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 .

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty. That is why we are creating the Canada disability benefit, a thoughtfully designed income supplement with the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities from coast to coast to coast. On February 3, Bill C-22 passed unanimously in this House, and it is currently being studied at a Senate committee. We look forward to its swift passage.

I am pleased to say that budget 2023 provides funding of $21.5 million to continue work on the Canada disability benefit.

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House. Today, we are talking about Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage. Fortunately, it also has a short title: the historic places of Canada act.

This bill is an attempt to follow up on one of the recommendations from the truth and reconciliation report. Members will recall that the Right Hon. Stephen Harper made an official apology to first nations people for the residential school situations. He then commissioned this truth and reconciliation report, which came with over 90 recommendations. Recommendation number 79 is the one that this act is trying to address. Conservatives absolutely support this. Stephen Harper started it, and so we definitely want to see this come to pass and to send it to committee.

In my talk today, I am going to reflect on some of the concerns that I have with the bill, and as usual, some recommendations on how to fix them.

I will start with subclause 43(3). What happens in the parks part of this bill is that the park rangers would be given new authorities. They would be given similar authorities to what peace officers have. They would then carry out their work. Basically, I want to read subclause 43(3) because it is very concerning. It states:

A park warden or enforcement officer may exercise any powers under [search and seizure] without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist, but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain one.

It would obviously be a violation of section 8 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to search and seize without a warrant, so the important part of that phrasing is “exigent circumstances”. However, I do not know that a park ranger would necessarily understand that they would normally get a warrant, but if someone were going to be injured or some building were going to be destroyed or something, there may be some urgent circumstance. Moreover, there is no indication of a requirement for training on that. Therefore, there needs to be some training.

The second concern I have with this bill is that it would give additional powers to the minister and to the Governor in Council, which is essentially cabinet, to designate places or to prevent a place from being designated. That is way too much power to give to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I say that because he has a history of doing things to influence the outcomes that he likes or does not like.

For example, in 2022, he decided to put in regulations about migratory birds, which caused a delay in the Trans Mountain pipeline project. He has already said he never wants to see that project built. I would not want a situation where there is some kind of project or natural resources thing that is in the national public interest and the minister has the sole power to decide to designate a heritage place that would become a barrier to that project. We do not need to put that kind of power in his hands. We have to keep in mind that this is the minister who, in his former life, was arrested for his environmental activism. For example, in my riding, I have a heritage site that is where oil was first discovered in North America. I do not ever want to see the minister have the power to decide that is not going to be a designated site anymore. That sole-power thing is a problem, and there need to be checks in place.

Under clause 34, another thing the Governor in Council, which is really cabinet, could do is to make regulations on about 18 different circumstances. This is becoming a chronic problem with bills that the Liberal government brings forward. The Liberals have no detail in the bill and leave it to the regulations later. Sometimes, thinking about Bill C-11, the government knows what the criteria are that it is going to bring forward to the CRTC on what content should be promoted or buried. Even though the opposition has been asking the government to share that for more than a year, it will not do so.

If we look at Bill C-22, the bill about disabilities, it does not say who is eligible, how much they get and when they are going to get it. Those are details that are actually very important in order to approve bills in more than just principle.

We are at the stage where we are approving this one in principle, but the ability for cabinet to make regulations after the fact needs to be much more limited than it is. There needs to be some driver of why it could not be foreseen.

There is also a part of this bill that would increase indigenous representation on the board from first nations, Inuit and Métis, and that is a great addition. There are some occasions when they do not all agree on something. We have seen instances before, like with the Coastal gas project, for example, with the Wet'suwet'en, where 85% thought one thing and 15% thought another. Again, there does not seem to be a mechanism to resolve when the board cannot agree about something, so that would be very important.

Another protection I would like to see in this bill has to do with the issue of cancel culture. We have seen in our country, over the last few years, quite a number of historic monuments that were vandalized, destroyed or forced to be taken down. I think about the Queen Victoria statue. I would not want to get into a situation where somebody is not a monarchist and they become the minister and have the sole power to designate something as “not a site”, for example.

I remember when I was at university in Kingston, there used to be a pub there called Sir John A. Macdonald, and they made them take that away. I do not know if it was officially a historic site, but it was certainly historic in my life. I definitely do not want to see that.

Another thing is that 15 Christian churches have been burned, some of which were historical sites, and the government has not taken any action. How we are going to address the protection of things that are already heritage sites and not try to rewrite history, as it were? That will be an important question.

I also want to make sure the board members who are chosen have the best interests of the country and the people they are representing at heart. In my riding, there are people who are paid environmental activists who chain themselves to the employees' pipelines, etc. It could cause a lot of trouble if those people were on the board of this particular committee. Who is vetting the board members? It says the government is going to choose. If “government” means the Minister of the Environment, who was previously an environmental activist, then I do have a concern there as well.

Let us talk about navigable waters. There is a lot of red tape already in the area of navigable waters. There are federal regulations, there are provincial regulations and there is always a long delay in getting any resolution. Now we would have the Minister of Environment and Climate Change having powers, but what if the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Tourism do not agree? I have raised this point in the questions a few times, but there has not really been a good answer. There needs to be some mechanism to sort out who is on first and who has the prime responsibility. I personally do not think it should be the Minister of the Environment, when it comes to navigable waters. That is clearly something that is a concern of Fisheries and Oceans, unless it is for tourism.

If we think about some of the balancing of priorities, we know that when it comes to designating heritage sites, they are expensive to maintain. In my previous questions, I talked about, in my riding, Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie's grave, which was falling into disrepair and it took a really long time to get fixed. We need to make sure there is a plan in place to afford the things we are designating.

I do like the idea of a registry for those locations that are heritage locations. That will be helpful. I think it will also help prevent people from removing things that were at heritage sites, because the reasoning for them being chosen in the first place will be a part of that.

The final concern I have about this is that the government has brought this bill and again is giving more power to the government. Its track record is not great on this. We have seen numerous times that the government has used its powers and it was not in the interest of the people. I think that is why people are losing trust in the democracy and in the current government.

There need to be some protections put into this bill that would allow us to expand and recognize heritage sites, to afford to fix them, to make sure that we are not going to cancel them later and to make sure that it is clear how we sort out conflict.

Those are the main concerns that I have with the bill. I would be happy to answer any questions people have.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address a packed House this afternoon. The government often calls its legislation “historic” and often it is not historic. However, in a very formal sense this is a historic piece of legislation insofar as it establishes rules around national historic sites.

Just as a preface, though, to the points I would like to make about this legislation, I imagine that much has been said by Conservatives about the issue of gatekeepers, about how the government's great fondness for red tape, for regulations, for gatekeepers, is making it harder for people to go about their business.

What is a gatekeeper? A gatekeeper is a regulator, an authority of some kind that prevents people from being able to go about their business or to do things that they should reasonably be able to do. Maybe the gatekeeper allows them to get through the gate eventually but imposes additional conditions or challenges that prevent that individual from going forward in a sufficiently timely way.

I think many Canadians look at various aspects of their lives and at the way government is operating, and they see way too much gatekeeping. They see way too much red tape. Modern life, because of the bureaucratization of various things, has just become excessively complicated and frustrating for people who are trying to proceed with normal life and do things that, in times past, were not over-regulated.

Conservatives are putting forward an agenda aimed at reducing red tape, at making life easier for Canadians and at allowing development to proceed without undue barriers. We made a number of genuinely historic announcements in the past week about initiatives that a Conservative government would implement, aimed at removing gatekeepers. One of those announcements was around housing. We have said that there was too much gatekeeping, too much Nimbyism, happening at the municipal level that prevents housing from getting built. When there are all sorts of little barriers that accumulate into large barriers, we see a shortage of new housing, which in turn makes housing less affordable for Canadians.

Our leader has announced strong measures that are going to require municipalities to get that gatekeeping, that red tape, out of the way. We have also announced a new measure around credentials. For over 50 years, people with trade certifications have been able to work in other parts of the country. However, people with certain professional distinctions are not able, if working virtually for instance, to easily provide that professional support across the country.

These are some instances of gatekeeping we have committed to addressing, and that, I think, need to be addressed urgently. They are a part of this whole constellation of red tape the government is piling on Canadians. This is the reality about how the government approaches things and how we approach things.

That brings us to the discussion of Bill C-23. I welcome the applause from across the way from the member for Winnipeg North. I mentioned this before, but he recently referred to me as a “mischievous little guy”. I am very proud of that, actually. I know that if the member for Winnipeg North has considered me to be mischievous, then I have had a good day. I will do my best to keep it up.

When it comes to Bill C-23, the government is saying a number of things about the designation of historic places and sites. On the face of it they seem reasonable, saying that the government should be able to designate certain places, persons and events as having historical significance for the country. It wants to have the designation of those places with plaques erected to celebrate those places, perhaps. It wants to be consulting widely, including consulting indigenous Canadians on those designations, and thus regulate the use of those places in a way that accords with their historic status.

On the face of it, at least for the second reading vote where we vote on the principle, there is some logic in saying that, yes, there can be a framework for the designation of certain sites, recognizing their historic significance. However, the concern is that we have a government that has such a tendency to use every possible pretext for imposing additional red tape, for making it harder to proceed with development project. It is a government that talks a good talk sometimes about the housing affordability challenges but in practice has done nothing to actually get housing built, a government that is fundamentally comfortable with red tape, gatekeepers and barriers preventing people from going about their normal lives. When that is the reality of what this government is all about, then people are understandably looking at Bill C-23 and asking what tools it would provide to the government for additional gatekeeping and additional restrictions on development.

When the power is vested in the hands of the minister and the minister would be able to make these designations, which would automatically impact the use of a place, and areas around it, by the way, that could create significant problems if that power is used in a way that is unreasonable. If the government is making these kinds of designations, and if the effect of making those designations is that development projects in and around the area are not able to move forward and the existing use of a particular land or particular place is no longer allowed, and if these designations are made in a way that does not reflect proper engagement or consultation with local people in the area, that would be a significant problem.

We can look at the tool that this legislation would provide to the minister to make designations and to use those designations in a variety of ways and, frankly, I would say that it is consistent with a pattern we are seeing from this government in terms of legislation. We are seeing legislation with less and less practical detail. Rather, we are seeing a lot of legislation that enables the government to do something later on.

Right beside Bill C-23, we had Bill C-22, a bill that would provide a benefit for Canadians living with disabilities. In effect, the bill would empower the government to create aspects of that benefit but not prescribe the nature of that benefit in legislation. We had Bill C-41, a bill that would empower the government to make certain exceptions in the Anti-terrorism Act, but it did not provide specificity around places where it would apply and many other aspects of how those exceptions would function. Thus, we have this pattern with the government of taking on new powers for itself through legislation, without seeing the specifics in the bill.

The kind of rhetorical approach the government brings to these debates is this: “Just trust us. We mean well. We are going to make sure that, when we are designating these places, it is going to be in accordance with what makes sense. We are reasonable people, for goodness' sake.”

However, the problem is that Canadians do not see the government as reasonable. They do not see the government as trustworthy. What we have actually seen, particularly from the Minister of Environment, and I think from the government in general, is a lack of recognition of the important role that jobs, opportunity and development play in our country, and the need to remove gatekeepers and red tape. We have not seen from the government a proper appreciation of that, and the effect, I think, has been very negative for this country.

I want to now speak on the issues of indigenous consultation that are in the bill. The legislation—

[Neil Hetherington]

The first would be to have a serious conversation about a guaranteed income in this country. We flirted with that with CERB, and we saw the opportunities in terms of what that could do for many to lift them out of poverty. I would think that it's time now for a conversation, a study, to happen to understand the benefits to so many.

The second is your support when it comes to Bill C-22. I can't tell you how delighted I was that it was unanimously approved by the House. Now there's an opportunity through those regulations to ask how we can assist individuals who are on disability and provide them with a top-up to the provincial assistance they receive, which is dismal.

[Neil Hetherington, Chief Executive Officer, Daily Bread Food Bank]

Thank you very much.

My name is Neil Hetherington, and I have the awesome privilege of being the CEO of the Daily Bread Food Bank, Canada's largest food bank, based in Toronto, with a mission that everybody's right to food is one day realized.

I'm here to talk about three points, to let you know what we are seeing on the ground in the food bank sector, to provide you with some recommendations for consideration and to give you an invitation for you to ensure that everybody's right to food is realized.

On the first point, what we are seeing is unprecedented. There are 5.8 million Canadians who are food insecure. In Toronto, with the food banks that Daily Bread serves, we used to see about 65,000 clients per month. With the pandemic, that number rose to 120,000, and between January 2021 and today, we are now seeing 270,000 client visits per month. That's from 65,000 to 270,000 clients per month. If there's nothing else that you take from my testimony today, I hope you take that startling, horrific number away.

The fact is that we are seeing client growth at a remarkable rate. Previous to the pandemic, we saw about 400 or so new clients per month. That number during the pandemic rose to just under 2,000 per month, and last month we saw 12,400 new clients, people who had never used a food bank before, coming to the Daily Bread Food Bank for the first time.

You've heard testimony from economists and from food producers, suppliers and retailers, each of whom have provided their opinion as to what's driving the unprecedented food inflation that we all feel, so I won't speak to those complex factors. What I will speak to is the impact of food inflation that is being felt at the community level. We continue to see large proportions of clients who have fixed incomes coming to food banks, but what's new is that we are now seeing individuals who are working full time having to make use of food banks. In fact, that number has risen to about one-third of food bank clients having full-time employment. That number doubled over the past year, so if you have a job, that doesn't guarantee that you are not going to need a food bank.

We've started to look at the correlations between food bank usage and various economic indicators. We've looked at employment, and we've looked at market rents, and the direct correlation between food bank usage and inflation is the only real correlation we have seen that can account for this unprecedented growth. Make no mistake, food inflation at 11.6% and CPI north of 6% is having a marked direct, deep impact on food insecurity in Canada.

As important as it is to examine what is producing the rapid increase in food prices, we also need to ask what led us to this situation, a situation where the lack of an extra $30 to $50 per person per month is causing individuals to have to rely on food charity. We need to start with how we got here.

While the rate of poverty in Canada has declined over the past number of years, some two million Canadians remain in deep poverty. That means that their income falls below 75% of the official poverty line. What does that mean on the ground? In Toronto it means, if you are coming to a food bank, that on average you have $8.01 left over per day after paying for your rent and utilities. That's eight dollars, and one in five food bank users in Toronto have nothing. They have used all of their income on rent and utilities, and they have to rely completely on charity, family and friends to be able to make up the difference.

There is hope, and there's hope in these recommendations that I have before you. We're pleased to see the movement of Bill C-22, with the Canada disability benefit unanimously passed in the House and with the Senate right now. That will have a dramatic effect for so many Canadians.

We're grateful for a number of income programs, such as the Canada child benefit, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, all of these being indexed to inflation. Those are positive, but we need to recognize that there's a significant gap that remains in our social safety net. The biggest gap is among working-age, single individuals, who represent close to half of food bank clients and half of those living in deep poverty in Canada. These individuals have very few income supports available to them beyond social assistance, and, to be clear, social assistance, at least in Ontario, is about one-third the level of the poverty line in the province.

If we want to protect Canadians from the impacts of inflation, then we need to address the financial precarity that is the reality of so many households. It's time to close the gap for single, individual adults in our social safety net, just as we've done for children and for seniors.

We recommend transforming the Canada workers benefit into a Canada working age supplement that has a lower eligibility threshold and a higher maximum benefit level, and indexing it and all future income supports to inflation.

We recognize that with rampant inflation the government will be cautious on spending and stimulating the economy, but we are proposing a measure to support those in deepest poverty.

The Daily Bread Food Bank and food banks across the country are already at a breaking point. We are bracing for another rise in food bank visits. In fact, this past April, Statistics Canada indicated that one in five Canadians said that they are going to have to rely on community, on food charities, on family and on friends to be able to get by.

Charities can't meet this need. We need all levels of government to come together to act to ensure that Canadians can afford to put food on their tables.

We said we were going to build back better—

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I see his other colleague, whom I sit with on the HUMA committee and work with very closely.

I am really glad the member brought up people with disabilities. We worked really hard on Bill C-22, and it is a classic example of a real failure from the government. It championed that it was going to be bringing in this disability benefit act, and we spearheaded it through Parliament, but people with disabilities still do not know how much they are getting, when they are getting it or when it will be implemented. Everything will be done by regulation instead of legislation.

There is so much uncertainty, and that is how the government governs. It has grand announcements and big fanfare, but its actions have no substance to them. A perfect example is what we saw with that legislation.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to speak on Bill C-39. Before I do, I want to let you know I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

This legislation might be the simplest one I have had the chance to speak on in the House since being elected, but it is also one of the more serious and emotional ones. Simply put, it would allow for an extension for mental illness to be a condition for eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

I strongly support this delay for several reasons. The first is about concerns I heard about from so many neighbours of mine in Kitchener. In particular, I remember one conversation a group had in their backyard on a colder afternoon just last month. It was between Hannah, Peter and some friends of theirs, and they wanted to share with me specifically some of their serious concerns with medical assistance in dying being expanded further than it already had been.

I really appreciated them sharing their stories, concerns and recommendations. In my view, that was the best of how our democracy is supposed to function, which is for folks like myself who are sitting in legislatures like this one, who have a say in laws like this, to be hearing from neighbours about their concerns. In that conversation and in emails since, it has been almost been universal that folks in my community want to see at least a delay, if not more.

Second, I am supportive because we heard the concerns of experts across the country, such as doctors and health care professionals. On December 1, I really appreciated hearing from the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of the psychiatry departments of all 17 medical schools across the country, as they appealed for the governing party to delay what was then an expected expansion of MAID for those with mental illness.

The third reason I am supportive is because I believe we should spend more time closing the social safety net before we expand medical assistance in dying. I would put it to all colleagues here and ask why it is we are seeing a movement to expand medical assistance in dying much more quickly than we are seeing an expansion to the social safety net. I will give a few examples.

In my community, as colleagues well know as I have shared it many times, the unsheltered population has tripled in the last three years from just over 300 to over 1,000 people living rough. It is clear what is being done when it comes to the affordability of housing is not nearly enough, that we are going in the wrong direction and that more needs to be done.

As well, there are income supports, whether that is a guaranteed livable income for all or as many in this place, myself included, have pushed very hard for, a guaranteed income for those with disabilities across the country. Although we have made progress, and I am glad to see that Bill C-22 was passed in this House and is now in the Senate, the fact is it is yet to be funded. I would strongly encourage the governing party to fund the Canada disability benefit to get on with closing the social safety net with the urgency it deserves.

Next is mental health specifically. Just last week we saw a big announcement about health care, and yet absent from that announcement was dedicated mental health funding. It is all the more egregious when in the 2021 campaign the governing party ran that campaign on a commitment for a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer.

I hope there is no sleight of hand here, that with this new health care announcement we are not going to continue to see dedicated mental health funding. It is imperative that all parliamentarians in this place continue to apply pressure to ensure the Canada mental health transfer is in budget 2023. When I last asked the parliamentary secretary about it on Wednesday night, I did not get a clear answer, and it should concern all of us to not see dedicated mental health funding.

In fact, it was because of this absence of sufficient supports for affordable housing, income supports and mental health care that I joined the CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association of Waterloo Wellington to encourage the Minister of Justice to follow through on the delay that had been promised in December of last year. I am glad to see him follow through on that.

With my remaining time before I close, I just want to quickly mention the importance of quality journalism in this country and how it relates to this legislation.

I am glad to hear that all parties are supportive of Bill C-39, but I am not surprised to hear that, because of the work of Althia Raj and the Toronto Star. Specifically, back in November, as other members have shared, Ms. Raj spoke with the Minister of Justice. At the time, he said nothing could be done and that it would be a “challenge in the current Parliament” to delay the expansion of medical assistance in dying.

Ms. Raj then did something very reasonable. She reached out to all of the opposition parties, including the Green Party, and asked them if they would support what is now Bill C-39. Opposition parties responded, and days later, on December 11, Ms. Raj published an article sharing that all opposition parties were supportive. Then the question was put back to the Minister of Justice, and days later, on December 15, it was announced that this legislation would come before this House.

While there are many advocates and many campaigns that lead toward legislation such as this one, I think it is important that we call out and appreciate non-partisan journalists across the country doing important work to help bring to light the agreement that is sometimes there to move forward with important changes like the ones we are discussing, and to call out what might be certain rebuttals that may or may not be justified. In this case, they were not, and I appreciate Ms. Raj, as well as the medical professionals I mentioned earlier, like those from the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, for their advocacy, which brought us to this point.

In closing, I applaud the governing party for introducing Bill C-39 and following through on the promise that was made back in December, and for listening to the need to slow down. I have no doubt that other parliamentarians across the country heard concerns similar to the ones I heard from Hannah, Peter and so many others. I also encourage the government to move more quickly on the social supports that are needed in my community and across the country.

The Economy

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree in the chamber that no person with a disability should live in poverty. That is why we are committed to creating the Canada disability benefit, a thoughtfully designed income supplement with the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age people with disabilities from coast to coast to coast.

On February 3, Bill C-22 passed unanimously in the House and—

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

Minister, when you talk about diverting resources, do you mean funds? If so, what are the resources that we're going to see in budget 2023 for Bill C-22?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I, too, stay awake at night worrying about what's going on in the disability community. I can't think of a word to describe the levels of poverty and the worry.

Listen. We want to focus on a long-term solution, and we heard during Bill C-22 testimony that it's what they want. We don't want to divert any of our resources away from delivering the disability benefit. I think the call to action is to get this through the Senate, get this through the regulatory process and be ready to deliver it as soon as possible by focusing all of our effort precisely on the delivery of the CDB and not diverting resources to anything other than the task at hand, which is the CDB.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

No, we have a plan for Bill C-22. That won't affect it. All of those things are taken into account.

In this case, it's in the context of EI, OAS and CPP—making sure the existing systems are stabilized. Those are systems we can play with. We have shown that in the past. It's just that they are quite old, so we need to make sure they continue to exist, before they become unusable for some of our old programs.

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

I have a follow-up question, then: Will that legacy technology affect or limit the rollout of the Bill C-22 benefit?

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

Thank you, Minister.

I look forward to more coverage of that in the media, and more talk about the care economy as a key and integral part of the economy.

I want to go back to the supplementary estimates on technology updates. This is something you and I have spoken about in the past, even in relation to Bill C-22—how that benefit will be expressed into the community and how technology needs to be able to underpin that.

Could you expand more on the $16.3 million, and what projects are being undertaken?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

Minister, good afternoon and thank you for coming before the committee again.

I will say that I've not seen, certainly in my years, a minister who's been so forthcoming, so transparent and so available to members of Parliament and certainly to our HUMA committee.

Minister, I'll start with this. When I started running, wanting to be an MP, I was doing a lot of door to door, and certainly one of the things that became very evident to me very quickly was the plight of two groups: seniors, number one, but more so, persons with disabilities. The stories that I would get at the doors, Minister, were heartbreaking. It's hard to believe that, in a country like Canada, there was a group that had been so ignored. Obviously, mental health issues are through the roof. Employment is bare minimum. Poverty is almost universal and accessibility....

Minister, I want to commend and compliment you on leading and bringing forth Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act, which is transformational legislation. I was proud to be part of that in my previous years with HUMA.

I want to switch to Bill C-22, and I'm obviously very happy that it just passed third reading in the House. It's now with the Senate, and I want to congratulate you again for your leadership on this.

I think we all know at this committee—and, certainly, there was basically unanimous support—that it's historic legislation. It's going to be a game-changer for persons living with disabilities right across the country and certainly in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. I want to thank you for making sure that the disability community will be closely involved in the shaping of the framework of the benefit. Obviously, support and input from that community is of the utmost importance.

We've done a lot, but as you've always said, it's never enough, and we can always do more.

Having said what I've said, Minister, I'd like you to tell us what else you're doing and what else you're working on to improve the lives of persons living with disabilities. Thank you.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. It's good to be back at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I'm joining you from the traditional territory of the Tsawwassen and Musqueam first nations.

I was last before this committee to testify during your study of Bill C-22, which seeks to create, as you know, the Canada disability benefit. I thank you for your work and your efforts in helping to get Bill C-22 unanimously passed through third reading last week in the House of Commons.