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 .

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If it's all right, I'll read it again just so that everyone's clear on what we're referencing. I am moving to amend Bill C-22 in clause 9 by adding after line 25 on page 3 the following:

(c.1) cannot be recovered, in whole or in part, under any Act of Parliament other than this Act; and

Just as a reminder about the premise of this, we heard a lot of testimony around concerns about clawbacks. I know that at the last committee we had a lot of conversations around provincial governments, but this is strictly within federal programs. Anything that would be provincial would have to be negotiated, so that's out of the context of this. That would have to be negotiated between the government and the provinces. This is strictly within federal programs, which is also very important.

I will also note that, in this, one of the concerns was around the garnishing of wages, but paragraph 9(d) in the bill itself says it can be garnished for that reason, so it really doesn't apply to this. That's already covered.

I will mention as well that, when we went to legal in order to draft this, this is what they came back with. A lot of people had questions around the word “recovered”, but that word is in another part of the bill. It's a term that is used. It's maybe not a word that each of us would use in normal conversation, but again, legal came back with this specific wording in order to address this. Even though we heard concerns around what it might be, that was the rationale.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll start by reading PV-9 into the record.

That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 6 the following new clause:

11.1 The Minister must provide persons with disabilities from a range of backgrounds with meaningful and barrier-free opportunities to collaborate in the development and design of the regulations, including regulations that provide for the application process, eligibility criteria, the amount of a benefit and the appeal process.

I'll note that, given the recently passed amendment of NPD-6, this would likely be 11.2 in the amended bill if this were to pass.

This is what we heard from so many folks across the disability community, calling for the principle of nothing without us to be baked into the bill and specifically to ensure that people with disabilities across the country are involved meaningfully in the regulatory process. In particular we saw this in briefs from March of Dimes Canada, from Disability without Poverty, from Maytree, the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network and the Plan Institute.

Thank you.

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

I call to order meeting number 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please return to mute. For those in the room, the mike will be monitored by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order.

You may speak in the official language of your choice, and interpretation services are available for this meeting. For those participating by video conference, you have the choice of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances—and it would be exceptional—I will not recognize those appearing virtually unless they have a House of Commons-approved headset to participate in the meeting. They could participate in the voting, of course. I would like to also remind members that screenshots are not permitted.

Should there be any difficulty with the interpretation or translation during the meeting, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it's being rectified. I would also like to remind members and witnesses to speak slowly, as we do have sign language interpretation for this meeting. They would appreciate it if you could speak slowly.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the committee will resume its consideration of Bill C-22, Canada disability benefit act.

Before we continue clause-by-clause consideration, as the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to participate, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

As chair, I will go slowly to allow members to participate fully in the proceedings.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on the amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I would like to welcome back the Department of Employment and Social Development.

I would ask both witnesses to introduce themselves to the committee.

[Alexis Conrad]

Mr. Chair, if it helps, I'll remind members of the process.

Once both Houses have finished consideration of Bill C-22, if it is indeed passed, we will then do the regulatory process. That will take a length of time, particularly with the level of engagement that is built into the legislation now, but it's been expected by the minister and is consistent with “nothing without us”. When we get through that, we'll take time. The minister has talked about that time. That's counterbalanced with, as the member mentioned, a lot of pressure to get this benefit out the door tomorrow, if we could.

When we put another step into the process for whatever the rationale is, which I won't speak to, it naturally does delay it. A one-day consideration in the House would delay the benefit by a day. It's just the nature of that.

One of the areas I would mention is sitting days. Obviously we do not have any knowledge of how long Parliament will sit or what the legislative priorities will be, but it is possible that even 30 sitting days could slip the benefit by literally months if Parliament is not sitting. If there are other steps built into the process along the lines of the subamendment, that would be another step in the process, which would take longer.

I'm not offering an opinion on the merits of the amendments themselves. I'm just explaining that every single step does add time, and the steps that you're talking about, depending on Parliament's consideration, could conceivably add a significant amount of time until the benefit is delivered.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is in regard to transparency.

As I was mentioning earlier, we took very seriously here the “nothing without us”, but we did want to make sure that there was transparency and that there was in the process a good opportunity to have oversight. The current government is a minority government, and that needs to be respected. Other parties must be allowed to approve or disapprove regulations that we won't necessarily have any ability to see.

As an important component to Canada's democracy, transparency must live throughout these regulations. This amendment is providing the opportunity for other parties to have oversight on the regulation, to hold the government to account, and for the Liberals to have the best support to deliver a CDB from Parliament that's good for persons with disabilities currently living in poverty.

Based on the testimony that we received from Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Citizens for Public Justice, and Professor Jinyan Li from Osgoode and Kate Chung in correspondence, among others, the amendment proposes that the minister will make sure to table a regulation, before it is made, to this House.

If you don't mind, I'd just like to read through this amendment.

It is that Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 6 the following new clause:

Tabling of Regulations

11.1(1) The Minister must cause each regulation that is proposed to be made to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

(2) A regulation may not be made before the earliest of

(a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament,

(b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament, and

(c) the day after the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament has reported its findings with respect to the proposed regulation.

(3) The Minister must take into account any report of the committee of either House. If a regulation does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee of either House, the Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a statement of the reasons for not incorporating it.

(4) A proposed regulation that has been tabled under subsection (1) need not be tabled again before the regulation is made, whether or not it has been altered.

(5) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), “sitting day” means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.

Colleagues, one key thing here is that this amendment will allow other parties to see regulations that are proposed before they become regulations.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I stated earlier, it was heard in testimony, over and over in almost every testimony we received, either on paper or spoken, that people wanted to have an adequate standard of living and the necessities of life. We know that's also our commitment as Canadians.

I want to raise, again, the concept of adequacy. Unfortunately, at this point in time, we could not get it into legislation. We could not get it secured. The minimum floor would be the poverty line. Of course, we know persons with disabilities need even more than the poverty line, because expenses can be even higher. I am introducing the idea that it goes into regulation here, in order to at least protect the minimum that the minister and order in council should be considering for this benefit.

The concept of adequacy was raised in testimony by human rights lawyer Vince Calderhead on Monday, November 14. The Canadian government has legally binding obligations under international human rights law to ensure that persons in need have an adequate standard of living. Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and then acceded to the optional protocol in December 2018.

Under this convention, we adhere to the principles mentioned in article 3, which include, among others, non-discrimination and accessibility. Article 28 declares an “adequate standard of living and social protection” for persons with disabilities, specifying the need “to ensure access by persons with disabilities, in particular women and girls with disabilities and older persons with disabilities, to social protection...and poverty reduction programmes” in paragraph 2(b).

Furthermore, as mentioned in testimony, under subsection 36(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, Canada and the provinces have a joint constitutional commitment to provide “essential public services of a reasonable quality to all Canadians.”

Canada's official poverty line—we actually have one, so I'm surprised it's not being used in this legislation—reflects “the cost of...basket[s] of goods and services representing a modest, basic standard of living.” Even StatsCan itself agrees this is ableist in its nature, in that it does not cover the cost of disability, which we talked about in the past. This is a minimum protection for people, at least.

Lastly, for Parliament to meet its international human rights and constitutional obligations, Bill C-22 must be amended to include a provision requiring that amounts set by regulation for the Canada disability benefit be adequate.

We have testimony or briefs from Vince Calderhead, Maytree, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, ARCH Disability Law Centre, Michelle Hewitt from Disability without Poverty, Income Security Advocacy Centre, the Basic Income Canada Network, Jeff Neven from Indwell, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Rosemarie Hemmelgarn, and Lorna Aberdein, to name just a few who believe we should be protecting for a level of adequacy.

I'd truly hoped we could get this into clause 5 in legislation, because this is a matter of life and death, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move that Bill C-22, in clause 9, be amended by adding, after line 25 on page 3, the following:

(c.1) cannot be recovered, in whole or in part, under any Act of Parliament other than this Act; and

Then it continues on with the rest.

What this is referring to is clawbacks. That's the intention of it. When we went to legal advisers, this was the wording recommended to protect people with disabilities from potential clawbacks. That's the intention of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Before I get to you, Mr. Kusmierczyk, I note that Bill C-22 establishes the Canada disability benefit to reduce poverty and support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. It sets out generous provisions for the administration of the benefit and authorizes the Governor in Council to implement most of the benefit's design elements through regulations. The amendment attempts to change the terms of the benefit so that it is high enough to enable the person to whom it is paid to not live below the official poverty line, as defined in section 2 of the Poverty Reduction Act.

This is the interpretation given to me by the table officers of the Commons. I appreciate your interpretation, Ms. Zarrillo, but I have to follow the interpretation of the table officers. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation attached to the bill, as adopted at second reading by the House. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. This ruling also applies to amendment PV-3 since it is identical.

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the most important amendment for the NDP at this point in time to support persons with disabilities. The NDP fully believes there is a lot of opportunity to involve the disability community in regulation. We'd like to protect the minimum income of persons with disabilities in this bill.

We have an amendment that says:

(2) A benefit paid under subsection (1) must be sufficient to ensure that the person to whom it is paid does not live below the Official Poverty Line as defined in section 2 of the Poverty Reduction Act.

Mr. Chair, you referred to page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I note that page 772 says, around imposing a charge on the public treasury, “if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.” We know that within Bill C-22, there is no specified qualification in regard to the size of this benefit or the benefit itself. I don't see the amendment contradicting page 772, since it has not been previously defined as a specific qualification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

If there is no disagreement and everybody's in agreement, a recorded division is not required.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3)

On clause 3, the amendment PV-2 is deemed moved, pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee, as I indicated, on December 13, 2021.

Bill C-22 establishes the Canada disability benefit to reduce poverty and support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. The amendment seeks to extend the benefit to persons with disabilities, regardless of whether they are of working age.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In my opinion as chair, the amendment seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation attached to the bill, as adopted at second reading by the House. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Shall clause 3 carry?

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

I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 49 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We welcome some replacements on the committee today. Mr. Melillo is here, and Madam Kusie is back for a while. Mr. Morrice is joining us as well.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2020. Members are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function. Before speaking, click on the mike icon.

You have the option of choosing to speak in the official language of your choice. I would ask everybody to speak slowly for the benefit of interpretation services, and if there is a breakdown in interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's being corrected.

We are studying Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the committee will resume its consideration of Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act.

Before we begin clause-by-clause consideration, I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to speak, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

As chair, I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required—if amendments are adopted—so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clause.

I would like to welcome officials back to committee. They're available here to answer technical questions related to the bill. We have Alexis Conrad, senior assistant deputy minister, and Krista Wilcox, director general, office for disability issues. Welcome.

Also with us today is the legislative counsel, who will direct us on the legal and technical language of the amendments and clauses of the bill.

I would ask them to introduce themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's valid. Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

Sometimes it's because we also get short notice that somebody cannot appear, so rather than losing it, we try to schedule something in. However, that is valid. We will sit down—I prefer to do it as a committee of the whole with everybody—and look at what motions are before the committee and put a timeline in place.

However, at this stage the focus is on those two studies and on getting the report and the legislation, Bill C-22, through.

With that, is it the wish of the committee to adjourn?

The meeting is adjourned.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have a chance to respond to Bill C-32. It pulls together a number of different items, some of which were in the governing party's fall economic statement and some of which date back to the budget introduced in the spring.

I would like to start where I usually do, which is on some of the items I appreciate in Bill C-32.

The first item was in the fall economic statement, and this is the governing party's stated intent to finally fully eliminate interest on Canada student loans. This was set to expire March 31 of this coming year, as it was temporarily waiving interest, but if Bill C-32 were to pass, this would become a permanent measure. This is critical, because the number I have for the average student debt for a student in this country is over $26,000 a year. This is at a time when young people are already dealt a pretty bad hand, whether because of the rising cost of housing while their wages do not keep up, the gig economy they are getting thrown into or the climate crisis, as they are going to have to deal with the repercussions of decisions made or not made in this place and others around the world.

This measure would not be huge, but it would be a significant amount, $410 on average per student per year. That is a step in the right direction. It is something I am happy to support and call out the importance of while encouraging the governing party to go further.

Second, there is inclusion here of a measure from budget 2022, which is the Canada recovery dividend. It was announced last April and would finally be implemented here. It would require banks and life insurance companies to pay a one-time 15% tax on profits above $1 billion over the next five years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a review and found that it would raise $3 billion in revenue, which on its own would be more than enough to pay for eliminating interest on student loans. It is clear that it is possible for the governing party to raise revenue and use it to address really critical needs.

The third point that encouraged me is something that was not in the fall economic statement, and that was talk of a potential further increase for another tax credit for carbon capture and storage. It is a false climate solution and it is going in the wrong direction.

In the budget, the governing party introduced this as a new fossil fuel subsidy to the tune of $8.6 billion a year. Carbon capture has been studied around the world, and 32 out of the 42 times that it has been implemented, emissions have actually gone up. I was glad that, despite all the lobbying from oil and gas companies across the country, at least in Bill C-32 and in the fall economic statement, there was not a further increase to send billions more in a new fossil fuel subsidy.

I would like to turn now to some areas where I would encourage the governing party to consider going further, if not in Bill C-32 then in budget 2023.

I will start with climate, because we have heard it very clearly. Here is a line from the co-chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, working group three, from back in April. His name is Jim Skea. He said, “It's now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.” This is at a time when profits from the oil and gas industry are just off the charts.

Imperial Oil, for example, reported profits of $6.2 billion in the first nine months of this year compared to the same period last year of $1.7 billion, which is an almost four times increase in profits. How is it doing this? It is gouging Canadians at the pumps. Wholesale margins, in other words, profits per litre, are up 18¢ a litre.

No doubt, one solution is the same Canada recovery dividend I mentioned earlier that is being applied to banks and life insurance companies. Why not apply that to oil and gas? In fact, thanks to colleagues of ours here, the MPs for Elmwood—Transcona and Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, we know how much this would have raised.

It would have raised $4.4 billion a year that could be used to invest in proven climate solutions on top of the tens of billions dollars we could be eliminating in other subsidies currently continuing to go to the very sector most responsible for the crisis. Of course we cannot expect the arsonist to put out the fire.

I will also point out that eliminating these subsidies is part of the confidence and supply agreement signed between the governing party and the NDP, one line of which mentions a commitment to develop “a plan to phase-out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including from Crown corporations, including early moves in 2022.” I would love to have seen one of those early moves in Bill C-32. We have about two weeks left to see one of those early moves.

If they were to make those moves, they could invest in renovations across the country, as called for by the Green Budget Coalition, calling for a $10-billion investment in deep energy retrofits so that homeowners can invest in reducing their emissions. As they do so, every dollar they spend would contribute two to five dollars of tax revenue that could be reinvested in climate solutions or invested in ground transportation, for example, which we also would not see in Bill C-32.

The second gap that is really important for the governing party to pay attention to is following through on its promise to address mental health. Mental health is health. Whether we listen to students across the country, housing providers or health care professionals, of course we need to be investing in mental health, yet we have not seen that in either last year's budget or this fall economic statement. A $4.5-billion commitment was made in the Liberal Party's platform. It is incumbent on all of us here as parliamentarians to continue to put pressure on having that commitment realized, recognizing that not one cent of it was committed in last year's budget, nor do we see anything in the fall economic statement.

The third piece that is really important for us to be calling out and encouraging the governing party to go further on is to follow through on addressing the disproportionate rates of poverty experienced by those with disabilities across the country. Over 40% of those living with a disability are living in poverty today. While we are slowly making progress on Bill C-22 that would bring about a guaranteed income for folks with disabilities, I am looking forward to seeing amendments passed at committee to improve Bill C-22. In the meantime, nothing changes for a person with as disability living in poverty.

We know it is possible for parliamentarians to provide emergency supports, because they did it in the midst of the pandemic. I join disability advocates from across the country calling for a disability emergency response benefit to address the gap and provide support today until we move toward a more permanent solution, ideally a holistic one, when Bill C-22 gets passed with improvements.

Last, I will briefly comment on housing. We have heard already this afternoon some speakers mention that, while money is being spent, the results are not there. In my community, homelessness has tripled in the last three years, from just over 300 people living unsheltered to over 1,000. It is obvious more needs to be done. There are some initial measures in Bill C-32, including a tax on those flipping homes in less than a year. If we were to recognize and really be honest about homes needing to be places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade, there is far more that can and should be done to tilt the market back toward homes for people to live in.

In closing, it is important to be clear that there are some important and timely measures in Bill C-32 and I would strongly encourage the governing party to go further on some of the areas I mentioned.

Motions in Amendment

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, frankly, I think that all it would take is a bit of political will from the government. It has enough support with other members in the House to try to come to some kind of meaningful emergency solution for people living with disabilities. The government has expressed an intent. We saw that in some previous budgets, not in the numbers, but in the flowery language.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-22 in this Parliament, which is a lot like a bill from the previous Parliament. Again, it is frustrating, because it has no details about the amount the government intends to pay or about the eligibility criteria. It is not talking about doing anything in the meantime, so one is forced to wonder whether the government is serious about delivering a benefit to Canadians living with disabilities, who are in dire need right now, or whether these are just talking points.

The political will outside the Liberal Party is adequate in the House in order to implement a solution. We are waiting on the government to care enough to put something on the table so that we can move ahead.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richmond Hill for his tireless work on behalf of all persons with disabilities and all constituents.

In October we launched the first-ever disability inclusion action plan, a road map for our country to remove barriers by focusing on financial security, employment, accessible and inclusive communities and a modern approach to disability. With Bill C-22, we have the framework legislation in place to create the groundbreaking Canada disability benefit.

Tomorrow, today and every day, let us celebrate the accomplishments of persons with disabilities as we work together to build a more inclusive and more accessible Canada.