inclusion action plan, which would establish a robust employment strategy and enhance eligibility for government disability programs and benefits, and to introducing the Canada disability benefit act to address poverty among Canadians with disabilities. We all benefit when everyone participates equally in society.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians with disabilities continue to disproportionately live in poverty across the country. Earlier this month, the government finally reintroduced the Canada disability benefit, but it has not allocated any time to debate it, nor has it introduced any emergency supports.

We have been here before. The same bill was introduced last June and died when the election was called within months. We now have eight sitting days left before we rise for the summer, while those living in legislative poverty will not get any break.

Will the governing party demonstrate that it is not playing games with the disability community and prioritize Bill C-22?

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again on Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, this time at third reading. I would like to start with what I appreciate, specifically about the work that was done at committee. If Canadians and neighbours in my community watch only question period, they might wonder whether anyone here gets anything done at all. The fact is that there are plenty of opportunities at committee for parliamentarians from all sides to come together to improve legislation. That is really important to highlight.

First, I want to point out one really critical amendment that was unanimously passed, which would ensure that all Canadians living with type 1 diabetes, of whom there are over 300,000 across the country, will now be able to access the disability tax credit. This is going to help ease the financial burden caused by unavoidable and necessary life-saving expenses.

The original bill had the foreign homebuyers ban, but there was no date set for when it would come into force. It was left up to the governing party's discretion. Through committee, there is now a hard date set. It is longer out than I would prefer, all the way out to January 1, 2023, but it is an improvement at least to have a date within the legislation. As I have said before, in my community, the extent to which all levels of government work to address the skyrocketing cost of housing will define us over the coming years.

I wish there was more in the budget implementation act, and certainly we need more. Investments like those in co-op housing in the budget, for deeply affordable and dignified housing, are a step in the right direction. Having a date in place for when this foreign homebuyers ban will come into force is an improvement.

That being said, these tweaks are insufficient, given the moment we are in. I would like to take this opportunity to share five significant and urgent priorities of my neighbours that are still missed by Bill C-19 and are the reasons why I cannot support it.

First, when it comes to the climate crisis, no doubt this is our last chance at a livable planet. The most recent report from the IPCC defines it as “an atlas of human suffering”. We know that if we want even a 50% chance of staying below a 1.5°C increase in global average temperatures, which, as scientists from the IPCC tell us, is required if we want to hold on to the possibility of a livable future for our kids and grandkids, and if we are to do our fair share, that means 86% of Canada's proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain unextracted. The UN Secretary-General went on to say that “the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Of course, I was disappointed that in Bill C-19 and in the budget there is nothing for a prosperous transition for workers, which we so desperately need when it comes to retraining and career support, when it comes to pension bridging, and when it comes to compensation. In the budget, instead, what we saw was $7.1 billion between now and 2030 for a new subsidy in the form of a tax credit for carbon capture and storage. A recent study of this technology from the Netherlands found that in 32 out of 40 projects they looked at worldwide that implemented carbon capture and storage, emissions actually went up. It is one of the reasons why 400 academics penned a letter to our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance saying this is a false climate solution.

Unfortunately, the only time climate is even mentioned in Bill C-19 is when it speaks about the fact that an annual climate incentive is now going to be received by Canadians once a quarter, certainly not the kind of change that reflects the moment we are in, that reflects the crisis we are in, and that reflects the urgency of action required to meet this moment.

The second priority that continues to be missed is with respect to addressing the disproportionate number of Canadians with disabilities who are living in poverty across the country. We know that back in 2020, the governing party first promised the Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed livable income for every Canadian with a disability across the country, which would lift up, or it could if done well, 1.5 million Canadians with disabilities across the country.

We already know that 89% of Canadians support the Canada disability benefit. They are way ahead of parliamentarians here. However, we also need to recognize that emergency funds are required to address the very real, direct and urgent needs of Canadians with disabilities who are living in poverty across the country. Both in the budget and in this budget implementation act, there is no mention of emergency funds. There is no mention of the Canada disability benefit. It was, instead, introduced as Bill C-22. The same as last year, though, all of the major decisions on eligibility and the amounts are left to regulation.

It is going to be really critical for all of us to continue to put the prioritization, the urgency and the advocacy behind ensuring that we get support to Canadians with disabilities across the country, the Canadians who need it the most. We already know that it has support. In fact, 103 parliamentarians from all parties have now asked not only to bring it forward in the legislation that has now been done through Bill C-22, which I am glad to see, but to fast-track it and ensure that the experiences of Canadians with disabilities are heard every step of the way.

The third priority I want to mention tonight is with respect to mental health. In the budget, the only real mention was with respect to a wellness portal. So many parliamentarians in this place recognize, as is so important to do, that mental health is health. If that is the case, we need to be looking at organizations like the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health and their calls for legislation that would put in place a framework for the Canadian federal government to collaborate with and support provinces and territories and bring about parity in mental health support and funding. That is not in Bill C-19. As I mentioned, it was only tangentially mentioned in the budget. I will continue to advocate and encourage the governing party to meet the moment when it comes to addressing mental health.

Just last week, I spoke about the need to honour promises made when it comes to long-term care. This is because so many neighbours of mine have shared their stories, whether they are caregivers who are not in a position to deliver the care that is necessary or those who have a parent waiting in a hospital bed for months on end, hoping that their parent might one day have a spot in long-term care. We have to recognize the wait-lists. The research I saw last summer said that there were 52,000 people on a wait-list. We still have not seen this promised safe long-term care act. It was mentioned in the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party, and I continue to encourage the urgency to be placed on that legislation being moving forward, given that it is not in Bill C-19. In fact, long-term care is mentioned in the budget only once, as it relates to funding that was promised back in 2021.

In closing, the last critical priority that is urgent and needs sufficient prioritization in this place relates to addressing indigenous reconciliation, specifically following through on the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. According to the Yellowhead Institute's most recent report on the calls to action, only 11 of 94 have been completed to date. In my view, that is another significant gap. If we are not doing enough to move sufficiently quickly to follow through on all of the promises made, to follow through on all 94 calls to action, this is another critical moment to do so.

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)