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

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for bringing forward this important legislation. I have one thing to ask, though.

It is not clear to me exactly how much the benefit would be for. Is the thought behind it that it might be a topping up, similar to CERB? What is the amount we are thinking of?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, part of the thinking behind making this framework legislation was to recognize the important role that provinces and territories play in this space. Conceptually, this is modelled after the guaranteed income supplement, so it would be supplemental income, in addition to other supports that individuals receive. However, the negotiations with provinces and territories really will dictate the ambition of this because, if they are not willing to not claw it back, we are not willing to replace the income they already provide.

It is roughly modelled after the GIS. The idea would be to lift people out of poverty and get people to a point where they are no longer living in poverty. However, the exact amount will be directly informed by the negotiations with the provinces and territories.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we begin the debate and this study, and since we are dealing with principles here, I would say from the outset that just because a person has an impairment does not mean that they have a disability. That is a basic principle, as far as I am concerned. Disability is a social construct.

A person living with disabilities achieves autonomy when they have social and economic autonomy. If the bill and especially the regulations, which do not exist yet, are drafted with that in mind, then they will certainly have our attention and support.

For a person living with disabilities to have dignity, to live in dignity, how much basic income should they receive annually?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree that a lot of the barriers that disable Canadians who have various impairments have been created by social construct. A lot of people are living in poverty in this country because they have been legislated into it and they cannot escape it, or they are afraid of taking that chance.

With this bill we are sending a message that we understand and we will take people beyond that. We are also working, through our disability inclusion action plan, to address the other barriers people face, whether they are barriers to employment or inclusion, like not being able to get in the door to work somewhere, or attitudinal barriers, the assumptions people make and the bias and discrimination that exist in society. Quite frankly, a lot of the laws, policies and programs at all levels in this country discriminate. That is the big picture.

Right now people are living in poverty, and this bill addresses lifting people up, giving them a chance and telling them that they matter and that they should not be living in poverty.

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

Madam Speaker, as it stands, this bill is a promise. It is just a promise, but promises do not put food on the table.

I raised with the minister the issue of adequacy and the need for certainty that this bill will provide adequate standard of living for people with disabilities.

Is the minister prepared to include adequacy in this bill and move it from a promise to certainty?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her collaboration on this really important piece of work.

There are two fundamental reasons for proceeding in this way with framework legislation. One is because we want to include persons with disabilities and the disability community in this conversation. They are uniquely positioned to know what they need and what barriers they continue to face. The other, of course, is the reality of the dynamic, the interaction, and the need to harmonize benefits.

Absolutely, the goal of this is to reduce poverty. Absolutely, the goal is to lift people out of poverty. As I said in my remarks, we have legislative poverty reduction targets, and we have a legislative poverty line. That is the goal, which is very clear in my mind.

[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, Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, those are the exact points we are laser focused on as we move forward with this bill, and as we move forward into a regulatory process that would allow us the flexibility and public discourse to make sure we actually get where we want to go with this.

We know there is such an important role to be played by provinces and territories. Working-age Canadians with disabilities are the target population. It is the gap we are trying to fill between children with disabilities, who get the Canada child benefit, and seniors with disabilities, who get OAS and GIS. This is the target population.

Nobody, disability or not, deserves to live in poverty. This particular measure targets a specific cohort of the population in Canada that is disproportionately living in poverty.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for tabling this bill, and more importantly, for the extremely well-thought-out and passionate speech she delivered to the House in presenting it.

My question is about the economic impact on people living with disabilities. Before I became involved federally, I was involved municipally in my community, and I was a member of the accessibility standing committee of our city council. One of the things we came to realize very quickly is the economic impact on those with disabilities and what that means in our communities.

I am wondering if the minister could comment on what the impact of lifting people out of poverty will be on this largest minority, as she referred to it, in our economies.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, financial security is one part of a four-part approach to disability inclusion in Canada. The second part is employment. There are significant barriers for this untapped labour pool, and in a time of labour shortages, this is a group that could be contributing and sharing their talent and expertise with us more meaningfully.

We know that, if the available pool of persons with disabilities in this country were working, it could bump the GDP between 2% and 3%. What is stopping people is not the lack of ambition, will or talent. It is the entrenched barriers that exist within people's minds and within our systems. The exciting part is that we get to talk about it. We get to celebrate people, the contributions they could be making and the potential that exists out there. This is one piece of it.

The CDB speaks to the other piece, which is financial security, and the reality is that people are living in poverty today, and we need to get them the assistance and support they deserve.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her advocacy and for being an inspiration in this country.

My question is more technical in nature. This is the second bill we have seen during this Parliament that would do substantial work in the regulations. There is actually not a lot of detail about what the bill would provide in terms of a benefit. I am curious if the minister is concerned about the precedent this sets and how much information we as parliamentarians will have before agreeing to pass this bill.

I do support this bill fully in its spirit. I speak for me and not on behalf of my party, of course.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was concerned, in moving forward with this legislation, that we were not to impose requirements or criteria on a population that has always been imposed upon. I was concerned that we would make it more difficult for provinces and territories to collaborate and harmonize if we were to be too prescriptive.

The whole notion of moving forward collaboratively in almost a co-development fashion is novel, and it feels a little uncertain, but it is the right thing to do. At the end of the day, after we go through this, we could look back and say that we had included people, we had given the provinces and territories the flexibility they needed to stand up and deliver, and people's lives were made better.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House. Before I begin, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with another member.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to be back here in the House once again representing the good people of Calgary Midnapore and, even better, to be here under our new leader, the member for Carleton.

Nobel Prize winner and humanitarian Pearl Buck once wrote, “the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members.” I would certainly say the subjects of this act today are not helpless, but they do need our help. I believe that what Madam Buck was trying to say is how we treat the most vulnerable members of our society reflects the quality of it.

Let me take a moment to reflect on how the government has treated the most vulnerable members of our society.

Frankly, its track record is not very good. At best, there have been false aspirational words, strong statements and, of course, thoughts and prayers, with ultimately very little benefit to anyone. Is that the intention of the legislation here today and of the government here today? Is it a holding document, something the Liberals just want to put in the window but do not intend to deliver on?

It would be easy to argue this, considering the legislation was the last piece of legislation placed before the House in the spring of 2019, right before we went into an election that summer, and the government knew it. It would be easy to think this, given it was the last piece of legislation tabled before our summer recess. It would be easy to assume that this is once again just thoughts and prayers and a hope for Canadians. However, I know the minister and know she wants the best for her community, and I believe her, so I do not think that these are aspirational words meant to simply inspire hope.

That is the best of the legislation we have seen from the government, with this false inspiration; it is not the worst. What has been the worst? It has been legislation that divided Canadians. It has been legislation that left swaths of Canadians behind, to be absent from our society and to be ignored without recourse. Is this legislation the worst legislation we have seen from this government? No, it is not. Canadians have seen the worst and they will not forget.

Where does this legislation today find itself? This legislation finds itself in the mushy middle. Why is it the mushy middle? It is because this legislation wants to help but falls short in convincing all Canadians that it actually would help. We have seen this with legislation before, where details were omitted and left to the regulations, including budgets and how they are able to balance themselves.

There are many concerns with this legislation. For example, there is the eligibility for the benefit. Many are concerned about whether individuals with invisible disabilities would be eligible. When we are walking down the street and meet someone, we do not know what they are dealing with. We do not know if they are dealing with an invisible disability such as cancer or heart disease. We have no idea, and this legislation does not provide clarification as to whether these invisible disabilities would be covered.

Then there is the amount of the benefit that Canadians with disabilities would receive. It is not yet clear how the amount would be determined in conjunction with the existing provincial benefits. Of course, many disability supports are currently provided provincially, but there is no indication as to whether this benefit could be considered income and would therefore disqualify individuals from receiving some provincial benefits.

There need to be assurances that there will be no provincial disparity so that no matter where someone lives in Canada, they are equally supported. “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, the Prime Minister has said, so let us show it.

We need to know how the benefit will be impacted if there are provincial changes to the disability support. Because we do not know how much the benefit would be, how the benefit would be delivered or who would be eligible, we do not know what the cost would be to deliver the benefit. With last week's announcement of the affordability bill, we are now at $56.5 billion in budget 2022. We do not know when or how the benefit would be delivered. Would the benefit be delivered monthly, weekly or at tax time? It simply is not clear or outlined within this legislation.

Another major concern is whether the benefit would be indexed to inflation. With rising inflation, Canadians are already suffering, with an unbelievable rate in June of 4.1%. It is unbelievable that we would even have to consider the impacts of inflation on people with disabilities.

There is the process to appeal for persons with disabilities who are denied benefits. We know that disabilities are unique, and we know that there should be a fair and equitable appeal process for those who have been denied benefits.

When persons with disabilities would start to receive the benefit is another major concern for us with this legislation. As well, right now the coming-into-force date would be determined by an order of the Governor in Council, so even if this legislation passes and receives royal assent, Canadians with disabilities may not receive the benefit for some time, if they receive it at all.

One in five Canadians lives with a disability. They need our support to live full lives and participate fully in society, including in the workforce. The Conservatives believe that all Canadians living with disabilities deserve timely access to these benefits and services and should not be penalized for going to work, as is too often the case today.

They do not need more uncertainty, and I would like to point out, with my apologies, that the rate in June was 8.1%, not 4.1%, as I said previously. They do not need bureaucracy; they need our help. If we want to be seen as a society that Pearl Buck would find worthy, then let us really help.

In conclusion, this is not the worst of the legislation we have seen, but it is not the best of the legislation we have seen, of aspirational ideas and of the slogan “sunny ways”. With the worst of it, the government has consistently wedged, stigmatized and divided. It is the mushy middle, but if we really want to have a society that Pearl Buck would judge as worthy, then let us have an act that actually helps people.

[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?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the economy is working for nobody. This is very clear right now, as we had, as I mentioned, an inflation rate of 8.1% in June and have a budget in 2022 of $56.5 billion with the act that was recently announced. Canadians cannot buy groceries right now, they cannot fill up their vehicles with gas at this time and new families cannot purchase homes. The economy is not working for anyone, so I would suggest the member not discuss the economy.

I made it clear in my speech that the Conservatives will be supporting the bill, but it is not super inspirational.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, in French, we refer to people “en situation de handicap”, “vivant avec un handicap” or “handicapée”. There are a number of terms that are used. However, there is something that concerns me.

Guillaume Parent, the director of the Centre d'expertise finances et handicap, recently told La Presse that, in Quebec, fewer people considered themselves as having a disability or living with a disability because the French word “handicap” does not have the same scope as the English word “disability”.

Will a distinction be made between the two terms so that people understand what we are talking about and so that they are able to access the services in question?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think the intention is the same no matter which term we use. That also means that the bill's shortcomings remain the same. Whatever term we use, I hope that the bill's flaws will be remedied in the regulations.

This bill is just as flawed no matter which term we use.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the disability community has been clear: It needs help now.

How did we get here? It is consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments that have failed the disability community. After seven years in power, the Liberal government has dragged its feet and now tabled a bill that is empty on the critical pieces and critical details of the bill. Who is eligible? When will people get the benefit? How much will the benefit be?

Could the member comment on how, after seven years, a government could table something without details?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very rich to point to Conservative and Liberal governments when the New Democrats are in fact in a coalition with the Liberals. The member should have done a better job of negotiating if she wanted to see that within the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to return here to the House for a scintillating debate, and it is nice to start on a topic that all parties can agree on: the importance and the need for an increase to the support we are giving people who are living with disabilities.

To start, I wanted to read a letter that I signed with members from all parties that went to the minister to request that we expeditiously get this benefit in place. The letter does a great job of summarizing the desperate need for such a benefit. It states:

We write in support of the immediate re-introduction of the Canada Disability Benefit Act in order to reduce poverty and support the financial security of persons with disabilities.

We also call on the government to ensure that people with disabilities are meaningfully involved in the creation and implementation of the Canada Disability Benefit, and to work with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that the benefit complements provincial and territorial programs.

One in five people in Canada has a disability and over one million Canadians with disabilities live in poverty. People with disabilities in Canada have a higher rate of unemployment and people with severe disabilities earn less than $13,000 per year on average. People with disabilities face many direct and indirect costs from having a disability, including medical expenses, specialized equipment, accessible housing, and reduced earnings. COVID-19 has only exacerbated these inequalities.

The Canada Disability Benefit is an important step in removing the barriers that people with disabilities face in Canada, and it must be part of a comprehensive government approach that includes creating good quality jobs and disability-inclusive spaces.

It is critical that we move forward more quickly to support people with disabilities and, as parliamentarians representing different parties, we are ready to work alongside you to ensure that we build a truly inclusive Canada.

This is the kind of cross-party co-operation that Canadians are looking for.

If we look at the plight of the disabled, I cannot speak to how much in benefits they are receiving in other provinces, but I can tell members I have a continual stream of people coming to my office who are unable to afford to live. In Ontario, they get about $1,200 a month as their benefit.

We can think about the fact that affordable housing is a huge issue in this country. Across the country, Canadians cannot find a place to live that is affordable, but in my riding I would tell members that any place one can find is about $1,000 a month. We know a couple of years ago, before the pandemic started, 60% of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. That was before the pandemic and all the hardships that happened. It was before the subsequent, multiple increases to the carbon tax that the Liberal government put in place, which have increased the cost of home heating and increased the cost of groceries.

There is now an added burden on disabled people. If they have $1,000 to find a place to live in Sarnia and they have $200 leftover for everything else, along with all the increases that have happened, it is no wonder that people cannot afford to live. We are seeing them increasingly trying to go to food banks. We see all these problems they are having.

We also know that the health care system is in disarray in our country. For persons like me, trying to get a medical appointment to see a specialist, or whatever is needed, is difficult enough. However, to navigate that system for many persons living with disabilities is extra complicated and extra expensive. I think we would all agree in this House that there is a great need for the benefit.

When it comes to implementing things, it is important to know the details. I find this document is almost a virtue-signal that this is important to do, and we all agree that it is. How much is it going to cost? There has been out-of-control spending everywhere from the Liberal government. We all agree it is a good idea to spend here. However, how much is it?

The implementation of this also needs to not exclude people. It was I, on a Friday, in the House, who highlighted the problem with the disability tax credit, when the government decided to make 80% of people who used to be eligible for the benefit no longer eligible. Then they denied it. We chased them around for months and months, with the disability stakeholders calling out the government on it. Finally, the situation was remediated, but it was not just about taking away their tax credit. That also made them eligible for the disability pension benefit. If one did not get the tax credit, one did not get the pension benefit. When we are talking about implementing supports for the disabled, it is important we know who is eligible. That is going to be critical.

It is also important that we are not giving money with one hand and taking money away with the other hand. We are saying we are going to top them up, and I would argue the amount of topping up is important. The minister indicated that this would be like GIS, but she also said that people who are on OAS and GIS and are disabled go from 23% living in poverty to, when they turn 65, 9% living in poverty. If no disabled person should live in poverty, that tells me we do not have the right amount for the GIS, so that is going to be an important discussion as well.

The government is going to raise the carbon tax again in January. If one is giving money with one hand, while driving up the cost of groceries and home heating and taking the money away with the other hand, that is not going to be helpful at all. Therefore, that will be very important.

It has to be indexed to inflation. Certainly, we have the highest inflation that we have seen in this country in 40 years. Interest rates are up. People are concerned. If we are not keeping pace with that, it will be problematic. I do hear that, if everybody needs an 8.1% increase, it is going to be another inflationary pressure. It is more important than ever that we prioritize spending in the government and that we know clearly where we are going to spend.

When it comes to helping the disabled, I find that we are not always on the same page. The member for Carleton, who is our new leader, had brought a private member's bill to help disabled people. The minister talked about preventing the clawbacks that happened. His bill was going to address the clawbacks that were happening, but the government did not support his bill and it did not pass.

I think that all of us are looking for ways to help. I do not think we should only help by giving money to the disabled. I think we should be incentivizing their work, making it possible. I know that there are barriers they face in terms of accessibility, and the accessibility act, while well-intended, has not always come to fruition. In my riding, there are still places that were grandfathered under that and are inaccessible. Certainly, some attention needs to be paid there.

In addition, I would say that we need to look at the history of how we have treated the disabled community. The remarks from the minister were very well taken on this. We have a lousy track record. We need to get it right. To do that, we need to not just consult with provinces and territories to make sure they are not clawing back the benefits we are going to give, but I we also need to consult with people in the disabled community so that we understand how they need to receive that benefit.

My colleague from Calgary Midnapore mentioned that it is not clear whether it would be a monthly benefit or if it would come at tax time or what it would come as. People who are struggling to get by definitely need to receive this more regularly, so my opinion is that this would be something to take under consideration.

Certainly we will support this bill in principle, but when it comes to committee and all of the details, I hope that the consultations with provinces and territories have been done so that we can see how much of the benefit we need to put in place, so that we can get a costing on it, perhaps from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I also hope we will be clear on who is going to be eligible and how that is going to be determined, because I would not want to see people fall through the cracks unnecessarily.

In terms of the implementation, it should be accelerated, but it is more important to do it right than to do it fast.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I did hear the minister, in her comments earlier, talk about the consultations with those primarily affected by this, the disabled community. I think that she even indicated that this would be an ongoing thing and would continue to happen. That is to respond to one of the member's last points.

With regard to the issue of trying to hone in on the exact amount, does the member not respect the fact that there are already services provided by the provinces and that one of the things we want to ensure we do not end up seeing is that we just end up transferring money to the provinces and they end up decreasing what they are spending?

We have to ensure that money the federal government puts into this is genuinely redirected to those in need in addition to what they might already be receiving. Would she not agree this is a critical element?

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

Madam Speaker, we want to make sure we are not giving something to the provinces they are going to claw back, because disabled people will be worse off as a result. There is some evidence of how much money it takes to live, which I think varies by location. A lot of times we see that when people are assigned a salary, if they are working in Vancouver or Toronto there is a supplement for addressing the cost of housing there and things like that. Therefore, the amount may not be the same across the board depending on where people live. I think there is a private member's bill from one of the NDP members calling for $2,200 a month. We saw with the CERB that $2,000 a month seemed adequate, so I would say that might be a target. I would again encourage the government to look at the GIS, because single people who receive the OAS and GIS are living in poverty, so it is not the right amount.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a June 15 article in La Presse, Guillaume Parent wrote that the consultations could go on for three years.

What does my colleague think about that? Does she not think that is a rather long time to wait for people who are already in need?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I think that three years is too long to wait for benefits. I would rather see the government put measures in place immediately and then continue to hold consultations to determine whether those measures are working.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a result of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments' inaction, those living with disabilities in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith are increasingly homeless and reliant on food banks. Some are getting sicker instead of better as they do not have access to the medications they need or to adaptive equipment, for example. Instead of being treated with the dignity and respect they deserve, those living with disabilities are being left behind.

Does the member agree that we need to see the current government implement a bill that provides clear, immediate supports for those living with disabilities?

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

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree we need to hurry to get a benefit in place.

With respect to the previous governments that have neglected this, I would say we cannot change the past. We can only change the future. Now is the time, and we need to move forward with this legislation.

[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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of the discussion today from Bloc members and they seem to be hung up on the issue of who would be a recipient of this disability credit. I would encourage the member, and all Bloc members who share this concern, to google the Accessible Canada Act. The very first link that pops up will be the actual legislation. If the members scroll down about five or six paragraphs to the interpretation, they will see the definition, which reads:

disability means any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment — or a functional limitation — whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society.

The definition of who would be a recipient, who would qualify, is very clear and is laid out in the act that already exists. I wonder if Bloc members have had an opportunity to review that interpretation as to who would be impacted by this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course we took the time to review it. I wonder whether my colleague took the time to listen carefully to my speech.

We know that this targets people of working age, but the point we are trying to make when we talk about who is eligible is that the concepts of disability and impairment do not have the same linguistic and cultural scope. That is an important point.

I would like to remind my colleague that, according to the September 23, 2020, throne speech, the disability inclusion plan includes a new inclusive process for determining eligibility for benefits that reflects a modern understanding of disability. We have questions about that, and I think I was very clear.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the bill being incomplete, that it had no details and that it basically needed to be made more specific. These are questions that we all have, at least on this side of the House, about the legislation. We want to see the bill move forward. We are hoping that the government is listening to the conversation we are having right now, so it can pick up some of these points as it moves forward and make those changes so we can see them in the legislation.

Disabled people do not want to be recognized. They do not want a big sign put above their heads saying “I am disabled.” They want to be able to move forward. I know many people who are disabled and they wonder if the people they talk to day in and day out even understand that they have a disability, These issues are invisible to a lot of Canadians.

I wonder if the member could comment a little more about those people who are possibly included in this legislation. Unfortunately, we heard an answer from across the way a minute ago basically saying that the government was not putting that information in the legislation. Could the member comment on whether it should be and on other things she would like to see in the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

One thing that is clear about eligibility is that this legislation is intended for persons with disabilities who are of working age. Who are these people, however? We have the beginning of an answer.

The clause entitled “Regulations” is what worries me about this bill because so much is left unsaid. Bills are passed on principle, which, in this case, is to provide income support to the poorest persons with disabilities. Regulations, on the other hand, set out the details, such as the eligibility criteria for the benefit; the conditions that are to be met in order to receive the benefit; the amount of the benefit or the method for determining the amount; the manner in which the benefit is to be indexed; the payment periods; and the applications for the benefit. Right now, the legislation is rather vague.

We understand that there will be consultations and that the government wants to work for and with persons with disabilities. However, it has been a year, so I think that it should be able to specify certain things that we could actually work on in committee before the bill passes third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Thérèse-De Blainville that the bill is empty of details and needs improvement.

I wonder if the member could express what improvements the Bloc would like to see and what improvements would be necessary at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Basically, we need to get to work on this. Consultations have taken place, and in the interest of co-operation, we are told that discussions with the provinces are ongoing. What are the results so far? What do we already know?

In all honesty, I would say that we cannot wait years for this. It is important to introduce this bill, and I must say that all the parties have lobbied by writing letters to everyone about having this bill reintroduced a year later. It is important because we are waiting for answers to these questions.

Consultations cannot drag on forever. We cannot remain in the dark about the fundamental content of the bill and simply be told that it will be decided by regulations. That is not good enough. It needs to be done quickly and, structurally speaking, there needs to be more content.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to a moment to make a quick comment. We just experienced it, where people were on the other side in the hallway, which was really noisy. That noise bleeds into the chamber. I need to remind all members that if they are in that area on the outside to try to keep the volume and the laughter down. Sometimes the comments, the questioning and the topic we are discussing in the chamber are important and sensitive, and hearing the laughing going on outside cheapens what is happening in here.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her great work and on her speech.

As members know, Quebec is the envy of many nations for its very strong social safety net. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will certainly support any program that improves the lives of people with disabilities.

My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville already talked about the vagueness of the timelines. No one knows how long the consultation period will last. It is too slow.

Another grey area has to do with how these future regulations will be applied. It is not clear whether Ottawa will pay the benefits directly to Quebec and the provinces or whether the federal government will pay the benefits directly to individuals eligible for this new benefit program.

I wonder if my colleague has any suggestions for the government regarding the best and most effective way to deliver such a program.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two approaches that I think would be best.

First, this program must respect and not interfere with the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Second, the program must complement existing measures and not replace them. The government must guarantee that.

The government can ensure that this program complements existing measures by sending the funding directly to the provinces or by providing additional money, taking into account Quebec's jurisdiction. These are the kinds of questions we want to see answered.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for supporting the principle of this bill. I also want to thank her for endorsing our letter, which shows cross-party support for the Canada disability benefit.

We know that respect for provincial jurisdictions is particularly important to her. Does she have any advice for the members of the House who want to get this benefit passed as quickly as possible with the support of the Bloc Québécois?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As members know, during discussions to advance and pass this bill, I have always expressed my concern for respecting jurisdictions.

I am not sure what measures exist in other provinces, but in Quebec, we have disability supports. The government is trying to create that kind of social safety net, but it cannot take a centralist approach and decide what is right.

People living with disabilities need to be asked what they think is right. Likewise, the government must absolutely ask Quebec and the other provinces what can be done to improve the situation, instead of taking over their roles.

[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.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her impassioned speech and for her advocacy on this really important issue. She has been a champion in poverty reduction for the community of persons with disabilities for so long.

I have heard very clearly from the House about the need to get this done and the need to get it done quickly for persons with disabilities. I am wondering if the member can reflect on some of her thinking about how we can work together to ensure that the provinces and territories do not claw back this benefit and do not deny people services or supports inadvertently because of people getting the Canada disability benefit. How can we work together to find a way to weave a system that is so diverse across the country into a coherent support network for people with disabilities? I know that is the member's expertise and I would be really appreciative of any guidance she has.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her collaboration up to this point with all members of the House.

We talk about the provinces, and I have had conversations with a number of ministers across my province. They are waiting for some leadership from the federal government. They are open to having these conversations. I would say that given the seven years the disability community has been waiting for this, those conversations should be much further down the road.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her advocacy for persons with disabilities.

I am not very familiar with what is in place in B.C. in terms of supports, so I wonder if she could comment on what the province does currently and how she would like to see that augmented in order to correctly support people living with disabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, persons with disabilities across the country have provincial supports. They do not have enough, but they do have provincial support. In B.C., we have an NDP government and this is top of mind for it. This is definitely work that it wants to do around what those disability benefits need to look like. There are a number of them.

I want to share with the minister that one of the most popular disability supports in B.C. is a bus pass, a transit pass. It is unbelievable how many people in the consultations I did were afraid to lose their bus pass and their ability to move to their job, to get their groceries and to move around in society and civic life.

I just wanted to share that. The government in B.C. is working hard to ensure that persons with disabilities have free and active participation in civic life.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for introducing the topic of euthanasia or MAID into this conversation. The minister talked extensively about how people with disabilities need to feel valued. I hear over and over again from the disabilities community in my riding that they are very concerned about the euthanasia regime in Canada and how it makes them feel undervalued.

I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that conversation should not have to be part of this bill, but over the summer we saw more and more of that conversation happen. It is our obligation in the House to make sure that every Canadian does not live in poverty.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her advocacy for persons with disabilities.

Canada has an obligation to uphold the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to ensure dignity and equality for all people. The government has been failing, and after seven years of dragging its feet, tabling a bill without the details of who is eligible, when the benefit is going to come forward and how much the benefit will be is extremely disappointing for the people in my riding who are struggling right now.

I am curious if the member has more comments about the need for the government to speed up to ensure that all people with disabilities are included and that the level of benefit will actually meet the needs of the people who are struggling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to get the bill to committee. We need to get the bill to committee so we can discuss it and get some details into the bill. Whether it happens in committee or we lose control of it by moving it out of committee before we get those details in place is a matter of importance in this space.

We need to make sure that we get this bill right and we get it right fast. I am concerned that if this bill passes without comprehensive conversations in committee, where we do nothing and do not get information, it could take another seven years to get this benefit into people's hands.

[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, as I said in my speech, I am very optimistic and very hopeful that all members of the House will be able to sit together and pass this bill quickly.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my NDP colleague. It is great to see so much support for people with disabilities. The Bloc Québécois supports them as well. However, there is something missing, and I believe that it is important to address it. In that regard, we should also commend the fact that the government wants to improve the situation.

Nevertheless, we have noted something that several of my colleagues talked about earlier. The bill is vague and short on details about guidelines and how exactly this will work. This seems to be a bill that gives the government too much leeway. There are few specifics. Therefore, it is difficult to know what it means in practical terms, given all the leeway given to the government.

Does my colleague want to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned the tools for accountability and measurement. One of the areas that the NDP feels very strongly about is to have some measurement tools written into the bill. I know there will be some freedom about how this would be implemented, but we need to at least have security and certainty in the bill regarding what the amount will be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

I am pleased to rise today to add my voice to those supporting Bill C-22 during second reading. I will use my allotted time to speak to the overarching themes, present the rationale for the bill and explain why it has been drafted the way it has.

First, I want to read an excerpt from a letter I received from a constituent, a mother of two children with disabilities, herself struggling with the debilitating effects of long COVID-19. “Worry about finances creates an additional and unrelenting daily stress” she writes, “one that for many Canadians is on top of the physical pain, accessibility issues and often the accompanying mental anguish of constantly living in survival mode.” She goes on to describe the impact of Bill C-22 as a life preserver that “would allow Canadians with pressing health concerns a way to budget with dignity, and have some ability to plan their lives beyond today's most pressing needs.”

Echoing former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has said that no person with a disability should be living in poverty in Canada, just as no senior or child should be living in poverty. Canada is better than that.

The values that drove past governments to create benefits for seniors and children are the same values that have led to this bill before us today. If passed, Bill C-22 would establish the Canada disability benefit and would reduce poverty, benefiting hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities. Not only that, Canada would make global history, as no other country has a similar benefit for working-age adults with disabilities.

We know that persons with disabilities live in poverty at disproportionately much higher rates than we see in the general population. The 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability showed that working-age Canadians with disabilities were twice as likely to be living in poverty as their peers without disabilities.

The pandemic has only worsened this situation. In a recent survey, two-thirds of respondents with disabilities said they were having trouble making ends meet financially as a result of the pandemic, and one-third of respondents with disabilities reported a decrease in their income as a result of the pandemic. That is unacceptable and we must take action to address it.

While the Government of Canada has done tremendous work to advance accessibility and the rights of persons with disabilities in Canada, the truth is that we are not yet there. We need a mechanism whereby we can lift people out of poverty while we continue implementing the Accessible Canada Act. We need a Canada disability benefit, and I am not alone in saying this. There is strong public support for the benefit.

According to a recent Angus Reid survey, nine out of 10 Canadians are in favour of the benefit. We heard clearly while developing the disability inclusion action plan, which is being finalized, that financial security is the most urgent priority for the Government of Canada to address for persons with disabilities. We heard that persons with disabilities struggle with the costs associated with their disability, including housing, medical expenses and disability supports. We also heard feelings of hopelessness, exhaustion and anger from the experience of living in poverty.

A recent House of Commons e-petition garnered nearly 18,000 signatures demanding that we fast-track the design and implementation of the benefit and involve persons with disabilities at every stage. Another e-petition on the same subject is still open and has gathered nearly 2,000 signatures. The urgency is palpable.

I will now turn to the proposed bill and explain what it would do if passed into law.

First and foremost, Bill C-22 would establish the Canada disability benefit. That is its purpose. That is its main raison d'être.

The legislation would set out the guiding principles and general provisions for how the benefit would be administered. It would de facto authorize the Governor in Council to implement most of the benefit's design elements later on through regulations.

I know this is a worry to some. Are we not just writing a blank cheque, some may say. Are we not rubber-stamping something we have no control over? We need to know how we are going to define eligibility and how much the benefit is going to cost taxpayers. These are real concerns and excellent questions.

I hope to address these and say that we cannot define eligibility in a vacuum. We cannot settle the terms of the benefit without the active participation of the disability community. For far too long, persons with disabilities have been left out of the process. Decisions have been made for them without their input.

We cannot go ahead with designing such a groundbreaking generational benefit without obtaining the knowledge, expertise and help of persons with disabilities. Their guidance will ensure that the benefit enshrines the spirit of “nothing without us”.

As the minister has said, persons with disabilities know best what they need, the challenges they face and which barriers most prevent them from having financial security. This framework bill is not a blank cheque; it is not a blank page.

For example, we already know that the benefit would go to those most in need and we would do that through income testing. Conversely, we would also need to ensure the benefit would not create unintended consequences. The benefit should make persons with disabilities better off. That is our goal.

Finally, we also recognize the leading role the provinces and territories play in providing supports and services to Canadians with disabilities. As such, we want to make absolutely sure this new benefit supplements and does not replace existing provincial and territorial benefits and supports.

In summary, Bill C-22 sets out an approach that would establish the benefit in law, while we work with the disability community, the provinces, territories and the stakeholders, as well as the members of the House, to firm up the details.

We have already begun this work. In the summer of 2021, bolstered by funding from budget 2021, the government launched an engagement process that resulted in valuable input from the disability community, national indigenous organizations and provincial and territorial governments. If Bill C-22 becomes law, it will compel Parliament to review it three years after it comes into force. That is a shortened timeline for a parliamentary review and will allow for adjustments or course corrections if needed.

I hope I have been clear that with Bill C-22 we would enshrine an urgently needed benefit into law and then allow for the time to thoughtfully design it to make a real impact on the financial security of working-aged persons living with disabilities. Ultimately, this work we are embarking on could reduce poverty and improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities.

This is a truly landmark piece of legislation and I urge all my colleagues to support Bill C-22 with urgency.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate today and would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on something my colleague from the NDP in British Columbia brought up about people with disabilities experiencing such despair with respect to not being able to find adequate housing, adequate supports or, in many cases, a family doctor in British Columbia. They are turning to MAID, medical assistance in dying, for what is not a terminal disease or what that legislation was promised to be.

I wonder if the member could address whether he is concerned about the trend of people with disabilities considering MAID because they cannot get the supports they need from their governments at all levels, whether he thinks this legislation will have an impact on that and whether there is a whole-of-government approach being focused on this issue that should concern all Canadians and certainly all members of Parliament.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do share my hon. colleague's concerns, and I thank him for voicing those important concerns in the House.

The legislation would lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty. This is legislation that would help make life more affordable for hundreds of thousands of Canadians living with disabilities. At the same time, this process provides a platform for Canadians with disabilities to have their voices heard and to design this benefit as well. Those two elements about Bill C-22 are critically important, and I thank my hon. colleague for raising those critical issues.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this morning's debate. Dealing with the issue of poverty among people with disabilities in Quebec and Canada is very important. However, there is one problem. Any time the federal government talks about negotiating a program with the provinces, we in Quebec have a strong reaction, because that never works. We have seen this with health care. We have been asking for health transfers for years now, but the federal government always attaches conditions. We also saw this with the big national housing strategy launched in 2017. It took three years for any of the money to flow to Quebec so we could start addressing our housing needs.

Can my colleague assure us that the federal government will stop dragging its feet on this extremely important and urgent issue and stop sticking the Canadian flag everywhere so it can claim to be the government that is addressing the issue of poverty among people with disabilities in Canada?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we look forward to working with all our provincial and territorial partners. We look forward to working together with all members of the House on passing Bill C-22. We share the urgency I hear in the member's voice as well. This is the reason we are debating Bill C-22 as the first piece of legislation on the very first day of the sitting of the House for the fall Parliament. It really highlights the urgency shared on this side of the House. We know and we hear that urgency is also reflected and being voiced on all sides of the House as well.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been promising help for people with disabilities ever since I was elected seven years ago when they were first elected as a government. During COVID, the Liberals treated people with disabilities more or less as an afterthought, and when they did receive a benefit, only a third of the people who should have received the benefit actually received it.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell me if all the people who need this benefit will get it? Will it be adequate and will it be prompt? Will we have to wait three years, as the minister has suggested?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly that is the objective of the legislation and of this government. When Bill C-22 passes, the Canada disability benefit will be enshrined in legislation. It will secure and anchor it. With this legislation, the train is firmly on the tracks. It is up to us, as members of the House, to see how fast and how far the legislation goes.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of our mandate, the Prime Minister has made it clear many times that disability inclusion and accessibility are a key priority.

Since 2015, we have committed $1.1 billion in funding to ensure greater accessibility and supports for Canadians with disabilities, and we have made huge strides in breaking down barriers. This includes appointing Canada's first-ever cabinet minister responsible for persons with disabilities, passing and implementing the historic Accessible Canada Act and establishing Accessibility Standards Canada.

It also includes acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty, which makes the production and international transfer of accessible books for people with print disabilities easier, and the optional protocol of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, strengthening the protection of human rights for persons with disabilities in Canada.

In 2019, when the Accessibility Canada Act came into force, the government focused its efforts on identifying, preventing and helping remove barriers to accessibility. We are communicating to Canadians how we are shortchanging the economy and ourselves if we exclude people. We have removed barriers to employment, making buildings physically more accessible and making accessibility and inclusion part of the design and the delivery of our services and programs.

Then the pandemic hit.

It is clearly documented that the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected the health, social and economic well-being of those individuals living with disabilities. However, even before the pandemic, persons with disabilities suffered from long-standing inequities, and COVID made these inequities worse.

It is for this reason that we have taken a disability inclusive approach into our pandemic response by setting up a COVID-19 disability advisory group and providing a one-time payment to persons with disabilities.

In 2020, we committed to developing a disability inclusion action plan, the DIAP, and that work is being finalized. The DIAP is a blueprint for the change to make Canada more inclusive of persons with disabilities. It has four pillars: financial security, employment, accessible and inclusive communities, and a modern approach to disability.

At its core, the plan is simple, and that is to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities. However, the work required to accomplish this, to make Canada inclusive, fair and free of physical, societal and attitudinal barriers, will be extensive.

The bill before us today represents bold action on the first pillar of the plan, namely that of reducing poverty and providing financial security to persons with disabilities. Consultations with Canadians on the disability inclusion action plan show that poverty and financial security of persons with disabilities are overwhelming priorities, and the proposed benefit, a cornerstone of the action plan, would help respond to these concerns.

We recognize that not all persons with disabilities are able to be gainfully employed and others are not able to work at all. The objective of the proposed benefit is to improve the financial security of individuals in these situations.

We are also taking action on the second pillar of the action plan, employment, which is critical to financial security of persons with disabilities.

Budget 2022 recently provided more than $270 million toward the employment strategy for persons with disabilities, and that strategy has three prongs: first, to help persons with disabilities gain jobs, advance in their careers or become entrepreneurs; second, to support employers as they develop inclusive workplaces; and third, to aid organizations and individuals who are helping persons with disabilities find employment.

Most recently, the minister launched a call for proposals under the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities to fund up to 180 projects that would help people find and keep jobs, and that is not all.

We have modernized and increased support for the enabling accessibility fund, or EAF. The EAF provides money for projects that make Canadian communities and workplaces more accessible for persons with disabilities. It aims to give persons with disabilities a greater chance to be a part of community activities and to get the services they need to find work.

The EAF provides money for three types of projects. First are youth-led projects of up to $10,000 that help persons with disabilities in their communities. Some supported activities have included the purchase of para hockey sleds, construction of raised gardens in community gardens and the creation of an accessible sensory room. Second are grants of up to $100,000 to fund infrastructure and construction projects and information communications technology projects that improve accessibility in communities or workplaces. The funds have supported building ramps, accessible doors, accessible washrooms, installing screen reader devices and hearing loop systems, and constructing a specially designed office. Third, there are also large contributions of up to $3 million to support larger projects. Last year, we added a simpler method for people to apply for funding to pay for single items such as accessible doors, accessible washrooms, ramps and the like.

I know that many of us in this House have had projects funded by the EAF in constituencies, and I know that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and many of our colleagues have had a chance to visit these projects in our communities. We have heard first-hand how these investments have improved accessibility for Canadians with disabilities. In budget 2022, we proposed to make new investments in accessible books, including the creation of the new equitable access to reading program, which would enable people with print disabilities to better participate in our society and economy. This is all part of the work we are doing to include Canadians with disabilities in all aspects of everyday life.

In spite of the pandemic, we have also taken significant strides in implementing the Accessible Canada Act. The Accessible Canada Act regulations, published in December 2021, marked the first step in operationalizing the act. These regulations require over 5,000 federally regulated entities to publish plans indicating how they plan and intend to proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility and to outline how they will report their progress as well as how they will establish feedback mechanisms by which persons with disabilities can provide input.

Most recently, we have appointed Stephanie Cadieux as the first-ever accessibility officer, and shortly after, Michael Gottheil was named as the first accessibility commissioner within the Canadian Human Rights Commission to enforce compliance with the Accessible Canada Act and its regulations.

With regard to standards, in 2019 we established Accessibility Standards Canada, whose board of directors is primarily comprised of persons with disabilities. It is working with disability communities, industry and other partners to create national accessible standards that aim to raise the bar in terms of the requirements and approaches to the seven priority areas that are set out in the act, namely transportation, employment, information and communication technologies or ICT, communications other than ICT, the built environment, the design and delivery of programs and services, and the procurement of goods and services and facilities. The accessibility standards are a critical part of a barrier-free Canada for persons with disabilities, because while they are norms, they are not the law and they have the power to drive widespread adoption of inclusive design.

Accessibility Standards Canada is looking at setting norms for plain language on forms and websites, how we shape our outdoor spaces from sidewalks to parks, emergency egress and how people with disabilities can get out of buildings in a hurry if needed, as well as removing physical barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from accessing the workplace—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I hate to cut the member off, because he was doing such a great job of using up all the time that was available to him. I want to thank the member for his intervention.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous comments today about how Bill C-22 is missing the eligibility criteria of who will receive the benefit, yet in Canada we have many insurance companies that provide disability benefits and have a comprehensive list of who qualifies for those.

Has the government consulted with these people, or would the government consider doing that, so that we could include eligibility criteria in Bill C-22?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed working with the member opposite on the HUMA committee.

In terms of the criteria she is inquiring about, as we had said earlier, we are going to be developing the criteria through consultation, including with persons with disabilities. I think it was Napoleon who said, he who sits in the saddle best knows where it pinches. In this case I think we should be consulting with the people who are most affected. We certainly are engaged in the process of doing so.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and I think that many members agree on the principle of this bill. However, the bill basically says nothing about the terms and conditions, criteria, process or accountability in particular.

According to my colleague, what mechanism will enable parliamentarians to measure the effectiveness of the regulations that will be enacted to ensure they uphold the fine principle we are discussing this morning?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also had the opportunity to work with the member opposite on the health committee, and I certainly appreciate his contributions in those areas as well.

In terms of accountability, with 30 years of banking experience, in my mind, of course accountability has to be critical. It is important that we set out expected outcomes and that people put together plans that measure against those expected outcomes. I fully expect the government will do so, and I am convinced we will develop a good plan and great criteria once we have finished consulting with people who have disabilities and the organizations that represent them. We will see what is important to the people who would be the beneficiaries of the program, and we will certainly set out to make sure we satisfy those needs.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the high levels of poverty people with disabilities face, the fact that they are often living shadow lives of what they should be able to because of the fundamental inequities, I am very wary about making promises that cannot be delivered. My question to the member, in terms of this legislation, is about a credible plan to actually get it to people and ensure, particularly in my region of Ontario, that it will not be clawed back by the Doug Ford government. We have seen it go after poor people relentlessly. People are not able to pay their rent. People are not able to live in dignity. What steps can we see in this legislation that would protect people on disability from suffering these provincial clawbacks?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coming from Ontario, I understand what the member is referring to. I might add that, during the previous campaign, in the town of Newmarket there was one elected on that member's side all the way down in Newmarket, Ontario, so I thought it was great to see that. However, in terms of the experience of having these clawbacks, there have been extensive discussions with all of the ministers within the provincial areas, and this program is intended to be incremental, not substitutional. The negotiations will not go forward until the incremental portion is solidly part of the program.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised the bill is basically empty and will await regulations to tell us what we already know. There are already people in Canada on the disability tax credit. They need to have those benefits increased substantially. Why would we impose needs-based testing on people who need help now?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important we focus our resources on where the needs are most critical, and there needs to be a process to do so. In order to do that, there needs to be a needs-based testing program. I understand there is a critical need, and this program is intended to support people who have critical needs, such as people who are marginalized. People with disabilities certainly are highly represented in that area.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

We are here today talking about 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 am generally in favour of that and supportive of this draft legislation. We all want to see all Canadian citizens, regardless of their level of ability, able to participate fully in our economy and to be active participants in our society.

To start off, I am going to give a big shout-out to the many great organizations in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove that are doing the important work of helping people with disabilities, organizations like the Langley Pos-Abilities Society, which focuses on people's abilities rather than their disabilities. I was a participant in a competition put on by this organization a couple of years ago at a public event in one of our parks, where one of the tests was for us, in wheelchairs, to negotiate ourselves around some obstacles, such as opening a door, getting through it and pulling ourselves up a ramp. There was another test that required us to put something very technical together while blindfolded. There was yet another test that I recall that required us to do a simple task like putting butter on our toast with our dominant hands tied behind our backs. Coming out of that, I had a new respect for people who struggle with disabilities in their everyday lives, but also for the great organizations that work with them.

When looking at Bill C-22, I was happy to see that it is premised on the constitutional concept of equality, so I thought I would look at this draft legislation from a constitutional perspective. The preamble section, which is a very important part of any legislation, talks about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That document recognizes the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. The preamble of the bill also talks about our own Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically section 15, which is our equality section. Section 15 says, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination”, and there is a list of enumerated things that cannot be discriminated against, including mental and physical health, which brings us to Bill C-22.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been with us for 40 years. It is instinctive for us now. It is part of the world view that shapes our sense of justice and how the government should interact with its citizens. However, even though it is instinctive, it does not mean that it is simple. It is a very complicated question. Anytime we talk about equality, it opens up questions like how proactive the government must be to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities or perhaps equal outcomes of their programs, or does section 15 simply mean that a law, once passed, must not contravene or breach section 15.

To underline the complexity of this principle, which has not just been invented recently, Nobel Prize-winning author from the late 19th century and early 20th century, Anatole France, put it this way, sarcastically of course, in majestic equality, laws “forbid rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” We have an instinct that says that equal treatment is not always fair, and fairness is not always equal.

There is a British Columbia case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada that really underlined that principle. A young woman, healthy and fully able-bodied, wanted to work for the B.C. forest fire service and passed all the requirements, except for one. She failed the test under the uniform minimum aerobic standards for firefighters. She simply was not strong enough. She challenged this under section 15 of the charter. The B.C. government argued, saying it did not contravene section 15 at all because it applied equally to men and women. The Supreme Court of Canada saw through that and said, no, it has a disproportionate discriminatory effect on women. That case is important for this proposition. Courts should look not only at how a law is applied but also its effect on individuals.

With all of this background, I picked up Bill C-22 with a great deal of interest, to see how it would tackle these complex legal questions, and the answer is that it would not at all. This bill dealing with such an important and complex question is scarcely six pages long. One page is the preamble, which I have already mentioned. There are a couple of pages about some technical things. There are two pages, fully one-third of this draft legislation, that talk about the regulatory power that this Parliament is being asked to give to cabinet.

I was very happy to hear the minister and also the parliamentary secretary say that one of the reasons they wanted to give cabinet such broad regulatory power was to ensure that there would be consultation with people affected by it. I completely agree with that. I might just add as a side note that I was very happy to hear that my friend, Stephanie Cadieux, formerly an MLA from my neighbouring riding, has been appointed to this, so I am somewhat more optimistic that the government is now going to do a good job. However, I am really puzzled as to why, wanting to consult with the community that is going to be most affected by this, the government thinks that it is appropriate to bypass the important work that this Parliament does.

I said that I am supportive of this legislation. I really am. I will be voting in favour of it at second reading, together with my colleagues, to bring this to committee. However, coming out of committee, I would expect that these important questions are going to be answered. They have been raised by many of the previous speakers, including questions like how we should define disability, who qualifies for the benefit, how much the disability benefit is going to be in dollars and cents, what it is going to cost the government coffers, whether there will be means testing and who would get to qualify. We want to help disabled people, but are we going to be helping rich people? Will there be clawbacks?

I was talking to my brother just the other day. He was disabled by Parkinson's, and I told him that we were going to be talking about this topic this week. He said that, whatever we do, we should make sure workers are not disincentivized from working. I happy to hear the minister say that would not be the case, although the legislation does not actually say that. I think she is saying to trust that they are going to do it right.

Parliament has a very important function, which is to review legislation. So far, it looks like what the government is asking for is a blank cheque to be able to do the work behind closed doors, and the Liberals are just saying for us to trust the government to get it right. We are going to be looking to the committee to have a thorough review of this legislation, and we will be looking for answers to these very important questions.

I might add just one more point, which is that my province, and I am sure every province, has some sort of a program to help disabled people. We are not hearing anything about how this Canada disability benefit program would mesh with provincial jurisdictions and organizations. Is there going to be a whole new federal bureaucracy to manage this? These are the questions we need answers to.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, just picking up on the last point that the member made with respect to the provincial jurisdiction and other supports that might be coming from provinces, I am curious. Would the member agree that it is very important that whatever is rolled out from the federal government is not used as an opportunity to roll back at the provincial level? We need to safeguard any benefits that would be coming from the federal level to ensure that those are not just opportunities for the provinces to look for savings, but in fact that this would be something that builds upon anything that might exist within a province. Would he agree that this should be important when considering this legislation?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under another part of our Constitution, section 92.13 of the Constitution Act, 1867, property and civil rights come under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. I would say this is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can get involved in this is to work together with provinces. I would completely agree with the member opposite that whatever the federal government does has to be supplemental to what the provinces are doing and not in substitution thereof. The negotiations need to make that a condition.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was saying earlier that the bill bypasses the work of Parliament by giving cabinet too much regulatory power.

This bill covers an important topic and principles that we all seem to agree on. What is more, the real work of the bill would be done through the regulations. For all these reasons, would my colleague agree to add a clause to the bill to ensure that parliamentarians are able to review the regulations and provide their input?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting proposition. My understanding of the legislative process is that Parliament gives cabinet, the Governor in Council, authority to make regulations. Every bill we pass and review here has a regulations section. This one is just so broad; that is what is unusual about it. Regulations are usually there for setting fees, the application form and appeal procedures if somebody is dissatisfied with a decision of the minister.

I do not know that it is appropriate for cabinet to come back to us with the regulations. What is appropriate is for the legislation itself to have, for example, a good and thorough definitions section that deals with all these things. This is generally what we see in federal legislation. It is what we need to do.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a part that is important for many Canadians who are watching to know is that we really want to see this legislation get to committee. This House expressed itself unanimously just before we broke, to make sure this actually gets done. Canadians have been waiting nearly seven years. Would the member agree that while we look at some of the regulations present within it, we also look at some of the programs of the provinces that the member mentioned for eligibility and that they be adopted by this legislation to ensure that no one is left behind?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. It is this body that should be looking at who qualifies, whether there are going to be clawbacks, how much it is going to cost and what the dollar amount is. These are the sorts of things that should be in the legislation and not in the regulations.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill and debate allow me to bring up a couple of people within my riding. One is my own daughter, who lives with a high-functioning disability, and another is Jenna Wuthrich, an indigenous mouth artist who is confined to a wheelchair and needs to crowdfund to try to get her only way of transportation because, as many know who have adult children who live with disabilities, one ages out of programs.

As with any legislation, the devil is in the details. We need to make sure it is done correctly out of the gate, so we know who is eligible, for how long, and what the needs-based assessment is. This bill is very important. I ask my hon. colleague to further expand on the due diligence being done now and whether Parliament has a say in it.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is Parliament's function to look at exactly those questions about what the qualifications are going to be. The regulations should be limited to the more technical aspects of the functioning of the program. On his example of people who age out, this is exactly what the citizens of this country want. They want to see all people being treated fairly and equally. This is what section 15 of our charter is all about.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate 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.

The government is attempting to create a Canada disability benefit to supplement existing provincial benefits for low-income persons with disabilities, modelling it after the Canada child benefit and guaranteed income supplement.

Conservatives, as we heard, will support the Canada disability benefit at this time, because we believe in principle it is the government’s intent to reduce poverty among Canadians living with disabilities. Conservatives believe strongly that the government must do all it can to provide support for the most vulnerable among us.

One in five Canadians has a disability. These people need our help to live their lives to the fullest and to participate fully in society, including in the labour market.

Conservatives believe that Canadians living with disabilities deserve timely access to benefits and services and should not be penalized for going to work, as is so often the case today.

The creation of the Canada disability benefit should consider the complex web of programs currently in place, which, for many Canadians with disabilities, can result in actual benefit cuts and higher taxes because they work.

I know different people on disability for whom just the little work they are able to do helps them financially, but it also helps them psychologically and helps their entire well-being. Too often the Liberal government has pursued an “Ottawa knows best” approach, leaving many Canadians behind as they try to access federal supports and services.

Conservatives believe that the federal government should work with the provinces to ensure that federal programs do not impact or hurt Canadians and are not working at cross-purposes.

We are concerned that applying for the Canada disability benefit may result in difficult and bureaucratic processes. Canadians are at the breaking point with government bureaucracy. There is a Service Canada office in the same block as mine, and every day there are lineups, people waiting for hours oftentimes, to be able to get service, or not. This should not be. That is a concern that we have. If we are bringing this new benefit, there must be timely access.

The ArriveCAN app is another example of bureaucracy. There are bottlenecks in our airports, cutting down tourism and international travel. This is on the Liberal government.

As we await further details on the Canada disability benefit, Canadians believe that the Liberal government must ensure that Canadians who qualify are able to access their benefits in a timely fashion.

Have members ever heard of the Potemkin villages? The Potemkin villages were named after Grigory Potemkin. He was a Russian aristocrat during the time of Catherine the Great, the empress of Russia in the 1700s. He built these villages, as the empress was going to visit Crimea for the first time, to show that people were living very well and that they had nice houses. The only problem was that it was all fake. When the empress stopped for the night, they would move this fake village to the next place, on and on.

What is my point in bringing this forward? There are appearances. My concern is that, with the Liberal government, they have good things, good policies here in place, like we have right now with the disability act, but they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. So much of what they are doing is actually undermining the most vulnerable of Canadians.

Today it was announced that the consumer price index numbers showed the price of food going up 10.8%. It is a 40-year high. Life is getting harder for Canadians.

There needs to be a little more consistency when it comes to the approach of the Liberal government, supported by the NDP. There needs to be a consistency, because we are not seeing that.

The cost of goods and services is skyrocketing. Inflation is eating away at what Canadians can afford and what they are putting on their tables. The price of gasoline in Vancouver is nearly $2 a litre, double what it was a year ago. We can compare that to Alberta, where it is 70¢ cheaper a litre. A lot of the difference is in the taxes.

I have a suspicion that perhaps the Liberals do not really care about its impact because it is due to “dirty fuel”, but it has an impact. Somebody I care about came over to our place. He has been struggling with disabilities and is finding it hard to make ends meet. He ran out of gas on the way to my place and did not have any money to get more gas.

These taxes, such as the carbon tax, are hurting the most vulnerable. It is putting a lot of pressure on people. We see it in our bills. We also see that it is impacting farmers. They are having to pay these taxes. It goes on to the consumers. Everything is rising more and more. Conservatives have called for no more new taxes. This is it. We need to think of everybody. These consumption taxes, the taxes on CPP and EI benefits, which are just automatically going up, are hurting the most vulnerable.

If they cared, they would stop these taxes and they would watch the way they are spending money. It is really impacting our society. It is not whether one has an increase in their salary, but their net income. Net income is what someone has at the end of the day after all the payroll taxes and other deductions come off, while the cost of living goes up.

We do support this. We support the Canada disability benefit act. It is important. We are looking forward to bringing about improvements. We do not know the details. As the previous member mentioned, we wonder what it is all about. In theory it could be good, and we want to help this along.

Once again, the policies of the Liberals are undermining Canadians. They have another policy with respect to agriculture. They are looking at bringing a 30% reduction of nitrogen in fertilizer, which will have a big impact. I was at the 2022 Cranberry Field Day in my riding. They were saying that it is not like they want to put this nitrogen in, as it is an expensive cost for farmers, but it is important for productivity. It is going to reduce how much they are able to produce. That will mean less produce, which will raise prices for those who especially cannot afford it. Not to mention that nitrogen is the fourth most common element in the universe after oxygen, carbon and hydrogen.

These things are important. It is important to just be more careful about purchasing. The idea of printing money, just printing more and more money, actually devalues what people have and makes things extremely expensive, making rental and housing costs go up. I took this fellow out for lunch who is also on disability. He said he is struggling just to pay for medication. It is hard.

These policies, the lack control and taxes impact the poorest among us, so it would be great to have this act, which we support, but let us make it comprehensive. Let us look at all the different angles.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have before us is, in fact, of great benefit for individuals who receive a disability benefit. I am encouraged to hear that the Conservatives, as of late, seem to want to support the legislation.

What really intrigued me was when the member made reference to CPP as a tax. CPP is, in many ways, a source of income for Canadians who are going to retire in future. Yes, CPP premiums are going to be going up, which will allow for those workers in the future, when they retire, to retire with more disposable income.

Can the member be clear about whether he supports CPP increases, or does he believe that it is purely a tax? It actually is to ensure that seniors, when they retire, will have more disposable income.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just with the CPP. It is also with the carbon tax, EI, and these automatic increases. Although I am not a member from Alberta, I know it has put a hold on provincial taxes on gasoline, which has made a big difference.

I have noticed that people, even from my riding, have been moving there because taxes make a difference. People can afford to live. The government is making life unaffordable for everyone. Let us turn the dial.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently spoke with a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith who shared with me that, because he was living with a disability, he felt he was being treated as disposable, which is heart-wrenching. It really spoke to me and reaffirmed the importance of the government doing better today.

Would the member agree that it is essential to those living with disabilities that they are not legislated into poverty and are provided with adequate support through the Canada disability benefit today?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power in 2015, we brought about the Employment Equity Act, the purpose of which was to achieve equity in the workplace so no one would be denied opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability, and to address workplace disadvantages faced by four designated groups: people with disabilities, women, aboriginal peoples and members of visible minorities. The Conservatives are concerned about Canadians who are struggling who are living with disabilities.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

First, I would be remiss if I did not wish my daughter a happy birthday today.

Second, this is the anniversary for many of us of our election one year ago, and I hope I never take for granted rising in the House. I send my congratulations as well to all those who are marking the one-year anniversary of their first election or a re-election.

My colleague spoke about the vulnerable. Does he have a couple of key ways in which he feels the government has let down the vulnerable and simple ways we might address that?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not wish my granddaughter a happy birthday. It is her third birthday.

Our new leader has proposed that, for every dollar of increased expenditure, we would be looking for savings, and there is a lot of room for savings. My apartment overlooks buildings where I have not seen anybody for two and a half years. I have since found out they are empty government buildings. Let us do something with them.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge is supportive of the legislation with lots of good words this afternoon, but the fact is that there is a real sense of urgency for those living in poverty. We took a recess over the summer. Those living in poverty did not get a recess from that.

Could the member speak to what he can do within his party to fast-track this legislation and get emergency supports to people living with disabilities today?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I need to remind the members to keep their conversations low as they come into the House of Commons because we still have debate going on.

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know we are happy to move things forward, but we really see an empty shell with this bill. With respect to regulations, there are subparagraphs (a) through (t), but we do not know what the regulations are. We need to see those regulations to help move the bill forward so we can ensure those with disabilities would best profit from it.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to such an important piece of legislation, which the minister brought forward today. I know it will disappoint many members opposite, but I will be sharing my time.

Let me get back to the point. Whether it is the Prime Minister or members of the Liberal caucus, we can often be heard talking about an economy that would work for all Canadians. That is a central theme in the Liberal caucus. We understand and appreciate the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Recognizing that the true value of having a strong and healthy middle class would give us a healthier economy and a better society.

When we talk about an economy that works for all Canadians, it is important. That is the reason I am so glad that the first piece of legislation on our return is Bill C-22. Bill C-22 would ensure that there is a larger disposable income for those individuals with disabilities. This is something truly unique happening here in Canada. We are recognizing that the national government plays a significant role in ensuring that people with disabilities would receive money coming from the government.

I hear many of the comments from opposition members talking about wanting more details. This legislation would establish the framework, and no doubt there would be interesting discussions taking place in the standing committees. However, we need to realize that, when we establish a national program, and we speak from experience because we have developed other national programs, we need to work with different provinces and stakeholders. Not every province is the same. Provinces and territories have different structures in place.

As a government, the last thing we want to see is a payment going out, and then a province clawing back that money from a person with a disability. There are agreements that have to be achieved. There are negotiations and discussions that have to take place.

In Manitoba, for example, there is an income support program for people with disabilities. We are talking about something that is relatively new that started just in the last year. It has been talked about for a while. I am an optimist. I am hoping that Premier Heather Stefanson will work with our minister, and maybe Manitoba and the Government of Canada could come up with an agreement that could ultimately see people with disabilities in Manitoba further ahead in regard to disposable income.

As the minister herself indicated in introducing the legislation, this legislation would potentially lift tens of thousands of people out of poverty. Our track record shows that lifting people out of poverty is something we have experience in as a government. It is one of the things that differentiates us from the Conservative Party. Whether it was the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty, including hundreds in Winnipeg North alone, or the Canada child benefit, which lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty, including again hundreds, if not thousands, in Winnipeg North alone, this particular legislation—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is “easy come, easy go...little high, little low...doesn't really matter to me”, but I cannot hear the statement because there are too many people talking. I would like to remind people in this political fandango that we should actually take the time to listen to what is being said.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate that intervention. I just did that, probably three minutes ago, but maybe some people did not hear as they were coming into the chamber. Let us keep the noise down a little while we listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my feelings are not hurt. Members can continue their idle chatter.

From my perspective, we continue to provide policy and budgetary measures that are, in a real and tangible way, lifting people out of poverty. Bill C-22 would do just that. It is legislation that all of us should be supporting and sending it to committee.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, just prior to question period, I talked about what the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus talk a great deal about, and that is moving forward, as we have in the past, and putting an emphasis on Canada's middle class, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that we have an economy that is working for all Canadians. That is something we take very seriously.

When we take a look at Bill C-22 and we get an understanding of the real purpose behind it, the principle, as I see it, is to ensure that all Canadians have a better, more equal opportunity to participate. This legislation would enhance the disposable income for literally tens of thousands of people with disabilities from coast to coast to coast.

Members should not be surprised at the progressive nature of this legislation. As a government we have demonstrated, virtually from 2015, that we are committed to supporting Canadians who need that additional support. I can recall when we first talked, in 2015, about increasing the GIS for the poorest of all seniors. I made reference before question period to the hundreds of individuals in Winnipeg North who were lifted out of poverty as a direct result of the increase to the GIS. Earlier I made reference to the hundreds of kids in Winnipeg North who were lifted out of poverty because of changes and enhancements we made, and because we brought in the Canada child benefit program.

Once again, we are seeing another progressive piece of legislation that will lift tens of thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty. This is the type of government that has made a difference in a very real and tangible way, ensuring that the disposable income of people in many different areas, in all different regions of our country, would be increased. That makes our economy healthier. It will increase and improve the quality of life for people who need it in a very real and tangible way.

The legislation itself will set the framework for a national program. Part of that program means that we have to work with the different provincial entities out there. Depending on the province, we could find a patchwork of sorts. There may be disability credits in some areas, possibly. There may be support programs in other areas. As the minister indicated when introducing the bill, we want to make sure that the money we are giving to people with disabilities today is not going to be clawed back in other types of provincial or territorial supports. This should be top-off money.

That is something that would require a great deal of effort, an effort we have demonstrated to Canadians we can be very successful in. One need only take a look at the child care program, the first-ever national child care program, on which we were able to achieve agreements with all of the provinces and territories. It is that same sort of worth ethic, working with Canadians and working with other jurisdictions, that will enable us to create the first-ever national disability program, arguably what could be the first such national program in the world.

This is a wonderful opportunity for members to be very clear in supporting the legislation. Let us see this bill go to committee, come back and ultimately become law.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. I hope he took a break over the summer and was not here speaking the whole time. It is not surprising to hear his voice again in this chamber.

My question is relatively simple. The member claims, as do many other members of his party, that this would help hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty, which may be true. Has the Department of Finance booked any amounts of money for this program, or do we still not know how much the program is going to cost?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the legislation establishes the framework. There are budgetary measures, no doubt, and discussions that will have taken place between the different departments. However, one of the things that needs to be highlighted is the fact that there are so many variances from coast to coast to coast because of other provincial and territorial programs, and that at the end of the day we are going to have these negotiations to ensure that there is a sense of equity and fairness, no matter where people live in Canada. The ultimate goal is lifting people who have disabilities out of poverty. This legislation is a great step, a historic step forward in that direction.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg-North for his speech. I am going to need some clarification. I was speaking just this morning with Marie‑Christine Hon of the Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et région.

She has been working with people with disabilities for a long time. She knows her stuff. She explained to me that she has looked at the bill. As much as she has read it over and over again, some questions still remain in her mind. Far too many things are left undefined in the bill. As my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville so aptly said this morning, the devil is in the details, and they are not there in the bill. I would therefore appreciate it if my colleague could enlighten me on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that one can provide the kinds of details that members of the opposition have been requesting in the last number of hours for this legislation. They will come in the form of regulations and in the form of negotiations between the provinces. What is important here is that every member of the House of Commons, whether from the Bloc, Conservative, NDP or Green, should be recognizing the principle of this bill by supporting and voting in favour of the legislation. By doing that, they are sending a very powerful message to all Canadians in all regions of this country that the desire of the House of Commons is to financially support people with disabilities in Canada. That is what this legislation would do, and we can all take great pride in supporting it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome any support that lifts persons with disability out of poverty. However, the Liberals have had seven years to put it in place. There are no protections in this bill to ensure that it would lift anybody out of poverty. I put forward a bill in support of a guaranteed livable basic income, Bill C-223, supported by disability groups and organizations through the country, which would lift people out of poverty in addition to current and future government programs and support.

I wonder if my colleague is so committed to really lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty and if he will be supporting my private member's bill, Bill C-223, a framework to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will, in fact, review the member's bill. However, it is important to recognize that in Manitoba we have actually seen some movement from the province toward an income support program for people with disabilities. This is why I say it is so critically important. It is an opportune time to start looking at what other provinces have and to look for willing provinces with whom to sit down and try to negotiate.

I would like to say that Manitoba could potentially be the first province to have an agreement dealing with this legislation and some of the measures that the Province of Manitoba is taking. Hopefully all provinces and territories will be able to come on board, and that is why it is so critically important and why this legislation is timely. Let us get the job done by seeing it ultimately pass through the House.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to express my support for the second reading of Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act. Debate commenced earlier today in the House.

We have taken a huge step toward securing the right for every Canadian to fully participate in society through unimpeded access to basic services, in particular opportunities for long-term and adequate employment. This bill, as a framework legislation, would enact a Canada disability benefit for working-age persons with disabilities as a federal income supplement.

Elements of the benefit that will be established through regulation include eligibility, application and payment processes, and many other questions my colleagues have raised over the morning session of this House. The Canada disability benefit will become an important part of Canada’s social safety net, alongside old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit. It has the potential to significantly reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities.

Among many other benefits, the three most significant advantages of this bill to my constituents in Richmond Hill are as follows: First, the bill would take a concrete step towards eradicating deep-seated poverty for persons with disabilities through the establishment of a comprehensive financial benefit plan; second, it would not disrupt eligibility for other income supplements, thereby supporting persons with disabilities at no cost to other available benefits; finally, it would promote an inclusive dynamic in which people of all abilities are able to collaborate and contribute in a meaningful way to their economy.

The creation of an inclusive community is strongly influenced by the advancement of accessibility, which calls for the mitigation of various obstacles that the six million people with disabilities in Canada may face on a daily basis. These obstacles include, but are not limited to, the loss of benefits as a result of becoming unemployed, the lack of accessible support services, and social exclusion in the workplace. As such, the Canada disability benefit would be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to amend the deep-seated social and economic exclusion that is the reality of many persons with disabilities in Canada.

Undoubtedly, a central objective in developing a thriving community dynamic is to secure employment in a barrier-free workplace for all Canadians with disabilities.

Despite these facts, workers with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty and are disproportionately paid less. Nearly 850,000, or 21%, of working-age Canadians with disabilities live in poverty, nearly three times the rate of persons without disabilities. The numbers speak for themselves. Working-age persons with disabilities who live alone and lone parents, many of whom also have more severe disabilities, are even more likely to be living below the poverty line. Among those with disabilities, women, members of the LGBTQ community, racialized Canadians and indigenous people are more likely to be financially insecure.

These statistics tell us one important thing: Immediate action is required to secure the financial well-being of persons with disabilities in Canada.

As Canadians struggle with affordability issues, they continue to face serious financial and social barriers to obtaining long-term employment. The prosperity of our community is reliant on the social and economic inclusion of all persons with disabilities. It is essential that Canadians with disabilities can afford the food, rent and medication they need to live a meaningful, dignified and quality life.

Our government has always stood by Canadians with disabilities and ensured that the necessary investments have been made to provide them with the essential support they need. For instance, the enabling accessibility fund, a $64-million investment, was launched by our government earlier this year to support infrastructure projects across Canada that improve the accessibility, safety, and inclusion of persons with disabilities across communities and the labour market.

Noting the many unprecedented hardships that Canadians continue to endure, it is important to ensure that no one with a disability is left behind. The active integration and inclusion of persons with disabilities into our community is vital to me and to those in my riding of Richmond Hill.

Throughout the year, I have had the pleasure of meeting and collaborating with a variety of groups and organizations that dedicate themselves to the well-being of persons with disabilities.

L'Arche Daybreak and the MS Society of Canada are among the groups that we have had the privilege of closely working with. L’Arche Daybreak is a long-standing non-profit in Richmond Hill and an admirable example of how people of different intellectual disabilities can live, work and learn together.

In commemoration of National AccessAbility Week in June 2022, I visited L’Arche Daybreak to extend my heartfelt gratitude for all of their tireless efforts in making our community more just, compassionate and vibrant as a whole. Today, I am confidently affirming that Bill C-22 has paved the path to provide L’Arche Daybreak’s members with the financial resources necessary to pursue diverse employment and educational opportunities.

As we are living in the country with the highest rate of MS, I wholeheartedly advocate for the interests of the MS Society of Canada. The volunteers and staff at this organization raise awareness and offer support for people with MS and their families. I have observed their hard work first-hand through my attendance at numerous events, including MS Awareness Day and our York region MS charity car show.

By ensuring that Canadians living with MS and other disabilities have adequate income support, we promote their participation in all aspects of life, bringing us closer toward a barrier-free world. This is why the introduction of Bill C-22 would, without a doubt, benefit organizations such as L’Arche Daybreak and MS Society of Canada by promoting equality of opportunity for persons with disabilities.

At this moment, I would like to acknowledge and extend my sincere thanks for the commitment displayed and the long-standing advocacy demonstrated by the individuals working for these groups. I assure members that our government will work tirelessly to see that these organizations and members are supported through the introduction of new benefits for persons with disabilities.

As I stand here today in support of this important piece of legislation, I strongly believe that expediting the Canada disability benefit bill into law would put an end to the deep-rooted poverty faced by our friends, families and neighbours, and allow them to meet their basic needs throughout their lives. This legislation means more investment to make our communities and workplaces barrier-free for persons with disabilities. For my community, it means a stronger and a more inclusive Richmond Hill.

Today, I invite all of my honourable colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation so that together we can continue to have Canadians’ backs and create a Canada that includes everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, certainly, everyone will support the need for a disability benefit. I just want to be sure I understand the situation. This bill has been introduced, but we do not know who would be eligible to collect it, how much it would be and when it would be implemented. Is that accurate?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, what this bill provides, as I indicated in my speech, is a framework. If I wanted to draw a parallel, I would say to think of a railroad, laying out the groundwork for all of the rails to be drawn for the locomotive to come.

As we go through the 13 provinces and territories, and as we work with all of the organizations and the individuals who are impacted, we will work with those territories and provinces to make sure that it is not only inclusive but also does not have any unintended consequences.

Yes, there might be some ambiguity at this point, but if we pass the bill, get it to committee and start calling witnesses from across Canada, from across organizations, and working with the provinces, we can ensure that we have a very pragmatic program and regulation to roll out.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that we all agree that this is a statement of good intentions and sound principles. This is not the first time such a bill has been introduced. There is no problem there.

I also agree that, sometimes, it is important to support the principle and then give the bill some substance or correct certain grey areas during study in committee. The Bloc Québécois agrees, and that is why we will vote in favour of the principle. However, we need to at least flesh this bill out a little since there is nothing in it about the terms and conditions.

For example, I am wondering about one very simple thing. Will the benefits be paid to people directly or will the money be sent to Quebec, which will then take care of paying these benefits?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for supporting this bill. It is important because it lays down the groundwork.

As you said, let us expedite this. Let us get it to the committee, and let us work with all provinces and territories. I am sure a member from the Bloc will be there. I am sure there will be members from all parties and all sides who will represent not only the interests of Quebec but also the interests of all Canadians dealing with disabilities.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member to ask questions and respond through the Speaker and to not directly address the member.

Continuing with questions and comments, we have the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think I speak for everybody in the House when I say that any measure that would help people living with diverse needs or with disabilities is a positive measure. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is only a framework, and it does not identify who will receive disability benefits, how much they will get or when.

The fact that this is unnecessary is proven by the legislation, which was introduced by the government and driven by the NDP, to establish a dental benefit. I can tell colleagues how much people will get: $1,300 per child. I can tell colleagues when it will start: December 1. I can also tell colleagues that it will be given to children under 12.

Why can the government not specify what the benefits would be for people living with disabilities with this legislation when it can do it in other legislation? By the way, we know that nobody in this country is suffering more from the current inflation and difficult economic times than people living with diverse needs, so why can the government not get these benefits to people right now?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with my hon. colleague at the health committee, and I am particularly looking forward to receiving this bill at that committee.

As I have repeatedly said, and as many of my colleagues in the House have said, we are putting in place a framework. It was introduced in the House on June 2, and now, as soon as we have come back, this is the first item on the agenda. We look forward to an expedited debate so we can get it to committee and have the substantive conversation we need to ensure that the solutions and regulations we develop have the recommendation of the committee and all organizations.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind members not to bang around when they are speaking because it affects the interpreters. If you have papers near the speaker, it results in the same thing. That happened earlier today. It makes it very hard for the interpreters to hear, and it is hard on their ears as well.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard has the floor.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be careful for the interpreters' ears not to bang the microphones. I will also be splitting my time with the member for King—Vaughan.

I have been listening to this debate since this morning when the minister rose to introduce the bill and explain what it will do. Many members have now spoken explaining many of the shortcomings of this legislation. While this is a so-called framework, it has taken, as some members have said, over seven years to get to this point. It has been over one year now, by the minister's own admission, of working on it. There are other pieces of legislation, such as that the New Democratic member just reminded the House of, that are coming before here with far more details than this particular piece of legislation.

I have worked on income tax legislation affecting the disability tax credit for persons with disabilities. I have an interest in this particular area. Although I support the legislation, I have deep misgivings about it. I am also disappointed that the government could not provide more clarity to the House while we approve it because that would help us decide on the costs of this legislation when we turn around and explain it to our constituents.

There are 21 paragraphs in clause 11 on regulations. They itemize every single component that should, truthfully, be in statutory legislation. This morning, the minister referred to the guaranteed income supplement, which mirrors comments she made and that were reported by the CBC back on June 2. The article says she said, “Bill C-22 has been designed to lift recipients to an income level similar to that provided by the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which ensures someone receiving the benefit gets around $19,000 in benefits a year.” That is not very difficult. That $19,000, if it is the target, should be in the legislation.

They had over a year to do this. Justice Canada probably has thousands of lawyers who could help draft this piece of legislation to ensure that all the potentially unique opportunities for provinces to either clawback benefits or change something could be captured. I understand the government is saying that this is to be determined in the future at some point and somehow, but if the House is going to approve it, we would like to know things like criteria, eligibility and who would be eligible to get it. It should not be left up to regulations.

I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. I notice some clerks are looking at me and waiting for it. The proverb says, “If you do not want to do something, any excuse is as good as another.” It sounds way better in Yiddish when one hears it, but this is exactly the point. The government has said it had a year to do this. It actually had seven years. This is a long-term promise it made. Persons with disabilities will continue to wait to hear whether, in their particular situation, they will meet the criteria or the eligibility requirements, and how this will be paid out.

I want to go into the clause on regulations now because I think there are areas of concern that many members will have when this goes to committee that should be changed.

In clause 11 on regulations, there is paragraph (c), which reads, “respecting the amount of a benefit or the method for determining the amount”. It would be left up to the cabinet to decide in the future. I do not quite understand why that is necessary. Just this morning, the minister repeated that she is aiming for an amount similar to GIS, which is $19,000. That should be there. We actually do not need to leave it up to cabinet to decide.

Paragraph (d) reads, “respecting the manner in which a benefit is to be indexed to inflation”. Why? We just spent most of question period talking about the rising cost of inflation and the cost of living. It should be nothing less than a 100% cost of living adjustment. It is called a COLA. It is done already. If there were an issue about it being only done once a year, this is the opportunity to legislate it, perhaps twice or four times a year, using StatsCan, CPI or core inflation. Whatever that number is, the government has the opportunity now to put it into legislation. That should not be under regulations.

Paragraph (e) reads, “respecting payment periods and the amount to be paid each period”. In the GIS legislation, which I saw when I was going through it, this is laid out in legislation. If we are going to mimic the guaranteed income supplement and follow the format, which is not a bad idea that makes a lot of sense, we could just copy the GIS legislation, paste it into this one, move forward and not leave it up to cabinet.

The next one is “respecting the amendment or rescission of decisions made by the Minister”. This is paragraph 11(1)(g), and it would be set by cabinet. A cabinet minister would be sitting at the table to make decisions on whether he or she made the wrong decision and would then determine whether that decision should be rescinded. Again, I do not believe this is a wise way of organizing this legislation.

Paragraph (i) of clause 11 states, “respecting appeals”. The cabinet would be able to decide how appeals will be dealt with. It goes on and on.

Some of these regulations make sense. For administrative penalties and summary conviction provisions on the back end, I think there is some wisdom in this. There is a reference to a very specific section of the Old Age Security Act, section 44.2, in order to ensure there is some type of collaboration between the two programs.

Again, the issue may be that we are still unsure of what some provinces will do. My home province of Alberta has two programs, known by their acronyms as AISH and PDD, which I think will be impacted by this. If there is a concern that some provinces will decide to claw back the benefits, we can just write it into the legislation so people will not lose out. In the past I have supported looking at the disability tax credit and perhaps the Income Tax Act and whether it should be a refundable tax credit. That would use the tax code, instead of setting up an entirely new benefit, in order to reach people who cannot use the DTC right now because they do not earn enough income.

I have had a lot of constituents write to me about this. I want to make sure I read their names into the record. I did read their emails. They are Patti Phillips, Penny Clipperton, Pamela Cowan, Darrell Howard, Sharon Lahey, Jennifer Dobie, Margaret Lima, Loretta Wall, who sent me two emails on this, and Mackenzie. I want to recognize the fact they have written to me on this subject and are interested in ensuring that persons with disabilities have a benefit that works for them and takes them out of poverty.

I am not opposed to the idea of the legislation, and as many members have said already, we can all get behind it, but too much of it is left up to cabinet to decide. During the pandemic, we saw opportunities where I think cabinet got it wrong. With certain transport regulations, it is still holding on to pandemic restrictions such as wearing a mask on aircraft when I do not think any other western country forces people to do so. I do not think wisdom comes from on high in cabinet. I think wisdom comes from the people deciding what is best for them. The representatives of the people are in the House of Commons, so let us vote on constructive, meaty legislation that sets this out.

If there are disagreements, they are matters of law, not matters of policy to be decided through government regulation later on, things that can be changed much faster than pieces of legislation. I would much rather see the disagreements in the future over whether the disability benefit reaches enough Canadians, for example, come back to the House of Commons for a fulsome debate about the benefit, the cost and the eligibility criteria. Those are not things we are able to debate. Actually, probably the only time we will be able to debate them will be at the standing committee this bill is being sent to.

I want to also say that the guaranteed income supplement in the Old Age Security Act is very detailed with respect to how much money someone is eligible for, what the criteria are and how they are determined. It is set out in law, and much less of it is set out in regulations. I would draw the attention of the House to section 12 in part II of the legislation, a lot of which could be applied to this legislation. Again, it is a copy-and-paste job.

For the amount we have been debating so far to ensure that no person with a disability is left in poverty, I want to draw the House's attention to the LICO calculation that Statistics Canada does. In 2020, it said for a household of one person in a population area of half a million people, the LICO is $22,060. If we are just aiming for the GIS as a target, so about $19,000 give or take a few hundred dollars up or down, which is the target the minister implied both in June and today in the House, the vast majority of Canadians would not reach that amount. However, I have heard backbenchers on the government caucus side say repeatedly that it would reach a whole bunch of different people.

As my time is drawing to a close, I will say that although I will be supporting the legislation, I have tried to expound on some of the issues I have with most of this being left up to regulations. I hope that at committee we can fix the legislation to provide Canadians better certainty as to whether they would be eligible, how much they would be eligible for, when they would get it and whether it would always be 100% adjusted to inflation so it is not eaten into over time. It does not make much sense to set up a benefit that would lose its real value over time so that people will not be able to buy groceries and the medications they need and will not be able to do all types of things.

I look forward to questions and comments, and I am thankful for the time that has been given to me.

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

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear members of the Conservative Party stand in their place and say they will be supporting the legislation.

What I have witnessed in listening to the debate, just as the member has in listening to the debate, is there are concerns with regard to the depth and the details, or lack thereof. That is being implied by the opposition parties. I have indicated that it is in fact a framework. The minister responsible for the legislation indicated that she is open to thoughts and ideas with regard to improving it.

Based on the member's comments, is it safe to assume that the Conservative Party will be bringing forward amendments, and one specifically to ensure there would be annual cost-of-living increases in the program? Is that what the member is advocating for?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, of course. In clause 11, the regulations, right now the government is proposing that the indexation to inflation will be determined by cabinet, both the day it would happen and the amount it would be. It seems infinitely reasonable, when we are talking about a cost-of-living crisis in Canada, that we protect the most vulnerable, to whom we are trying to extend the benefit.

I think the member and others on the government caucus benches have said this is about legislating a principle into law. Well, principles are not legislated. Those are seen in government motions they could put forward. There is a lot to fix in this legislation, and I am sure we will have many amendments at committee to propose.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Calgary for his speech. To be clear and to the point, the framework is lacking, as my friend said earlier. There is not much of a framework, and we are having a hard time seeing what the end result of all this will be, even though we support in principle what we see on paper.

My question is this: How does my colleague explain the fact that consultations will follow?

We are talking about three years of consultations. Does he think that is a reasonable time frame?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right. It seems to me that we have been waiting several years for this bill, which was introduced today, to be debated in the House. The bill has some flaws. The framework lacks substance considering what is being proposed, and there are no details, either.

It will be up to the Council of the Federation, the provinces and the federal government to negotiate the details later. Thus, people will not have access to these benefits for all those years and will have to wait. I think they are being given false hope and we must avoid doing that in the House.

When we propose a benefit, we have to ensure that once the bill is passed by the House and the Senate, people can count on receiving it the following year or the year after that at the latest.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his acknowledgement of my private member's bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income.

I share many of his concerns, certainly, like the very clear lack of detail in the bill, the fact that there are no protections in the bill that would actually lift anyone out of poverty and the fact that the minister has stated it would take three years before the first person would even receive the benefit when people are struggling now. This is deeply concerning.

The member seems to be really compassionate in his understanding of human rights and the need to lift people out of poverty. I am wondering if he supports a guaranteed livable basic income for individuals who currently do not have it. We know that a significant number of those with disabilities live in abject poverty, with a lack of response from consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments. We can turn the page on that, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague supports Bill C-223 to put in place a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think debate on Bill C-223 is outside the scope of this legislation.

I approach legislation like this as a father of a young daughter who had a disability when she was born and who passed away from her disability. I met a lot of parents over that time who are taking care of their children until the age of maturity, and the biggest fear they always had is that their children would not be able to provide for themselves. The parents would save through their registered disability savings plan, the RDSP, which was one of the great contributions to the parental system in Canada for looking after children. It was introduced by the late Jim Flaherty when he was the Minister of Finance.

A lot of parents would come to my office and tell me how good it was for them to be given the certainty that when they pass away, it will be a way to look after their children. However, also, nowadays a lot of parents are looking to find out how their child with a disability can both work and have the confidence that comes from work. For those who are unable to work, is there a benefit out there, or is there a way they can get government support for them as well?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22. However, before I do so, I would like to begin by saying that working alongside Canadians with disabilities and helping parents with children who have disabilities have been a passion of mine my entire life before I entered politics.

For the past eight years, I have volunteered with the Township of King, the municipality I live in, as part of its accessibility advisory committee. As a member of the committee, I have worked together with the mayor and council and made recommendations to the township to ensure that community parks, buildings and facilities are accessible to all residents regardless of their abilities. This way, everyone may feel a sense of belonging in their own communities and fully enjoy the facilities provided for them.

I also spent 10 years volunteering with Creating Alternatives, a not-for-profit organization that supports young adults with developmental disabilities by helping them practise literacy and social and work skills as they transition into adulthood. During my time there, I worked with individuals with a wide range of disabilities to create an environment where they felt safe, accepted and confident.

As the member of Parliament for King—Vaughan, I have many constituents in my riding who have children with disabilities or struggle with disabilities themselves who take the time to share their personal stories of hardship with me. Because of the rising cost of living, a resident in my riding with a disability cannot afford to drive and is forced to commute using public transit. Her commute to get to her specialist appointment now takes six hours. Let me repeat that. It takes six hours.

Let me share yet another prime example of a hard-core effect that inflation has had on people with disabilities. One man's son had benefited from participating in the activities offered by a local organization five days a week. However, due to “Justinflation”, these same programs have doubled in cost, making them no longer affordable. This father, whom I spoke with just a few short days ago, also shared with me that his wife has since had to leave her job to stay home to care for their son with disabilities, while he has now had to take on a second job. This has taken a serious toll on his mental health and physical well-being. This is only one example of the heartbreaking challenges the government has put on Canadians.

According to Statistics Canada, one in four Canadians is currently living with a disability, 90% of them living below the poverty line and earning less than $18,000 a year. Let me be clear when I say that I completely understand how important it is that we take care of Canadians with disabilities. We must be there to support our country's most vulnerable residents, but we must do it with an effective plan that will really and truly help them.

We cannot do it with rushed bills. We need to consider important factors when introducing a national disability benefit. We need clear examples and guidelines on how this benefit will impact provincial programs. Canada is a country with many provinces and territories that all have their own set of rules, but Bill C-22 does not account for any of them. We must ensure that Canadians with disabilities and their families can feel confident that their financial security will not be put at risk when applying for this benefit.

In my home province of Ontario, over 600,000 Canadians with disabilities receive benefits from the Ontario disability support program, also known as ODSP. These Canadians rely on programs like ODSP to make ends meet. How will the new Canada disability benefit impact how much money they receive as part of their ODSP? What about other federal programs, like the registered disability savings plan? The lack of information in Bill C-22 does not show how this will impact any provincial program. If the federal program provides additional funds for our constituents, how will this affect any current benefits received at all levels of government? The Liberal government has completely failed to truly consider how this benefit will impact Canadians with disabilities across this country.

Let me remind this House that we have all seen this movie before. This is exactly what happened to millions of seniors after they applied for the Canada emergency response benefit. The government did what it does best: It printed cash and asked questions later. What happened then? Millions of seniors who collected CERB could no longer qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. Once they stopped collecting CERB, they could not receive GIS. Seniors across Canada were forced to foot the bill because of the government's short-sighted legislation.

We need more benefits and services for Canadians living with disabilities. People are struggling now more than ever to pay their bills and keep up with inflation. Parents are doing everything they can to provide a life of dignity and happiness for their children living with disabilities. However, Bill C-22 would not be able to help them unless it is carefully considered and works with other provinces and territories. The Canada disability benefit would be of no use if it would give money to Canadians with disabilities while reducing the funds they receive from other programs. We need to do our vulnerable communities justice while providing them with the assistance they so desperately need through an effective and well thought-out plan. However, as of right now, Bill C-22 would not provide these details to ensure current programs are in place.

Through the eyes of the international community, Canada is a compassionate and caring country that acts as a force for good. In today's uncertain world, other countries look to us for aid, assistance and hope, but as we are instructed on an airplane, people must put their own oxygen masks on first before they can help others. Therefore, before we consider helping abroad, we need to focus on helping the most vulnerable Canadians here at home. We cannot do that with a vague, unfinished plan like Bill C-22.

I want to end my speech here by quoting one very famous lady who lived with disabilities her entire life. I am sure everybody will recognize Helen Keller. She said, “We are never really happy until we try to brighten the lives of others.” She also said, “The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart.”

I lost a sister who lived with disabilities through no fault of her own, by an accident. When she was four and a half years old, she was hit by a drunk driver. Her disability benefits did not cover the basic needs that she required. Thank God for family support or she would have ended up in the streets.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my colleague from King—Vaughan, in particular her talking about her own personal examples at the beginning and toward the end of her speech. However, I was quite surprised by the manner in which she aggressively attacked the rolling out of CERB.

CERB was a program that was intended to get money into the hands of people as quickly as possible. Over five million people had money in their bank accounts within five weeks of the World Health Organization's declaring a global pandemic. Indeed, the intent was to take care of Canadians as quickly as possible. Canadians were relying on their government at the time to do exactly that.

Would the member have preferred to see the CERB program roll out much slower back in March and April 2020? Does she think that it would have been better for the money not to arrive at the beginning of April but rather perhaps in June and July if it meant that we could meet the standards that she is proposing?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, all I am saying is that CERB was a program that had to be implemented given the circumstances, but the program did not stipulate the conditions. Unless we can provide clarity on any funds that are delivered to individuals, we cannot administer programs and expect individuals to pay the consequences after they are over.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from King—Vaughan for her speech and for sharing her own experiences.

I myself had an uncle who was in a motorcycle accident when he was 19, and it had long-lasting effects. He lived with disabilities for the rest of his life. These experiences leave a mark.

Getting back to Bill C‑22, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on an important topic that she touched on briefly. Quebec has a significant social safety net in place, so this bill must complement the programs that exist already and must not override them. The measures in the bill must also respect the jurisdictions of the federal government, Quebec and the provinces.

I would like to hear her thoughts on these two big and very important points that remain to be clarified in Bill C‑22.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, we need to ensure that the program that is going to be implemented at the federal level offsets or coordinates with the provinces. We cannot give money with one hand and expect to take it back with the other. That is not going to help.

In our province alone, we have programs for individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, due to the cost of inflation, those programs are not affordable to everyone. We need to ensure that we are going to increase that money without affecting the provincial programs.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for what she has said and for fighting for people living with disabilities. It is so incredibly important. We have heard in the House about the rising inflation and how it is hitting those living with disabilities harder.

Uniquely, some provincial members of Parliament in our province of Ontario have put themselves on what they call a “welfare budget”. They are trying to live on what people who are in the Ontario disabilities program or Ontario Works receive. I think they are trying to live on $47.60 for groceries each week to show how incredibly important it is for them to receive increases.

Now, the provincial government has only given 5% and those members are calling for that to be doubled. I wonder if the member supports initiatives like that as she has been so positive about ensuring that people living with disabilities have the income they need to survive.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, last week I visited an organization in our community called Reena, which provides housing for people with disabilities. It has created an environment where people with disabilities can share their experiences. There are staff there who will help and assist them. One of the things it does is that it has programs to assist with funding. The funding is not always enough, because some of these programs cost money. I agree that we need to include an increase so that they can at least buy the minimum. Right now, out of the $895 that one recipient is receiving at Reena, $500 of that goes to housing. There is not much left over, so we do need to do better.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Malpeque.

It is a privilege to be part of this debate today. I would like to start by talking about poverty reduction. Simply put, the legislation before us today would reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities. We are working to implement Canada's first poverty reduction strategy. That strategy includes concrete poverty reduction targets on top of establishing Canada's official poverty line to track progress.

One of these targets was a 20% reduction in poverty relative to 2015 levels by 2020. I am proud to say that we reached this objective ahead of schedule. We did so because of the actions we have taken and the investments we have made since 2015. Those investments include the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, a strengthened guaranteed income supplement and Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan.

However, we all know that more needs to be done. Poverty has many faces, and we know that under-represented groups are among the most affected. Poverty impacts vulnerable groups such as single-parent families, older single adults and persons with disabilities. I am proud that Canada's first poverty reduction strategy recognizes that vulnerable groups of Canadians are more at risk of poverty.

Canadians with disabilities have historically been affected by economic disparities. According to a 2017 Canadian survey on disability, working-age Canadians with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty as working-age persons without disabilities. A third of people with severe disabilities were living below the poverty line. That is why we have been working hard to build a more accessible and inclusive Canada.

In 2015, Canada got its first-ever minister responsible for persons with disabilities. In 2019, the Accessible Canada Act came into force, followed by the accessible Canada regulations in 2021. These help to remove and prevent barriers to accessibility. Most recently we made two key appointments to advance accessibility and disability inclusion as Canada's first chief accessibility officer and first accessibility commissioner assumed their duties.

Over the past two years, the global pandemic highlighted and deepened the entrenched inequities faced by Canadians with disabilities. Persons with disabilities already face a higher cost of living, and because of the pandemic, these additional costs have been exacerbated. They are facing increased costs for medical supplies, medication, transportation and assistive services.

As part of Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan, we provided a one-time payment for up to $600 for persons with disabilities to help face the increased costs during the pandemic. After further consultations with stakeholders, we expanded that one-time payment to include nearly two million Canadians with disabilities who are receiving federal disability benefits.

However, today we are talking about Bill C-22, and we know that could help us do even more. Establishing the new Canada disability benefit would create a more accessible and inclusive Canada, while also addressing long-standing financial hardships. It is a proactive approach in its creation and delivery. This legislation would help reduce poverty and benefit thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities. This new benefit would help lift working-age persons with disabilities out of poverty and bring long-term financial security. Its aim is to supplement, not replace, existing federal, provincial and territorial supports. This benefit would make it easier for persons with disabilities to access federal benefits, programs and services, and help to foster a culture of inclusion.

The Canada disability benefit would help working-age persons with disabilities to fully participate in our society and our economy. It is an investment in the realization of a fully inclusive society. For many people with disabilities and for those who care for them, daily life may not be easy. Disabilities affect the entire family. Meeting the complex needs of a person with a disability can put families under a great deal of stress: emotional, financial and sometimes even physical.

Only a few days ago I spoke to a mom in my community, Angela, and her son Lucas, who is living with cerebral palsy. She, like any parent, is concerned for Lucas and his ability to live independently. Angela is hoping Bill C-22 could assist with the transition and living expenses for Lucas when he begins to live independently. For her and for Lucas to take the time to meet with me at the Woolwich Memorial Centre, where I set up a remote office for the day, told me how much she cares about Lucas. She told me of many others in our community who are focused on helping those who need more support.

By the way, Lucas was very at home in the hockey rink where we met. He is a defenceman for the Woolwich Thrashers Sledge Hockey team. With a nickname of “Bulldozer”, I am glad we met off the ice and not on it.

I have also recently spoken to another couple, parents Grant and Carol, on a number of occasions, at a local town hall on affordability and also at a sit-down meeting in Elmira.

They are caring for their son, who is working as a paralegal while living with cerebral palsy. At some point, caring parents like Grant and Carol know they might not be around to care for their son. They want to ensure that he has the best chance at success.

It is stories like these and others that I have heard in my community that motivate and drive me. People with disabilities need health care and health programs for the same reasons as everyone else: to stay well, active and a part of our community. Having a disability does not mean a person is not healthy or cannot be healthy. Being healthy means the same thing for everyone: staying well so that we can lead full, active lives, to be able to enjoy a full life and have the support we need to fully engage in society. We want to build a community where everyone can, and does, belong.

There are things we can do to reduce poverty. There are policies that can make a difference and, as we know, we are already seeing results. As policy-makers, we are responsible for improving the lives of all Canadians, especially marginalized and vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities. As policy-makers, our responsibility today is to support Bill C-22 and move forward together with the Canada disability act.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been discussion today about how we are going to work with the provinces and territories to make sure they are not clawing back benefits.

How is the government going to harmonize all the other federal disability benefit programs that exist to ensure that people are supported but there is not overlap?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the themes we are hearing today is making sure we are protecting the most vulnerable and protecting people with disabilities. We want to make sure this benefit is supplementing what we are doing and is not going to be clawed back. We heard those words. We do not want that to happen. I am encouraged to hear that all parties are looking out for people. We want to make sure we can work together with the provinces.

It is going to be different with each province. We are going to have to get there in negotiating, but I think we are all on the same side on this one. It is encouraging to hear that we want to make sure this benefit is a supplement to all the other benefits that already exist, as opposed to being a replacement for them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga on his speech and also for the week he spent in Quebec City this summer perfecting his French. I hope to hear him give his response partly in the language of Molière.

Since the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑22, I have been hearing a lot about how this is a framework that we need to build on. There is indeed a lot missing from this bill. We keep hearing about good intentions, and obviously we agree in principle that we must do more to include persons with disabilities. We must improve their living conditions. Everyone agrees on that. No one can be against apple pie, as they say back home.

What I am seeing, however, is that not only are members getting used to doing the government's work at our riding offices, but it has now gotten to the point where we have to do the government's work in committee too. Bill C‑22, as introduced, is clearly incomplete and inadequate. We must work on it to improve it, which is what the Bloc Québécois intends to do.

My question for the member for Kitchener—Conestoga is this: Why introduce a bill with so little content, on a subject that is so incredibly important?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, now I am nervous. I am going to try to say a few words in French, for my colleague and my French teacher.

It is important for me and for all Canadians that we work together with the provinces and territories.

We left room because we need to work together. Different provinces look different. Some are more advanced than others. Quebec has set a strong standard for what we can do together, and I think we can learn from each other. I am not afraid of that work. Leaving space, I am especially encouraged, because it feels like everyone is on the same side. We can work on the details and we can make sure that this works across Canada. I have every confidence that we can do it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, people with disabilities have been suffering from higher bills, but big corporations are making gross profits on the backs of vulnerable people. Since 2015, the Liberals have wanted to look like they care about people with disability, but these empty bills will offer no concrete help and risk delaying help to people desperately in need of it for another three years. They promised to deliver this without delay, yet here we are.

Instead of helping people now, why are the Liberals delaying this support for people with disabilities?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was so engrossed in the question that I forgot I was the one who had to answer it.

It was before my time, but since the Liberals took government in 2015, the Canada child benefit was one of the things we did that was targeted support. The guaranteed income supplement was targeted support. Canada's worker benefit was targeted support, as was raising taxes on the wealthiest Canadians and lowering taxes for the middle class. It is that targeted support that we have been working on. It is slow progress. We are working on it and we are going to keep going there. I would disagree that we have done nothing, but I think we can work together and get more done.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, so much passion coming from all sides of the House on a very important issue is extremely nice to hear.

I am pleased to rise today and participate in this important debate on Bill C-22. I listened with great care to the remarks of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. Since her appointment in 2015 as Canada’s first-ever cabinet minister responsible for persons with disabilities and accessibility, she has worked tirelessly to ensure that persons with disabilities can fully participate in all aspects of society and the economy. She lives it.

Let us be absolutely clear. Bill C-22 is groundbreaking legislation. It proposes the establishment of a new Canada disability benefit that would help reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities.

In my previous life, I had the opportunity to work and advocate alongside several organizations representing those living with disabilities. The challenges are real, and we all know the pandemic has been especially hard for persons with disabilities. It has brought into clear focus the financial hardships experienced by some of our most vulnerable citizens. In the 2020 Speech from the Throne, we promised to bring forward a disability inclusion action plan, which is being finalized, and a new Canada disability benefit. We are fulfilling that promise today.

As with any legislation, the preamble should clearly articulate the principles that will guide and enable the legislation all the way through to implementation. The preamble in Bill C-22 meets that test and then some. It leaves no doubt that our intention with the Canada disability benefit is to reduce poverty.

We know that far too many Canadians with disabilities live below the poverty line. We also know that persons with disabilities face the real and troubling prospect of losing their basic financial support and other benefits once they are employed and on a payroll. The question then becomes how we design a new benefit that will respond to this challenge, how we find the balance and thread the needle. Should members support this legislation, it will be referred to our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. By the discussions here today, I am sure that will happen and the appropriate outcome will be attained.

I have no doubt that the committee's review will be of considerable interest to stakeholders, including Canadians with disabilities, whose lived experiences can inform us on how the new benefit ought to be designed. That is why a key principle in the preamble specifically refers to “nothing without us” and specifies that “persons with disabilities must be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures”. I would not be surprised if members wanted to see this bill become law next week or the week after, but we need to get it right.

I would remind my colleagues that members of this chamber and the other chamber were able to review the Accessible Canada Act in a timely and responsible manner. It should also be noted that the Accessible Canada Act was developed following one of the most inclusive consultations in our country’s history. More than 6,000 Canadians and 100 organizations shared their views and ideas on what an accessible Canada meant to them.

The Accessible Canada Act was a historic achievement. It was arguably the most significant piece of legislation on disability rights in Canada since the charter, and it became law on June 21, 2019. The act represents a seismic shift that brings a new accessibility lens to everything we do, challenging us to think differently and to do things very differently. It reaffirms our commitment to making Canada barrier-free and accessible for everyone.

Instead of having to fight for basic access and inclusion after the fact, the new law requires more than 5,000 federally regulated entities, including government departments, Crown corporations and private sector companies, to publish their plans for identifying, removing and preventing barriers to accessibility and inclusion, and to report to all Canadians on their progress in implementing these plans.

At its core, the Accessible Canada Act is about ensuring that all persons with disabilities are treated with dignity and have equal opportunity, autonomy and involvement in their communities. We are making progress. In April, we appointed Stephanie Cadieux as the first-ever chief accessibility officer. Shortly afterwards, Michael Gottheil was named as the first accessibility commissioner to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. These appointments represent two important milestones in implementing the Accessible Canada Act.

Another good example of our progress is the work to create accessibility standards. The Accessible Canada Act established a new organization, Accessibility Standards Canada, which is now developing standards for federally regulated spaces with input from the disability community. Priority standards include the built environment; emergency egress and wayfinding, which is a technology that helps visually impaired persons know where they are and how to get from one location to another; and the built environment procurement.

While the standards developed by Accessibility Standards Canada are voluntary in nature, they are a critical component of realizing a barrier-free country by 2040, as they have the power to support widespread adoption of an inclusive design mindset. Those standards will first be applied to federally regulated spaces, and it is our hope that they will contribute to an undeniable culture shift across Canada towards disability inclusion.

However, the public service is not waiting for the standards. Federal departments and agencies are busy developing their accessibility plans and working to implement a whole-of-government approach under the public service's widespread accessibility strategy.

On the disability inclusion action plan, the third pillar of the plan relates directly to the objectives of the Accessible Canada Act. It focuses on accessible and inclusive communities. Actions under this pillar will include not only ways to address physical barriers in our communities and workplaces but also the barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from fully participating in their communities and the economy.

For example, budget 2022 proposed to make new investments in accessible books, including the creation of a new equitable access to reading program. This new program will help create more accessible books for Canadians with print disabilities, enabling them to better participate in society and our economy.

As we look ahead to the world after the pandemic, it is critical that we do so with the idea of making the recovery as inclusive as possible. This brings me back to the bill before us today. If passed, the Canadian disability benefit would reduce poverty and better support persons with disabilities to fully participate in our economy and our society.

Canadians with disabilities live in every corner of our great country and in every constituency of every member of this House. Today, we have an opportunity to make a real difference and help our most vulnerable citizens. It is time that they receive the support they need. Let us do the right thing. Let us build a more inclusive Canada and a better future for Canadians with disabilities. Let us give all the people in Canada a real and fair chance to succeed. I was told once by an individual who had a severe disability that all of us are only one accident away from having a disability.

I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this much-needed legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to first welcome everyone back.

One of the things I have seen today is the great focus on individuals with disabilities and their stories, and I think that is tremendously important. However, we as parliamentarians sometimes gloss past and do not speak specifically enough to the details.

I want to thank the member for Malpeque. His work on the finance committee with me has been very meaningful. He is a very intelligent member, and I want to see if he is concerned, as I am, that there are no numbers in this particular bill.

While the goal of reducing poverty for persons with disabilities is obviously front and centre in the government's communications, it does not actually give a number as to what level of support we would expect across the country. I know that this is a challenging country, but the other part is that the minister can change that amount or a new government can come in and change that amount at any time. Is the member concerned that we are giving too much power to one individual and one government to tell people what level of support they should get?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on the finance committee, and I certainly hope that we reconvene tomorrow at our first meeting.

It is always concerning when there are no numbers, but I think that the bill before us today is such an important and broad bill that sending it to committee and evaluating it at that level is most appropriate. Also, dealing with the provinces on an individual basis to negotiate the different kinds of issues that may be relevant in the funding agreements within the provinces is most appropriate. I would add that the bill will likely cross the table of the finance committee as well.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I want to start by saying that people with disabilities are already grieving because of their disability. There is no way of knowing when an accident is going to happen. People can lose a limb, or they can be born that way.

I am wondering what this bill has to say about eligibility. I know that Mr. Parent, from the organization Finautonome, says that eligibility is a high-priority issue that needs to be addressed. I would like to know what the government is planning to do about it.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I believe the evaluation process that this bill has to go through is broad, and it has to be inclusive. We have to get this right.

This is a one-shot deal to some extent. I believe that, with all the endorsements from all sides and all parties in this House, we will get it right when it is sent to committee for its policy and regulations.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, more than 5.3 million Canadians live with some form of disability and over one million Canadians who live with disability live in deep poverty, yet the Liberal government wasted a year of this Parliament before retabling this empty shell of a Canadian disability benefit act that excludes far too many details.

Who will be eligible for this benefit? How much will this benefit be? When will persons with disabilities start to finally see this benefit?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I believe sincerely in our minister. I think she has lived the experience. I have heard her speak on Prince Edward Island to several groups pertaining to disabilities and organizations. She wears her heart on her sleeve and I appreciate everything she has done.

The former hon. member for Malpeque advocated on behalf of persons with disabilities and developing programs for accessibility across the country, mainly in Atlantic Canada and the Caribbean. I certainly see that as a real benefit to Canada as a whole and persons living with disabilities.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak to this today. What would sum this bill up the best is, “We are the government; just trust us”. That essentially is what this bill is all about. It is an empty shell of a bill. In some ways it is lacking in courage on the part of the government. People might ask me why I say that. Governing is hard work and it takes effort. I would say that this bill has not put in the hard work and has not taken the effort to do what it says it is supposed to do.

On the face of it, it says that this is a disability benefit bill. Those are nice words at the top of an empty piece of paper because we do not know what the benefit is. We do not know who is eligible for it. We do not know how it would affect disability benefits that are already in place across the country. We just do not know a lot of things. Essentially, it is a blank piece of paper with three words on the top: Canada disability benefit. That, to my thinking, is not governing the country. That is not providing leadership to this country. When someone is the government, they get the privilege of providing leadership. They get the privilege of putting forward ideas. They get the privilege of drafting the legislation, putting it forward and opening it up to critique. However, this is an extremely hard bill to critique.

As the official opposition, it is our job to oppose legislation. As the Bible says, “iron sharpens iron”, and it is our job to sharpen it and fix the holes. However, all these things are not in this bill. It is very difficult to say that this bill is going to impact people living in my riding in a particular way because we literally do not know. The bill does not say. It is an empty bill. I would note that when the member for Hamilton Centre, with whom I disagree on a lot of things, calls this bill an empty bill, we are both saying the same thing. I would say that is a unifying thing perhaps in this House.

The fact that the Liberals are not willing to put forward the details of this in many ways seems like a cop-out. It seems like they are putting forward this bill, but they do not want to risk opening themselves up to some criticism around it. Therefore, they are going to let a minister at some point in the future detail out all of the things. That is a challenge. I do not deny that. However, that is the luxury of being the government. They get to put forward and propose the bill. In this particular instance, I do not feel at all that the government has actually proposed the bill. It has just said that these are the notions of what it wants to do and that we should support it in that. We are going to support the bill being sent to committee, and we are hoping that, as this bill goes through the process, some of these things will be fleshed out.

However, it is awfully hard to vote on something on which the government is saying, “Trust us”. Why should we trust the government? We have watched the government operate this country for seven years, and we have learned there are things we should not trust the government on. When it comes to running basic programs in this country, this country is falling apart. Try to get a passport currently. Over the last number of years, that has been an immense challenge. Try to immigrate to this country. My office is inundated with immigration cases and I imagine that my office is not the worst in this country in terms of being inundated. That is a reality. I do not trust the government when it says, “Just trust us”. I want to see what it is actually proposing and I want to know the things I am voting on in specific detail.

Moving on from there, I want to talk a bit about the idea of subsidiarity. It is probably a more Catholic idea. I am a reform guy, but it is more of a Catholic idea. It is the idea that those closest to the individual bear the first responsibility. In that respect, I just want to recognize the organizations, the institutions and the people. What it comes down to is the people who take care of, who help with and who employ folks who live with disabilities.

I will start with the family, for everyone who I know who lives with a disability is an integral part of a family and, in many cases, becomes a defining feature of a particular family. I have a good friend who has a severely disabled son and their son, who is known by the name James, is a defining feature of that family, the particular house that they live in and the particular vehicle that they drive. Many of the vacations they go on are determined by and function around that individual.

I want to thank the families that do this hard work. This is hard work, and families are generally the most well positioned to take care of individuals with disabilities. That is the law of nature. That is the law of reality. In many cases, we see that function amazingly.

When it comes to the broader community, I know that many people are part of a church community. I know that my friend relies heavily on his church community for help in taking care of his son. I know that a big part of how they function is through folks coming in to help out during the week so they can go grocery shopping or these kinds of things. Their church community is a big part of taking care of a person with disabilities.

Then we have employers who reach out. Before I was elected, I worked at the auto mechanic shop, and we have an organization in town called the Blue Heron Support Services Association. They run a day care program for folks with disabilities, and part of that program was to find a job for each one of these individuals.

In the auto mechanic shop where I worked, the Chrysler dealership, they had one of these employees from this program. His name was Wayne. I got to know Wayne very well. It was his job to help out with a whole bunch of tasks, but that gave Wayne a job. When people asked him what he did for a living, he told everybody that he worked at the local mechanic shop. It was a big, fulfilling part of his life, and caused all of us to interact with Wayne on a daily basis, which was a rewarding experience for all of us.

I want to thank places like Stephani Motors, which helped sponsor Wayne in this placement, and Blue Heron Services, which is doing amazing work making sure that these people have a standard of living, are happy and fulfilled in what they do. That is some amazing work that Blue Heron Services and Stephani Motors do in my home town. I also recognize the work that ECHO Society in Whitecourt does with a similar program.

All of these things wrap around to ensure that folks living with disabilities can get jobs, have a place to live, and have an engaging life, as there is often a big recreational component to these programs as well, to ensure that they are a part of the community.

I want to come away from the utilitarian idea of humanity, that one is only as valuable as one's utility. I reject that. I think that we are endowed with dignity because we are human, not because of our utility. I want to mention that, for sure.

Then we want to talk about the broader civil society organizations across the country, the disability rights advocacy groups and things like that, that come and meet with me often. I want to recognize them for their work as well.

I guess I just want to focus a little on a resilient community. They often say that it takes a village to raise a young person. In many respects, that is the case. My experience, and I talked about Wayne already, is how the business community, the church communities and the local families are involved with that. Those kinds of things all wrap around to ensure that these people are part of our community.

I want to mention the feeling the minister talked about at the beginning of her speech, that of being valued. That is an important aspect of whatever we do in this disability space, ensuring that folks feel valued in our society.

Shifting gears a little, I want to talk a bit about the whole idea of poverty and the disability benefit money being given out. Over the last number of years, I have heard it is getting more and more difficult to survive on the benefits the government gives out. In Alberta, we have a system called AISH. I think it is generous enough. There are some issues around the fact that, if people make money, they get a one-to-one dollar clawback, which is a challenge for many people.

However, the inflation that is currently happening, the provincial government really has no control over. The provincial government is responsible for the benefit, but it has no control over the inflation. We are watching things like food, housing and heating going up in price dramatically, and the government benefits are not able to keep up.

Inflation is driven entirely by the federal government. The federal government is responsible for our monetary policy. It is the one responsible for the printing of money in this country. While the provincial government is often responsible for the outlay of service, the federal government is responsible for how much those services cost, given the fact that it has been driving the inflation.

On the one hand, we see the government doing things that are raising the price of other things, and then saying it has to fix the problem. Then it is just handing out more money on the other hand. That is going to have a ping-pong effect, as when there are fewer resources and more money, things are going to get more expensive, and then there has to be more money.

It just seems to me that the government should be focusing on reducing the costs of some of the costs of living, such as food, clothing, shelter and all that kind of stuff. It should work on ensuring that folks who are living on a fixed income could continue to live on that fixed income, rather than have inflation eat away at it and have their housing cost 50% of what they are taking in when it used to only cost 30% of what they are taking in.

This inflation piece is a big part of this disability discussion. Perhaps that is the reason why the government has not laid out a number, because in this dramatically inflationary time, had it laid out a number a year and a half or two years ago, that number may have looked fine then, but today that same number would not look nearly as good, given the fact that housing costs have doubled over the last two years. Maybe that is why the government has left this as an empty bill. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we see this.

For the last point, I want to go back to what the minister was talking about around ensuring that folks with disabilities feel valued. I was elected in 2015, and since the time I got elected, there has been a change in the disability groups' requests and the things that they bring to me to talk about.

I just want to talk about the euthanasia regime in this country and how the disability community is coming to realize that the euthanasia regime that has been put in place, starting in 2017, with significant overhauls in 2020, has changed their sense of value in our Canadian society. I would hope that the minister and the government recognize that the changes they have made to the euthanasia regime in this country has led to that.

I have a number of headlines that have come up across the country, such as “Is Choosing Death Too Easy in Canada?”, “Are Canadians being driven to assisted suicide by poverty or healthcare crisis?” and “Why is Canada euthanizing the poor?”

These are headlines that have come up in my newsfeed over the last few years. These are from the the New York Times, the Guardian and the Spectator, which are all, interestingly, newspapers that are based outside of Canada. It is particularly interesting that it is noted in the article from the Spectator that the CBC had an article saying there is no link between poverty and choosing medically assisted death.

It is interesting that the CBC would choose to report that, given that other countries around the world have been reporting the opposite. In Canada, we have had a case of a veteran with PTSD being offered euthanasia by his case worker. That is not how the Canada I want to represent should be dealing with folks who are living with disabilities. That is not how we want it. Therefore, it is a challenge for me to say that the government is really concerned about folks who are living with disabilities when it has been the architect of a euthanasia regime that is causing people living with disabilities to feel less valued in our society and pushed more toward euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has highlighted a series of cases that I do not think were ever anticipated when the euthanasia regime was brought in. These are headlines from news articles it has found as well: “Alberta man requested euthanasia based on poverty”, “Veterans Affairs Canada worker advocates euthanasia for PTSD”, “Shopping for a death doctor in Canada”, “Gwen is seeking euthanasia because she cannot access medical treatment”, “Euthanasia, disability and poverty in Canada”, “Euthanasia for long COVID and poverty”, and “Canada's MAID law is the most permissive...in the world”.

These are cases that keep getting highlighted to me by the disability community, which is very concerned about the feelings of value we place on folks who live with disabilities in this country. We want to ensure they are valued in this country and do not feel they need to pursue euthanasia instead of getting the health care treatment or the housing they need. These are documented cases across the country that I think warrant some care and attention given the fact we are here discussing the plight of disabled people across the country.

To sum up, I call on the Liberal government to start governing. This bill is an empty bill. It has some nice words on the top of it, but it fails to outline the details of what we are trying to pursue here with it.

I want to recognize the hard work of the organizations that support the ideas of subsidiarity, family, church, civil society, and the government getting involved to help folks who are in dire straits. I want to recognize the good work of organizations such as the ECHO Society, Blue Heron Support Services and the many organizations across my riding that do good work on this.

I want to also recognize the deep impact inflation is having on folks who live on a fixed income and how they are struggling more and more given the out-of-control inflation the government has caused in this country. I want to recognize the impacts of the carbon tax, in particular how it, and the increased costs of groceries and home heating, really do affect our folks living on a fixed income.

Finally, I want to recognize how the euthanasia regime that has been put in place in this country is causing folks across the country who live with disabilities to not feel valued and to consider euthanasia rather than getting the supports they need. I would tell those who find themselves in that situation to reach out to their local community members and organizations, and their local member of Parliament if need be, so they can help hook them up with the supports they need so nobody in this country feels undervalued.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, The Economy; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Government Policies; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Indigenous Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, first I must say that I disagree with the member's conclusions on economic policies with respect to inflation. To imply that provinces and even municipalities do not play a role in inflation is just outright wrong. They do, in fact, have an impact. One only need look at provincial variances, even within provinces. The member used the example of housing. That is something I would expand upon, but it is not what my question is about.

My question is about the legislation. Everyone in this chamber supports Bill C-22. That has been very clear. Yes, there are some issues surrounding the details within the legislation, but there seems to be a general feeling that those issues could be dealt at the standing committee. My friend knows how busy the chamber can get and how limited the time is here, whether it is because of the GST tax credit legislation that will be coming up, opposition days or the dental care legislation. We have a good opportunity to try to pass this legislation so that it at least goes to committee, and then we can have all sorts of debate come third reading.

Would the member not agree, given that everyone seems to be supporting the legislation, that it would be in the best interests of Canadians and people with disabilities to see the legislation go to committee? It seems to me that the principle of the legislation is universally accepted and supported in the House, so why not get it to committee?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the thoughts of the member for Winnipeg North. We get to hear a lot of them.

Nonetheless, yes, it sounds like the sentiment of the bill, a benefit for the disability community in this country, is universally supported in this place. The devil is in the details and that is why we are here to debate things.

I would point out again, as I did at the beginning of my speech, the lack of governance the Liberals are providing by not providing details as to how much the benefit will be, who is eligible and how it will be rolled out. All of these things should be in the bill. Those are the prerogatives of governing, and I would criticize the Liberals again for bringing forward a vacuous bill when they have been promising something like this for over three years.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock for his speech.

I want to tell him that, as a Quebecker, I value the right to die with dignity, and I support the non-partisan work that was done in Quebec in that regard. The intellectual shortcut he took from Bill C-22 to the issue of euthanasia is extremely dangerous.

That said, I have a question for the hon. member. The study of Bill C‑22's predecessor, Bill C-35, ended a year ago when the election was called. Incidentally, today also marks the first anniversary of my re-election as the member for Shefford. I want to once again thank the voters in my riding for placing their trust in me.

At present, Bill C‑22 provides for three years of consultations. That is a long time for persons with a disability who need help immediately and who are being affected by inflation right now.

I also want to remind my colleague that I am very involved with disability organizations. My partner and I have done a lot of volunteer work, and a member of my family had a disability and passed away.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work. It sounds like we are in agreement that this bill is lacking in details. I was very much looking forward to having details on this bill.

As the member noted as well, this bill was in the works prior to an election that nobody asked for or needed, so I am hoping, like her, that the Liberals will be able to put some details in the window. We will see what we get at committee.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that this bill is lacking. The Liberals have had seven years to put it in place, but there are no details and there always seems to be quick solutions. I will give a couple of examples. Pipelines received $2.2 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, something the Conservatives supported. The Conservatives were in power forever and had years to do something. There is all this money for corporations and all this money for corporate bailouts, but those with disabilities and organizations have to beg for a tuppence.

Now the minister is saying that people have to wait for three years. I have offered a tangible solution. I put forward a bill, Bill C-223, in support of a guaranteed livable basic income that would lift people out of poverty, in addition to current and future government supports. The Conservatives talk about government waste. I can say there is lots of corporate waste that they continually support.

I am wondering if the member supports my bill, Bill C-223, as he is so worried about lifting people out of poverty. It is a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I must say that very few bills have elicited such a response as Bill C-223. In my constituency office, I have had thousands of people communicate with me over that particular bill. I will not be supporting it. However—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Contrary to all the emails.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

No, that is not contrary at all, actually. Most of the emails were calling for me to very much not support that particular bill.

However, I would point out that it is within the NDP's power to change this Parliament, as it has put together a confidence agreement with the government. While NDP members seem to share my disappointment in Bill C-22, I would point out that they are continuing to support the government.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Peace River—Westlock points out, Canadians with disabilities need more than a message. They need funds in the bank. I share his concern that the text of the bill is the exact same as it was in June 2021.

Given the member's support for moving the bill ahead, can he share whether he also supports getting emergency funds to Canadians with disabilities who need it now, recognizing that the bill is not going to see the light of day for quite some time?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not entirely sure what the member means by “emergency funds”, but I would again point out that I am very disappointed that this is such an empty and vacuous bill. The prerogative of the government is that it gets to propose things, but this is hardly a proposal. This is three words on the top of a blank page.

Members keeping saying to send the bill to committee, but I am not exactly sure how the committee will flesh some of these things out. I am sure we will hear from thousands of Canadians on what they think the government ought to do, but regarding how the bill will get fleshed out at committee, given my experience with committee, I am not exactly sure what to expect from that process.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member brought up a lot of the shortfalls of the bill. The government, over the last few years, has been promising that it would bring it through, but we see that most of the details are being left up to cabinet to decide.

I want to put this to him. Twenty-one regulations would be created through this piece of legislation, but it is leaving it up to cabinet to decide very simple things, such as when the benefit would be paid and what the rules would be for recision, which means how it would get paid back. The one that is most concerning to me is subclause 11(d), which says, “respecting the manner in which a benefit is to be indexed to inflation”. We have a cost-of-living crisis in this country. It is becoming more and more unaffordable, and when we go to the grocery store we see it. It is sticker shock for most people. The people on a fixed income, as the member was saying, are the ones who are hurt the worst, especially at the grocery store but also on their rent. Month after month, it is becoming more difficult to pay those bills, and now we would leave it up to cabinet to decide how this will be fixed in the future, for our benefit.

Could the member perhaps weigh in with his opinion on whether this is a particular area that should be amended in order to provide certainty for persons with disabilities?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bulk of the bill is on the so-called regulations side of things. Again, I do not know if we can determine in the regulations that the minister should tie this to a particular percentage point or something like that around inflation.

I note that inflation is probably the number one reason that folks from the disability community are communicating with me to say that it is getting harder and harder to live on what they receive. It is interesting that the government would not just put in the bill that this would be indexed to inflation.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

It gives me great pleasure today to rise in the House to speak to a piece of legislation that I think is essential to supporting Canadians, reducing poverty, making life more affordable and building a more inclusive and accessible Canada. Bill C-22 is another step forward on the path to reducing poverty in Canada.

Our government has been focusing on uplifting Canadians and identifying the barriers that limit people in communities from economic advancement and participation. It is why, in 2018, Canada's first-ever Opportunity for All poverty reduction strategy was launched. Opportunity for All focused on government action to reduce poverty through dignity, opportunity and inclusion, resilience, and security. These are the pillars that have guided our government's work in identifying how to better serve Canadians, while also measuring the progress of our efforts in tackling poverty. Poverty is a long-standing problem in this country and has persisted for much too long. It can and must come to an end.

As a government, we have been strong in implementing measures to serve all Canadians in the pursuit of poverty reduction. We have seen significant improvement in the lives of Canadians and their families through the increases to the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. By listening to seniors, we have provided increases to the guaranteed income supplement, which has lifted many thousands of seniors out of poverty. There is also the creation recently of the Canada workers benefit, which provides tax credits to low-income workers across Canada. All of these benefits help to build up our middle class and support people who are most at risk of living in poverty.

What all of these measures have in common is that they are necessary for reducing the risk of Canadians' finances receding below the poverty line. What they also demonstrate is that we have a real track record of taking sizable and tangible steps forward on tackling the income gaps that exist in Canada. We are committed to continuing to bridge these gaps. It is why I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit.

As a part of our government's poverty reduction strategy, persons with disabilities were identified as one of numerous groups at risk of living in poverty. As we know, over six million Canadians have been identified as persons with disabilities, and six million is by no means a small segment of the population. Many of our family members and neighbours are persons living with one or more disabilities, which is exactly why this bill is a crucial measure for improving the financial security of the Canadians who need it most.

The Canada disability benefit would build upon the groundwork that has been established by this government to ensure the rightful inclusion of persons with disabilities. This is directly in line with not just our government's commitment to poverty reduction, but another important piece of legislation, called the Accessible Canada Act, which came into force in 2019. It mandates that Canada must improve and move toward a barrier-free Canada by 2040.

Building upon the work that our government has done for Canadians with disabilities is of the upmost importance to this government. It is why we have initiated consultations with the disability community and other equity-seeking groups as a part of the disability inclusion action plan to ensure that our government continues to develop policy that is reflective of the needs of Canadians. This bill will be a cornerstone of our disability action plan.

The Canada disability benefit will greatly impact the lives of many Canadians, as this legislation seeks to reduce poverty and support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. The Canada disability benefit will become another crucial part of Canada's social security net, as it will address the long-standing financial hardships felt by persons with disabilities. Supporting the financial security of persons of working age with disabilities is at the heart of this bill as approximately one in five Canadians is living with a disability.

As we know from the Canadian Survey on Disability from 2017, approximately 22% of working-age Canadians with disabilities were living in poverty in 2017. Furthermore, persons with severe disabilities, at 26%, and very severe disabilities, at 31%, are particularly vulnerable and experience high rates of poverty, nearly three times the rate that persons without disabilities experience, which was roughly 11% in 2017.

Let me repeat that: Living with a severe disability makes a person three times more likely to live in poverty. That is a social injustice that needs to be rectified as soon as possible. The income supplement that is proposed in this legislation will help provide additional needed income assistance over and above those offered by provincial and territorial governments.

In addition to the vulnerability of individuals living with severe and very severe disabilities, those who also identify as members of the BIPOC community and/or as LGBTQ2S+ have also been reported to have a greater likelihood of facing income insecurity.

We must also not forget the strain that the pandemic has put on these communities. Of course, the inflationary pressures we are seeing caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the supply chain disruptions that resulted, not to mention Russia's unjust war on Ukraine and China's zero-COVID policy, have continued to exacerbate an already challenging increase to the cost of living.

It is a priority of our government to create legislation that enhances the lives of persons with disabilities, which is exactly why implementing the Canada disability benefit to strengthen the financial security of working-age persons living with disabilities will do just that.

By working with the provinces and territories, the implementation of the Canada disability benefit will serve as an income supplement to ensure those who qualify for the benefit do not experience clawbacks in their finances from other income supports that they currently receive. We will make sure people are better off as a result.

Through an inclusive consultation process centred on the disability community and stakeholders across the country that serve them, provinces and territories included, the development of the disability benefit will be designed to work for the people it is intended to help. This legislation provides a framework for enacting this important support while creating the room for details to be formulated through regulation.

We have all heard of the principle of “nothing about us without us”, and this legislation provides the framework for staying true to this principle. This legislation allows us to do this now and delay no further. The Conservatives seem to fail to understand the concept of a framework legislation and a consultation process that will help determine more specifics as we move forward.

I have heard first-hand from people in my community who live with disabilities of the financial strains and hardships that they deal with on a day-to-day basis. I want to highlight the story of a man named David whom I spoke to last week in my riding.

David has several disabilities, and his wife also lives with a disability. David and his wife have four children and an annual income that puts them well below the poverty line. David's family receives the Canada child benefit, thankfully, which provides them with much-needed extra funds to support their family. In David's case, the Canada disability benefit would provide further financial security to his family. Many Canadians share a very similar experience to David.

I also spoke recently with a woman named Marie in my riding, who is a former school teacher who suffered from a stroke and now faces challenges with mobility and communication. Her husband has taken on the role of a caregiver in their home, and Marie requires the use of a wheelchair and remains on the first floor. The couple are living well below the poverty line and reached out to me to get advice on how they could raise funds to widen a doorway, just so Marie could get out to her backyard and experience some fresh air.

These stories are heartbreaking to hear, but they are not uncommon, and I know Marie and her family, as well as David, will benefit greatly from the Canada disability benefit. We must continue the work of adequately addressing the financial insecurity that millions of persons with disabilities experience. Like in Marie's and David's cases, the need for special equipment, customized supports for cars or homes, and medical procedures can really add up and increase the financial burdens they experience.

I am confident that the Canada disability benefit will greatly benefit many low-income, working-age Canadians with disabilities. As a government, we will continue to work diligently to reduce the risk of poverty for those individuals. I fully support Bill C-22, as I know this benefit will improve lives and lift Canadians out of poverty. I encourage all opposition members to do so as well.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the paragraph the member was reading that said persons with disabilities represent about one in five Canadians, there was a section he read that was discussing the potential benefits and who might be getting this.

Is he implying that the government believes that up to one in five Canadians would therefore be eligible for this benefit? Is that the government's goal? It is not in the legislation, so all we have to go on is just making assumptions based on the 21 regulations. I am putting it to the member: Are one in five Canadians going to get this benefit?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that one in five Canadians will receive or be eligible for the Canada disability benefit. I believe it will be targeted at working-age individuals living with a disability who need supplemental income in addition to the income benefits they already get.

It really has to be very targeted. That is why I think the consultation process across the country with provinces and territories, assessing the cost of living and looking at the basket of goods Canadian families need to purchase are very important. We need to design this benefit so that it works for all individuals who are of working age and who cannot work because of their disability.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we have said repeatedly, the bill's framework is sound. No one can be against doing the right thing, but many elements are missing.

Here is my concern. We are talking about people with disabilities. Can my colleague reassure me that Ottawa will not interfere with provincial jurisdictions? After all, this bill really falls within the health portfolio.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, the consultation process that is engaging provinces and territories in designing this benefit is essential for ensuring that this really is a supplemental income benefit that individuals living with disabilities will be able to get.

There is no intention, from my perspective, to overstep into provincial jurisdiction, but to work collaboratively with stakeholders who serve individuals living with disabilities, with the families and individuals who live with those disabilities, and with the provincial counterparts we have, in order to ensure this benefit really leaves people better off.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that poverty for those with disabilities is a crisis in this country, and the Liberals have had seven years to address this crisis. This is my second time being elected, and this crisis still has not been addressed, and then I read that it is going to take three years for anybody to even receive this benefit. This is deeply concerning, because we know, according to Disability Without Poverty, that 41% of people impacted by poverty are those with disabilities.

We have had solutions on the table. I will give an example. P.E.I. has put forward a proposal for a guaranteed livable basic income; it is just waiting for support from the federal government. I put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-223, in support of a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, which is supported by disability groups across the country, to lift people out of poverty now.

I am wondering if the hon. member supports a guaranteed livable basic income, especially for persons with disabilities.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her incredible work and advocacy for individuals who lack the income to live a full life. I have always been a vocal advocate for a guaranteed basic income, and I have never hidden that from anybody. I think the patchwork of benefits we offer today could be greatly enhanced by a guaranteed basic income, so I thank the member.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22.

I must say the Canada disability benefit act is long in waiting and I am proud that our government is moving forward on this important legislation. I am also very proud of our minister, who has been a strong leader in this area since 2015. I call her the ace in the hole that we have, and that leadership will benefit us as we move forward in this important area.

Our government has created a strong environment in which all Canadians can succeed. It is extremely important that we have an economy in which all Canadians and individuals have the opportunity to participate and to which all can contribute.

I want to bring us back to 1967 and a Liberal government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, who at the time stood up in this House and said that no seniors should live in poverty. That is why we saw the creation of the guaranteed income supplement.

As well, in 2016, our government stood up and said that no child should live in poverty, and that is why we brought forward the Canada child benefit, which lifted hundreds of thousands of young Canadians out of poverty.

Today, we are standing before members and saying that no people with disabilities should live in poverty. That is why we are coming forward with this very important bill to support people with disabilities in our country.

It is clearly evident that people with disabilities face unique barriers in many areas, in particular health, social well-being and financial security. We have seen that. During the challenges of COVID, it became very evident, or more evident. I had many calls in my office from people with disabilities.

It is important to note that people with disabilities are twice as likely as other Canadians to be living in poverty. I would also say that six million people above the age of 15 have identified themselves as living with disabilities. That is 22% of our population. Fifty-nine per cent of those individuals living with disabilities are working, whereas 80% of other Canadians are working. Those numbers are the reason we are bringing forward this bill today. It is time. It is a must, and we need to continue that leadership today.

I want to talk about the process here. Consultation started over a year ago with various organizations representing people with disabilities. We have been talking with people with disabilities right across the country. That process needs to continue, because we cannot finish the work without having their feedback and without understanding fully the challenges they face and what solutions can be brought to the table.

The second part of consultation that is extremely important is with the provinces and territories. As we know and some members might make references to, the issue of people with disabilities is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. However, once again, the federal government must step up and support people with disabilities, as we did with health care and with education, etc.

It is important to note that in these discussions with the provinces and territories that this funding is a supplement and not a replacement of funds. There would be no clawbacks, which is crucial. That is why consultation is so important to find ways of making this work for people with disabilities who have those challenges and are living in poverty. That way, we can eliminate some of those challenges, and it is not by clawbacks.

I want to share something from Rick Hansen. He said that the Canadian disability benefit is precisely the tool that is required at this time to address poverty among people with disabilities and the hardships that they face every day. He also stated that the Canadian disability benefit would enable access to the workforce for some and an increased participation in Canadian culture for many others.

I will now talk about some of the programs out there, nationally and locally. One is Ready, Willing and Able. It is a partnership between the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance and its partners. This organization has conversations and partnerships with over 10,000 businesses in this country, 4,000 of which are active discussions taking place as we speak. There are 3,000 people with disabilities who are working because of the partnership built with these businesses across the country, which is a success story that our government has been working on and funding through this program.

Also, in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, we have Building Futures, which is an organization that I have had the opportunity to visit on many occasions. It has four social enterprises that it has built, and people with disabilities are working and controlling all four. One is Assembly Plus, which is assembling various electronics, equipment and manufacturing parts for businesses, and it is a very important piece of the finished product. There is the Futures Birds, which is custom artwork. It is another business that creates jobs and opportunities. Another is the Futures Impressions, or copy shop, which is a successful printing shop that has been opened for over 30 years. At times, I have been able to get some of my printing done there as well. Of course, when I go to visit the Futures Café, which started in 2015, I enjoy the great meal it provides and I continue to support the great work that it does. These are the types of things that are important.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to explain to Canadians the process. We are in second reading debate on the bill, which will be followed by a vote. If the vote is successful, the bill will go to the HUMA committee, and I am expecting all members to support it. The committee will come back with a report. There will be debate and then a vote, and if successful, which it should be, it will go to the Senate where the same process will take place. Then, of course, there is royal assent.

I will finish my remarks by reading from an article by André Picard who wrote, “Canada has a remarkable opportunity to lift hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of people out of poverty”, and this legislation would help in that area.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to acknowledge my hon. colleague. I am glad we are meeting again in Ottawa instead of Edmonton.

Let us consider the nature of this bill. As a man of rigour, does he not feel that, in being asked to vote in favour of this bill, we are being asked to vote for a principle?

Voting for a principle when it comes to people with functional limitations and disabilities is something everyone can obviously agree on, but what is the actual substance of this bill? I find it lacks rigour. Who is it really for? Is it a temporary, band-aid solution, or are we going to see long-term solutions?

Can the government revamp its relationship with Quebeckers and Canadians with disabilities? It has a responsibility to provide these people with a better quality of life.

I think this bill lacks long-term vision, but I do not think that was the government's intention. Can the member help me understand?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague with whom I spent a few days in Edmonton for the most recent meeting of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. We were able to get some work done there to advance the Francophonie.

However, I want to point out to him that, while it is certainly good to be rigorous, we also need to hold consultations. Our government is not introducing a bill and announcing that it does not need any changes and that no amendments should be presented because they will not be accepted. That is the difference.

What is more, as I mentioned earlier, consultations will be held with people on the ground, as well as with the provinces and territories. We will achieve our goal by working together.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is nice to see him back here in the House.

Obviously, people with disabilities are suffering. They are struggling, and that has been even more true over the past two years since the beginning of the pandemic. They deserve to get help quickly. This bill sets out some good intentions and makes some nice statements, but it does not contain anything specific or concrete. Who will be helped? How will these people be helped? How much money will they be given? When will they get that money?

One of his cabinet colleagues said that it could take three years before people get these benefits. Can people with disabilities wait another three years?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to thank my friend. I hope he had a great summer in his riding. I am always happy to discuss these very important issues with him.

We are debating the issue of people living in poverty. With this bill, we are looking to support some of these individuals living in poverty. I hope that parliamentarians in the House will work together so that we can finish the debates, send the bill to committee, study it at third reading and send it to the Senate so that it can then receive royal assent. That is the important thing. We are working together as a team, and we will reach that goal. Let us hope that it happens sooner rather than later.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can tell the parliamentary secretary has good intentions from his speech, but good intentions on their own do not pay the bills.

I know he is aware the text of this bill is exactly the same as the text from back in 2021, while Canadians with disabilities are still living in poverty. Can he share evidence that demonstrates the governing party is serious about funding this benefit with the urgency the disability community deserves?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleague we are definitely serious about bringing this quickly across the finish line. The best example I can give him is that it is the first legislation we have brought forward. Today is the first day we have returned to the House of Commons, and this is the first debate of our government. That is a clear sign that we want this done and that we want it done quickly.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑22. I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Shefford.

Bill C‑22 seeks 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.

I would like to begin by acknowledging all the people in my beautiful and great riding of Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I would also like to acknowledge the exceptional work of all the organizations in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. A special acknowledgement goes out to the organizations in the Vallée‑de‑l'Or RCM that help or provide services to persons with disabilities: Ressource pour personnes handicapées Abitibi-Témiscamingue/Nord‑du‑Québec — hello to Rémy Mailloux, the organization's director for the past 25 years — the Centre la Mésange in Senneterre, the Centre d'Intégration Physique de l'Envol Val‑d'Or and the Club des handicapés de Val‑d'Or.

First and foremost, we must think about those who are living with a disability. We cannot lose sight of the fact that their condition is permanent, that this is their reality for the rest of their lives. People complain if they have to use crutches because of a sprain or a break, but that is only temporary. We need to put ourselves in their shoes. Unfortunately, these people are often cast aside by society or forgotten by governments. As I often say, a single gesture can make all the difference, and so can this bill.

In Quebec, 37% of people living with a disability have to survive on less than $15,000. Of course, there is already a federal benefit to help minors living with a disability, namely the Canada child benefit. Seniors receive the old age security pension. However, there is a gap that Bill C‑22 aims to fill, and that is the gap that people with disabilities find themselves in when they reach the age of majority, that is, the age of entry into the labour market, until they retire. There are some measures already in place to alleviate the financial burden of people living with a disability, but they are insufficient to ensure a good quality of life.

According to the latest Canadian Survey on Disability, the CSD, an estimated 1,053,350 Quebeckers aged 15 years and over has one or more disabilities. That is a lot. That is 16.1% of Quebec's population aged 15 and up. Disabilities can be related to vision, hearing, mobility, flexibility, dexterity, pain, learning, development, mental health and memory.

Many people who live with one or more disabilities are willing and able to work and be financially independent. Unfortunately, many are discriminated against in the job market. In Quebec, 8.8% believe they were denied an interview because of their disability in the previous five years, 14.1% believe they were turned down for a job because of their disability in the previous five years, and 11% believe they were passed over for a promotion because of their disability in the previous five years. This kind of discrimination does nothing to improve these people's financial health and quality of life. These people need help.

Bill C‑22's objective is noble since it aims to provide financial support to people with disabilities in Quebec and Canada and, more specifically, to improve the financial situation of working-age Canadians living with disabilities. It seeks to fill some of the gaps in Canada's social safety net, which includes old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit.

One problem in Quebec is that many Quebeckers do not identify as living with a disability and therefore do not claim the assistance provided to people living with a disability. There are several reasons for this. For instance, some people who have never had a health problem might find themselves ill all of a sudden and they do not know where to look for help or do not even want it. Others may not realize that their condition is considered a disability. Some people think the application process is too complex. Since the tax credits are non-refundable, some people do not have sufficient income to claim them. Another important thing to point out is that the French words “handicap” and “invalidité” are not interchangeable.

There is some confusion about the definition of disability among francophones. This was raised by Guillaume Parent, director of the Centre d'expertise finances et handicap of Finautonome. Mr. Parent applauds the introduction of Bill C-22, but has some concerns. He underscores the cultural and linguistic differences between Quebec and Canada, which threaten to create confusion about the application of the bill.

Mr. Parent had questions about the terms and conditions of the benefit, which have not yet been established, and outlined them in an open letter printed in La Presse, as follows:

Who will be included? Establishing eligibility for such a measure is a priority. Linguistically and culturally, in francophone Canada the French term “handicap” does not have the same scope as the term “disability” used in English Canada.

That is one reason why fewer people self-identify as having a disability in Quebec. Our population claims half the amount of federal disability tax credits claimed in the other provinces.

He also criticizes the fact that the federal government plans to conduct consultations over three years to establish the terms of the benefit. He believes that the needs are immediate and that such lengthy consultations are not necessary.

Mr. Parent is not the only one to raise this issue. In a June 2021 press release, the Regroupement d'organismes en DI/TSA issued a statement that welcomed the bill but expressed the community's concerns about it, much like Mr. Parent did. It reads as follows:

Canadians have mixed feelings about the promise of a new benefit for people with disabilities. Most of them are enthusiastic about the idea and approve of the initiative, but many doubt that it will go ahead as planned. Some of them also feel as though there is too long of a wait before the benefit becomes a reality. With the House of Commons adjourned for the summer, those who are eligible will be not be able to receive the benefit until at least the fall. Some people are concerned that this measure comes too late, particularly for people who are experiencing financial hardship related to the current pandemic.

Canada's unions and many advocacy groups for people with disabilities are skeptical about how effective the benefit will be because the legislation lacks specificity and implementation timelines.

Nonetheless, everyone agrees that more financial assistance for working-age people with disabilities is needed....

I can see other problems with Bill C‑22. The broad principles are stated in the bill, but all the terms and conditions, criteria and amounts of money will be decided through ministerial regulations. We have no clear idea of the terms of the benefit other than it will be intended for persons of working age and will be considered an income supplement.

As drafted, Bill C‑22 does not specify whether Ottawa will administer the benefit or whether the federal government plans to transfer the money to Quebec and the other provinces so that they can administer it. These terms and conditions will be spelled out in the relevant regulations and so are not outlined in the legislation. Essentially, we do not know under which constitutional authority this benefit is being created.

There are other gaps in Bill C‑22. When the time comes to study the terms around sending the cheque, the bill does not provide any answers to several questions. What are the eligibility criteria? What are the terms and conditions for the payment? What is the amount of the benefit and how will that amount be calculated? What are the payment periods? How can we avoid the clawback of benefits currently being paid to persons with disabilities?

To conclude, Bill C-22 helps implement the Canadian Accessibility Act, which calls for the removal of barriers experienced by people with disabilities in the following areas: employment, the built environment, communications, information and communications technology, the procurement of goods, services and facilities, the design and delivery of programs and services, and transportation.

Given that Quebec has a social safety net that is the envy of many nations, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports all efforts to improve the conditions of people living with a disability. I will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in committee with a view to improving it and making certain clarifications.

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

Madam Speaker, I asked the previous Conservative speaker about the possibility of recognizing the fact that there seems to be universal support. All political entities inside the House are supporting Bill C-22. When we talk about the principle of the legislation, it seems that everyone will be voting in favour of it.

In a legislative agenda, things get fairly busy, whether it is the GST, the dental plan or opposition days. Here we have a wonderful opportunity to try to pass the legislation, given that everyone is in favour of the principle of it.

Why would we not allow it to go to committee, where it could be thoroughly discussed in detail to look at possible amendments, and then maybe have a greater debate at third reading?

Would she support and would the Bloc support its quick passage?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As it stands, the bill is promising. However, there are some shortcomings, as was mentioned earlier and as I said in my speech, including a timeline, ineligibility and the benefit amounts, which should be paid out monthly.

It is important that we go to committee quickly to resolve this situation, and I hope that the government will support this request.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I think she touched on a very important point. Lofty principles and grand intentions are all well and good, but as they say, it is all sizzle and no steak. This bill falls short in the substance department.

Persons with disabilities are living in extremely painful and difficult circumstances, but this bill has nothing to offer. There is no telling if the government is contemplating a guaranteed basic income or targeted benefits. When will it happen? Who will be included? Who will be excluded?

Persons with disabilities who are waiting for help from the federal government will be left hanging with this bill. I think the government could have put a little more meat on these bones.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just made a very interesting point.

These individuals do need assistance and support. They have been waiting for several years. The time has come for the government to take action and provide them with financial support every month. They need to be given benefits to help them avoid poverty. Because of the pandemic, these individuals are currently facing enormous difficulties.

Let us get serious about helping these people in need.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was very proud that my colleague highlighted the work of our friend Rémy Mailloux. The 25th edition of the telethon raised over $700,000 last year, all donated by the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Nord-du-Québec to provide complementary services.

Various governments, especially the federal government, have cut back on their commitments to people with disabilities, particularly regarding in-home accommodations so they can remain at home.

Does my colleague not believe that, instead of cobbling this bill together and saying that further reflection and consultation is needed, the government should act now, especially in a context where inflation is hitting hard, in order to help people stay in their homes much more than it does now?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Mr. Mailloux is indeed a true role model. He himself lives with a disability. Speaking with him helps others understand exactly what people with disabilities need, where they are coming from and where they want to go. Yes, we need to take action with this bill, and above all support them with the requests that have been made. The bill needs to be much clearer.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have many concerns as I rise to speak to Bill C-22 to provide financial support to Canadians with disabilities, as proposed by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion in June 2022.

My uncle Denis became disabled at the age of 19 following a serious motorcycle accident. He passed away last year, in September 2021, and I am thinking of him. I am very sensitive to the situation of persons with disabilities and their caregivers because my family took care of my uncle.

Furthermore, my partner works for a community organization, the Association des personnes handicapées physiques de Brome‑Missisquoi, which advocates for universal accessibility. To quote the slogan created by University of Montreal students for persons with disabilities, “that's not asking for much”.

This was confirmed by the director of Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et région, Marie‑Christine Hon, whom I salute. According to her, far too many persons with disabilities are still very vulnerable and live in poverty, and they need more than just words. My speech has three components: a summary of Bill C‑22, a few interesting statistics, and some elements that need clarification.

On September 23, 2020, the government made a commitment in the throne speech to establish Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan, which includes a new Canada disability benefit for people with disabilities, modelled on the guaranteed income supplement for seniors; a robust employment strategy for Canadians with disabilities, with a focus on training, employment supports, barrier removal and the business case for disability inclusion; and a new, inclusive process to determine eligibility for federal government disability programs and benefits, one that reflects a modern understanding of disability. It looks good on paper, but there is no concrete plan in place.

The objective of Bill C‑22 is to improve the financial situation of working-age Canadians with disabilities and to fix some holes in Canada's social safety net, which includes old age security, the guaranteed income supplement—which I talk about a lot as the critic for seniors—and the Canada child benefit.

Bill C‑22 also helps Canada meet its international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and helps position Canada as a leader in the area of protecting people with disabilities. with disabilities. Again, it looks good on paper, but there is still a lot of work to do to get there.

Let us not forget that in June 2021, in the 43rd Parliament, the Liberals introduced Bill C‑35. Bill C‑22 is the reintroduction of Bill C‑35, which was scrapped when the election was called by the Liberals themselves, one year ago.

Bill C‑35 did not make it past first reading. Nevertheless, for the purposes of bringing in a benefit for persons with disabilities, meeting the objectives of Bill C‑35 and setting out the terms of this benefit, the government unblocked a $11.9-million budget to lay the foundation to reform an eligibility process for federal benefits and programs for persons with disabilities. Round tables were organized among various organizations and representatives of disability communities and an online poll was created to poll the interested public. Still, organizations back home said that they had not been informed of the existence of this bill.

Canada already has a benefit to help minor persons with disabilities, in other words the family benefit. As others have said, there are also measures to help seniors. Bill C‑22 seeks to fill the gap persons with disabilities find themselves in when they reach the age of majority. They fall into this gap when they enter the workforce until the day they retire.

Some measures have already been put in place to ease the financial burden of people with disabilities, but those measures are often woefully inadequate to give them a decent standard of living. There are still far too many grey areas that need clarifying, including the much-talked-about issue of working-age persons with disabilities. Ms. Hon talked to me about it again this morning on the phone.

The disability tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit that enables the recipient to reduce their income taxes. The problem is that, in Quebec, so many people do not see themselves as having a disability and therefore do not claim the assistance available to them. There are many reasons for this reality that we see at our office. As my assistant can attest, people who have gone their whole lives without having health problems and who end up sick all of a sudden do not know where to go to get help or do not want help. Some do not know that their state of health is recognized as a disability. Some think that the process is much too complicated because the tax credits are non-refundable, and others are not even entitled to the tax credits because they do not earn enough to claim them.

Ms. Hon condemned these situations when she spoke with me. I remind members that just one automatic $600 payment was made in 2020 during the pandemic, even though people with disabilities were disproportionately affected by the health crisis. There are programs, but they are not well known, especially in Quebec.

Allow me to share some figures. Twenty-two per cent of Canadians live with a disability. In Quebec, 37% of people with disabilities have an annual income of less than $15,000, which does not go very far. One in four Canadians with disabilities live below the poverty line and 41% of Canadians living in poverty are people with disabilities.

Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians and 91% of Quebeckers say they are in favour of a disability benefit. Fifty-nine per cent of Canadians believe that people with disabilities do not have access to sufficient resources to afford them a good quality of life.

Just 59% of Canadians with disabilities between the ages of 25 to 64 are employed, compared to 80% of Canadians without a disability. Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 earn less than Canadians without a disability. Canadians with mild disabilities earn 12% less and Canadians with more serious disabilities earn 51% less. These figures speak for themselves.

I also appreciate the Association Granby pour la déficience intellectuelle et l'autisme, which works very hard to help people with intellectual disabilities and autism perform tasks, keep busy, and do meaningful work that gives them a sense of accomplishment every day. I applaud the whole team.

As the status of women critic, I am well aware that living with a disability adds another challenging layer to the lives of women, indigenous individuals and members of cultural and minority communities. Figuring out how to ensure their financial security is urgent, especially in light of the fact that the rising cost of living, inflation and the housing shortage are making the day-to-day lives of people with disabilities even harder.

As my colleague mentioned, Guillaume Parent, director of the Centre d'expertise finances et handicap Finautonome, is pleased with the announcement of Bill C‑22, but he does have some concerns about it, including the cultural and linguistic differences between Quebec and Canada. That leads to confusion in the application of the bill. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville did a good job of explaining that this morning.

A number of other details still need to be worked out regarding how the benefit will be applied. Quebeckers claim half as much of the federal disability tax credit as other provinces. All of this means that Canadians have mixed feelings about the promise of a new disability benefit.

Although we are excited about and support this initiative, we are wondering when it will actually see the light of day. There is talk of another three years of consultations. Three years is a long time, especially when the previous bill was delayed because the government sabotaged it by calling an election. On top of that, the House of Commons shut down for the summer.

There are concerns that these measures are being introduced too late, especially for those in financial difficulty who are still caught up in the aftermath of the pandemic. Some unions in Canada and several disability rights groups are also skeptical about the effectiveness of the benefit because of the lack of detail in the bill and how long it is going to take to implement it.

In conclusion, we could say that we will vote for the principle of Bill C‑22. However, we must be aware of the fact that the bill is still very problematic. We want to support people with disabilities, but the lack of information about the details of the benefit is very problematic. In a recent survey, 89% of Canadians responded that introducing a Canadian benefit for persons with disabilities is a good thing, and that the country should take action to drastically reduce poverty among the disabled. I would go further. Personally, that is my political commitment. I am a big believer in equality of opportunity.

I would like to say one last little thing. Let us help persons with disabilities keep their head above water. We must absolutely avoid piecemeal measures. Let us work to ensure that persons with disabilities have a decent income that lets them live with dignity and fully take their place in our society.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member really emphasizes from my perspective is just how important it is that, as a government, we continue to work with the stakeholders and in particular our provinces. Today, it is a patchwork in terms of support. People with disabilities do not know what type of support they are getting. At the end of the day, we have one system in one area of the country and another in a different region of the country.

One of the objectives of bringing in a truly national program is not only to lift many people with disabilities out of poverty but also to, as much as possible, ensure that there is a sense of fairness and equity. Could my colleague provide her thoughts in regard to the role that Ottawa has to play in working with the provinces to ensure that there is that sense of equity and support for people with disabilities?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will remind him once again, as did my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, that it is important that the bill respect provincial jurisdictions. It must complement and not take away from provincial programs. Quite frankly, it is about time that the federal government respect the fact that many of these aspects fall under Quebec's jurisdiction and that this province is a model in terms of equal opportunity and social safety net.

The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion 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.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

Today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Poverty reduction is an issue I have worked hard to address in Parliament, including as co-chair of our all-party anti-poverty caucus. That notion of “all-party” on this issue has always been an important one because the idea of dignity and equality of opportunity for all should transcend any partisan politics.

We have seen significant progress since 2015, thanks in large part to the Canada child benefit, as well as increases to GIS for seniors and the workers benefit. With respect to StatsCan’s numbers, poverty levels have gone from 14.5% in 2015 to 10.3% in 2019 to 6.4% in 2020. Of course, the 2020 levels were reached due to extraordinary pandemic income supports that have fallen away. On top of that, with the rising cost of living, many more people are being left behind than we see reflected in those 2020 numbers.

It goes without saying that there remains much more work to do and the next step in that work needs to be realizing the proposed Canada disability benefit as ambitiously as possible. People with disabilities are consistently overrepresented in our national poverty numbers and that needs to change. Bill C-22 will establish the Canada disability benefit, with the goal of reducing poverty and supporting the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities.

I want to see the bill realized yesterday. However, it is not enough to support the legislation. Finance needs to step up here too. The cost of poverty to our society is greater than the cost of ending poverty. Finance needs to understand that basic idea and do the right thing in realizing the promise of Bill C-22.

I am going to cede the rest of my time for questions because I want to send this bill to committee as quickly as possible. I encourage all of my colleagues to work together in supporting this bill.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Beaches—East York for his steadfast support of Bill C-22, including getting parliamentarians across party lines to support an open letter calling for the governing party to reintroduce the bill. I really appreciate his approach to moving us as quickly as possible by ceding his time and the call for what needs to be done to finance the disability benefit. I wonder if he could speak more to what every parliamentarian could do not only to ensure the benefit is financed as soon as possible, but to get emergency supports to Canadians with disabilities who need it the most.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I certainly enjoyed working across party lines with him and others to make sure we would see the retabling of Bill C-22.

I would say that the priority for all of us would be to write to the finance minister as part of the fiscal update, and especially as part of the next budget cycle, to say that this is one of our top priorities. If enough of us across party lines deliver that message clearly to the Minister of Finance, I have every expectation that we would realize the promise of Bill C-22 as fulsomely as we can.

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

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to share a few thoughts in regard to the importance of the legislation, and one of the roles the federal government has to play is to support Canadians directly. Through Bill C-22, we would see substantial support for people with disabilities. I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts in terms of the important role governments, and particularly the Government of Canada, play in supporting the people of Canada.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the income supports the federal government provides make a world of difference to many different people. We see over $60 billion delivered to seniors between old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. The lowest poverty rate among any demographic we see in this country is among seniors as a result of that. Should we do more to help seniors? Of course we should, but the work the federal government does, in particular the income supports that are provided, is instrumental in ensuring we are reducing the poverty rate among seniors, as we have.

Similarly, the Canada child benefit has demonstrably dropped the child poverty rate in this country. We are now spending $30 billion and more to deliver for families with kids, but for both working-age Canadians, those on the Canada workers benefit, there is still much to do. For people with disabilities, who are disproportionately represented in those national poverty numbers I referenced in my speech, we absolutely need to do more. When we look at the transformation of poverty in seniors with respect to the guaranteed income supplement, if we do the very same thing for people with disabilities through the benefit contemplated in Bill C-22, we are going to make a world of difference there as well.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know full well that my colleague has been passionate in advocating for this disability benefit. I would like to hear from him about the criticism or the approach that some people have that this is charity and should be done outside of government, or that this is something that does not belong to a government program.

I would like to hear the hon. member on that and have his thoughts on just how important it is to help disabled people have financial autonomy.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on that question of autonomy, because fundamentally this legislation is about dignity and ensuring that every single person in our society can live a life of dignity. That comes with ensuring that an individual has enough support to realize their own passions and to realize their own endeavours. It comes with that kind of autonomy.

There is an old quote from Dostoyevsky that says, “Money is coined liberty”. That kind of freedom is not freedom from something, but it is freedom to do something. If we do not realize that kind of freedom for everyone in society, especially people with disabilities and in some cases people who are unable to provide for themselves despite their working age, then we are missing an absolute foundational core component of what governments ought to be delivering for our society. We, as a government, need to provide that minimum floor and social safety net, so that no person, whether it is someone with a disability or not, falls below.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today as the representative of the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle to speak to Bill C-22.

As members already know, Bill C-22 is framework legislation that 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. That is a very important point. It is framework legislation. All of the negotiations and details will be worked out later among the provincial, territorial and federal governments and, most importantly, those who are most affected, namely, people with disabilities. This legislation will also make a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

As mentioned by my colleagues during this debate, the following benefit components are some of the ones that will be established through regulation: the eligibility criteria for a Canada disability benefit, the conditions that must be met in order to receive or continue to receive the benefit, the amount that recipients of this benefit will receive, the manner in which a benefit is to be indexed to inflation, the payment periods and the amount to be paid for each period, and the application process for the benefit.

In my region, Bill C-22 is music to the ears of people with disabilities and all those who work to improve their quality of life. I am therefore pleased that there is unanimous consent in the House to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. That demonstrates that all political parties understand the importance of the Canada disability benefit for some of the most vulnerable Canadians in the country.

Everyone understands that people with disabilities face unique barriers and situations, especially when it comes to health care, welfare and financial security. According to one interesting statistic I read, nearly one in four Canadians—21% of us—has a disability. Some of those people are members of Parliament. I think that, one way or another, we will all find ourselves in that situation at some point. The difference is that those of us in the House are financially privileged, which is not necessarily the case for people who are born with a disability or who acquire a disability at a young age due to an accident. Clearly, this can have a huge impact on their financial independence. We can make a big difference in their lives by providing the financial tools that enable them to participate more fully in society. This is about independence and human dignity.

In my riding, Châteauguay—Lacolle, and I suspect across the country, the community has long been aware of challenges facing persons with disabilities. We have created a number of volunteer and non-profit organizations to meet some of their needs.

It is often families who take the lead in helping their children, young adults or older relatives with disabilities break their isolation and benefit from educational supports for training, socialization and help with daily tasks.

These people work every single day, for years on end, to provide a better quality of life for their loved ones, and they often do so at the expense of their own physical health and financial security. That is why I think the government has a responsibility to help them, and why Bill C-22 is so important. I believe that other members in the House feel the same way.

I would like to salute all the volunteers and employees who work with people with disabilities in my riding. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Centre multifonctionnel Horizon in Lery, which is a non-institutional resource for people with all kinds of disabilities. It was the life's work of a wonderful mother and advocate for these vulnerable people, the late Lyne Loiselle. This wonderful project, the Horizon Centre, offers stimulating activities and respite stays for dozens of families in our region.

Not far from where I live, in Châteauguay, the Mouvement Action Découverte's mission for the past 40 years has been to increase the individual and collective autonomy of people of all ages with an intellectual disability through educational activities to help youth become more independent.

Les Toits d'Émile in Châteauguay, Chez-nous solidaire in Mercier and Vents d'espoir in Saint‑Rémi were also founded by extraordinary parents who wanted to help not just their own children with disabilities but those of others. Their efforts are not focused on providing just community and social support services, but above all on providing housing to foster their independence in an inclusive community.

However, these charitable organizations alone cannot provide all the solutions. They already struggle to fund their own activities. Since we know that persons with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty as those who are not disabled, we, as members of a fair and just society, must ensure that they have the financial support to promote their independence and ability to actively participate in our social economy. That is why our government introduced new legislation that will establish the framework for a new Canadian benefit for persons with disabilities.

It is important to mention that this benefit, the cornerstone of our disability inclusion action plan would complement, not replace existing federal, provincial and territorial support measures to lift hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty.

In the spirit of the “nothing without us” principle, we will continue to work with the provinces and territories and with the disability community to ensure that this benefit is designed with their needs in mind.

The Canadian disability benefit will help address the financial difficulties people with disabilities have been facing for a long time. It will create a more open economy and society. The benefit has the potential to significantly reduce poverty among the hundreds of thousands of Canadians in this situation. The benefit will thus become an important component of Canada's social safety net, along with old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit.

We are not talking about charity here, because we need everyone to be able to participate in our social economy. That is a dream of the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle, and we want to make it come true.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, when the minister started the debate on the Canada disability benefit act, she stated that a sum would be paid to each person who is eligible for the benefit. The problem with the wording of the bill is that it does not say how much the person would receive or who would be eligible. There is no mention of the eligibility criteria, which will be determined by cabinet.

In the first days of the debate, I mentioned that the Old Age Security Act would be a good example to follow for making amendments to Bill C‑22.

Would the member be prepared to copy some sections and paragraphs from the Old Age Security Act to ensure that persons with disabilities in Canada will be entitled to a benefit similar to the one that was created by the Old Age Security Act?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I know that this is a very important issue for him.

We want this benefit to be a supplement, not a replacement. We understand that each province has its own system and its own programs, that there are tax credits, that programs are sometimes established based on very complex criteria, and so on.

That is why it is important to get this framework legislation in place first. Then we can negotiate the amounts. We certainly want it to provide an additional, adequate and reasonable income.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her speech.

Last month, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22. I myself have a family member who lived a good part of his life as a person with a disability, but who has unfortunately passed away. I also had the opportunity to speak with Marie-Christine Hon, who heads up the disability advocacy group Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et région. She told me that the bill currently lacks details.

We just talked about how this benefit must be a complement. It must not be deducted from what is already being offered in Quebec and in the provinces.

Since today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, can my colleague assure us that the federal government will try to deliver this money as quickly as possible and give as many details as possible to the organizations?

I think people with disabilities deserve it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague across the way. I think we share a basic principle: We must not act in others' stead.

I would like to offer my condolences on the death of her loved one. I understand how hard it is for families, because I know someone in the same situation near where I live. It is very difficult for friends and family.

We know one thing for sure, though. As much as possible, people with disabilities want to have their say, so it is not up to the federal government to tell people how it will work. We need to talk with stakeholders and with our provincial partners.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, indigenous peoples with disabilities face extra challenges when trying to access services and, I am sure, will have extra challenges trying to access this benefit once it is available to them.

I wonder if the member could agree that indigenous peoples with disabilities will need to get special provisions in trying to access these services, especially when they prefer to speak or be heard in their indigenous languages like Inuktitut, which is not a federal official language.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is something that I am seeing in my riding, and it is not something that was obvious. We neighbour Kahnawake, which is a very proud and independent nation, but our local organization has been able to partner with social services at Kahnawake to provide projects such as supportive housing for youth in transit, because, of course, the youth are mobile across the territory. However, there are indigenous, certainly Mohawk, social workers and support staff who are working within the project. There was no go-ahead unless we had the shared partnership of our two communities.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Before we resume debate, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22 and, more broadly, to the situation confronting Canadians living with disabilities.

Bill C-22 proposes a new federal financial benefit for Canadians living with disabilities, however, it does not actually define many aspects of the structure of this benefit. I will be voting in favour of the legislation, because I agree with the principle of providing the support, but I am concerned about some of the lacking substance with respect to how this benefit would actually work.

Increasingly, we see from the government a desire to limit the actual work of Parliament in defining the nature and scope of programs. Instead, the government wants a blank cheque from Parliament, legislation that authorizes ministers to shape and define a program independently, according to their discretion.

In general, this is not a good way for governments to operate in a democracy and, in particular, I do not think the Liberal government has shown itself trustworthy when it comes to working out the details of critical programs.

When it comes to the structure of this benefit, the government's message is “just trust us.” From a government that cannot figure out how to deliver passports in a timely manner, cannot address the affordability crisis in Canada and cannot secure our borders, the message of “just trust us” seems rather hollow.

I have two specific concerns about the prospective structure of this program that I do want to highlight.

First, I share the concern of many about how this program would interact with other existing programs, including those provided at the provincial level. If a new federal benefit leads to a loss of eligibility for other existing benefits, then it would leave people worse off overall. It is not inevitable that this would be the case, but this is a matter that will require careful and respectful dialogue with other levels of government and hard work at every stage, hard work that the government has not always been prepared to do.

At this point, the government is passing broad framework legislation without ensuring that it will actually leave Canadians with disabilities better off in every case. The government does not have to wait for this legislation to pass to begin those discussions and I would encourage it to actually engage those discussions now about protecting existing benefits, because aspects of those dialogues may inform suggested amendments.

The second concern I have is that it is critically important that the structure of this benefit program protects access for Canadians with disabilities who are working or are trying to get into work. Even with existing benefit programs at other levels, certain Canadians with disabilities may find themselves in a position where entering the workforce actually leaves them worse off. It is critically important that work always leaves people better off financially.

Supporting Canadians, including Canadians living with disabilities, in being able to access meaningful work has long been a key priority for Conservatives.

Why is this important? Overwhelmingly, Canadians of all backgrounds and circumstances want to be able to work and are happier and more fulfilled if they are able to work. In this context, by work, I do not just mean commodified work, but work of any sort, where individuals exert themselves in order to contribute positively to the world around them.

The science of happiness and fulfillment measurement shows us that work generally makes people happier by providing them with meaning and with a workplace-based community, and with a greater level of power and agency. Quite apart from the notably important income-earning properties of work, work also provides meaning and happiness, totally independent of whether it generates income.

Think tank Cardus has done excellent work on this question of work and disability. It has found that most Canadians living with disabilities want to work or want to work more, but it has also found that the vast majority of public policy, focus and money has been toward income support as opposed to supports that help people get into work.

The critical point about work support and income support is that they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, often, they are necessarily complementary. Some people require income support in order to afford the resources and transportation required to find and get a job in the first place. If income supports are withdrawn immediately once people work or start work, they may not be able to afford vital necessities, as well as the things they need to sustain them in their new job.

Having both fulfilling work and steady income are vital for human happiness and fulfillment. Having income without work or work without income are both, in a sense, problematic.

Of course, having income is not just about fulfillment and happiness; it is about basic survival. Canadians with disabilities need income to take care of their own needs and the needs of those they love.

For most of us, work comes with earning income. However, when benefit programs are poorly structured, people may actually be forced to choose between work and income, because benefits are cut off or income is lost as a result of working. In such cases, given how essential income is for survival, people will understandably choose income over work if they are forced to choose between these things. It is cruel and pointless to force people to make this choice, to choose between the happiness associated with work and receiving the financial support that they need.

Income supports for Canadians with disabilities can and should go hand in hand with workplace support, only peeling those income supports back gradually when it is clear that income support is not required because of the level that an individual is able to work.

We saw an example of this terrible choice between work and income during the pandemic with the poorly constructed CERB program. Unemployed Canadians who were accessing CERB, and who were then offered part-time work, were in many cases actually worse off financially if they took that work because part-time work would push them over the threshold for CERB eligibility, even if they were not earning close to what they would have been entitled to receive under CERB. Thus people were forced to remain out of work in order to access the resources they needed to support their families.

Not only does it make zero financial or economic sense to create a financial disincentive to work, but it also puts people in the painful position of needing to choose between the happiness and dignity that come from work on the one hand and from financial security on the other hand. That is why we feel it is very important that this new federal program be structured in such a way that Canadians with disabilities, many of whom can and do work, or want to work, are not rendered worse off by entering the work force.

There is nothing in the text of the bill that would suggest it could not be structured in a way to ensure that work always pays, but the past record of the government gives us significant cause for concern. In the 42nd Parliament, the member for Carleton, now the leader of the Conservative Party, proposed Bill C-395, a bill specifically designed to address this problem of work sometimes bringing about a loss in benefits for Canadians living with disabilities.

Bill C-395 would have amended the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to ensure that, in negotiations around transfers and the construction of benefits for Canadians living with disabilities, people with disabilities would not lose more through taxation and the reduction of benefits than they gain as a result of working. It would have protected Canadians with disabilities from these kinds of perverse situations where they would have to choose between the happiness that comes from work or the financial security that comes from government benefits.

If Bill C-395 were the law of the land, we could then pass this bill, even as written, with the confidence that the benefits constructed would leave people better off, but when it came to a vote on Bill C-395, Liberals actually opposed it. Liberals opposed the common-sense proposal from our leader to ensure that Canadians who work are better off as a result of the money they earn.

Sadly, Liberals do not seem to appreciate the value, dignity and happiness that comes from hard work. I am not sure if it can be found in the scope of this legislation as written, but I would welcome amendments that would capture the spirit of our leader's past work to protect Canadians with disabilities from being punished for working.

Parenthetically, I want to say something directly to employers about hiring Canadians with disabilities. Research done by Cardus shows that many employers have an exaggerated perception of the cost associated with accommodation. Cardus' work shows that including and accommodating employees with disabilities is often much cheaper than employers initially expect and that funding may be available from different levels of government for businesses, including small businesses, seeking to accommodate customers and employees living with disabilities.

Further, as our leader has previously shared in the context of speaking to Bill C-395, there are many cases of Canadians with disabilities who make incredible, committed and loyal employees who bring unique competencies for the workplace. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that poorly structured benefit programs do not undermine the ability of Canadians to access work, but employers also need to lead in pushing aside stereotypes and recognizing the contributions that Canadians with disabilities can make to their workplace. Many employers are already doing this, and I congratulate those who are doing this already.

Those were the main points I wanted to make on Bill C-22, but it is also very important to speak to the context of the legislation, which is the significant negative impacts on the lives of Canadians living with disabilities that flow from the government's radical ableist approach to euthanasia, the so-called MAID regime. We simply cannot have a conversation about financial benefits separate from a recognition that the biggest threat to the lives of Canadians living with disabilities is that those without disabilities are much more likely to be offered suicide prevention and recovery support, while our brothers and sisters, cousins and friends who are living with disabilities are being denied those supports and actively pushed towards death, even if they are saying they do not want it.

Among those who support legal euthanasia around the world, Canada is still increasingly seen as a cautionary tale, a warning of what not to do. In this vein, I want to start with a bit of history. Euthanasia in Canada started with Bill C-14, which was passed in the 42nd Parliament. This legislation affixed the name “medical assistance in dying” to what had previously been called euthanasia, the process of doctors killing a consenting patient. That legislation sought to define a regime whereby people could choose hastened death if their death was deemed reasonably foreseeable.

I criticized the legislation at the time for, among other things, not being sufficiently clear about what was actually meant by “reasonably foreseeable”. Indeed, there were significant abuses, even in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the legislation, whereby doctors determined someone's death to be reasonably foreseeable based on a string of hypotheticals when a person had nothing approaching a terminal condition.

For example, back in 2016, I highlighted a case in Vancouver where a physician declared a depressed person eligible for euthanasia without examining the individual because that patient “could easily get bed sores and then die of infection”. A person's death was, prior to examination, declared reasonably foreseeable because the person could theoretically die from an as yet uncontracted bed sore infection if they were bed bound as a result of the depression. These were the kinds of perverse outcomes that were possible even in 2016 as a result of a lack of safeguards and the ambiguity around what was meant by “reasonably foreseeable”.

The current rules allow someone also to consult many different physicians before finding two who will approve. Therefore, if 20 or 200 doctors say no, the criteria are not met, but then two say yes, the criteria are met, then the killing of the patient can proceed. The ambiguity and the opportunity to consult multiple doctors before getting the desired result means that, indeed, the holes were, and still are, large enough to drive a truck through. These were the pre-existing problems that were already, in particular, raising concerns of the disability community. The lack of clarity around what were and were not circumstances where death was reasonably foreseeable opened the door for people who were living with disabilities to be encouraged to pursue MAID, even if they did not want to, and even if they were actually not eligible.

Members do not have to take my word for it because the minister responsible for this legislation, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion of Canada, during a subsequent discussion of Bill C-7, said, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.” That is from a minister in the government. This was already the context following the passage of Bill C-14 and prior to the passage of Bill C-7.

The road to Bill C-7 was much more contrived than the road to bill C-14. The already nebulous reasonable foreseeability clause was challenged and a lower court in one province proposed to overturn this restriction. The federal government could have appealed that lower court decision and, indeed, had a strong basis for doing so. An appeal would, at the very least, have given parliamentarians more time to consider a broad range of legislative options. Instead, the government made a political choice to embrace the lower court ruling and the artificial timeline it created, pushing medical assistance in dying for Canadians with disabilities. This was not about following a court ruling. This was about something the government could have appealed, but wanted to use the court ruling to advocate for a long-standing objective.

Following this contrived process, the government put forward Bill C-7, which was rightly opposed by all of the leading organizations representing Canadians living with disabilities, as well as by domestic and international human rights authorities.

Krista Carr from Inclusion Canada said, “Inclusion Canada has advocated for safeguards in MAID since we intervened in the Carter case. Our biggest fear has always been that having a disability would become an acceptable reason for state-provided suicide. Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.” She continued, “By having a disability itself under Bill C-7 as the justification for the termination of life, the very essence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be shattered. Discrimination on the basis of disability would once again be entrenched in Canadian law.”

She said further that the “singling out of one particular...group” of people based on their personal characteristics, which happen to be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to use those as grounds to justify the termination of the lives of the people who have those characteristics is just wrong, and that we would never consider doing this for any other group of people, including those who are indigenous, racialized or LGBTQ.

Dr. Heidi Janz from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said:

People with disabilities are at a higher risk of suicide due to systemic and internalized ableism, yet they face substantial barriers when trying to access suicide prevention services. Medical professionals overlook typical sources of stress. Problems arising from relationship breakdowns, depression and isolation are wrongly attributed to disability. The removal of “reasonably foreseeable” natural death as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAID will result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression.

Finally, Bonnie Brayton from the DisAbled Women's Network of Canada pointed out, “Bill C-7, is sadly lacking in any meaningful public consultation with any people with disabilities despite how much more profoundly it could affect anyone who lives with a disability.” The disability community overwhelmingly opposed Bill C-7 and has repeatedly raised concerns about negative pressure and coercion impacting Canadians living with disabilities.

What about autonomy? The government would argue that Bill C-7 provides people with disabilities the option of medically facilitated death, but they do not have to chose that option. It is just another option that people have. To this, I would note that autonomy is always expressed in a social, legal and economic context. The context is that many Canadians living with disabilities struggle to access the key supports and services they need.

We do not have sufficient workplace supports in place and there are gaps in terms of community and income supports. In that context, the law and the medical system say to a person living with a disability that they have a simple way out and they can choose to die. If someone is at a point of existential agony and they have a disability, then the system will offer them death as a supposed solution.

In effect, if a person like me, without a disability, is experiencing existential distress and suicidal ideation, and if I were to discuss that distress with a doctor, I would be offered suicide prevention. However, if a person with a disability, the same as me in every other respect, is experiencing the same existential distress and suicidal ideations, and they discuss their distress with a doctor, they will be offered suicide facilitation by that same medical system.

That difference in the way the law and the health system treat those living with and without disabilities obviously sends a message to everyone involved in those interactions about whose life the law and the health system deem to be more or less worth living. The Liberal government has built a staircase to suicide prevention and a ramp to suicide facilitation.

As much as members opposite would like to say that this is about autonomy, the social and legal context that the government has created is not neutral and it is, in fact, discriminatory. Disability rights groups overwhelmingly see this reality, which is why they have been diametrically opposed to the approach of the government, and so much for “nothing about us without us”.

Canadians with disabilities feel devalued by a system that offers them easy death and does not offer them critical supports to live. Sadly, the mentality of the medical system is changing as well in response to these legal changes. The House has heard from many witnesses at different times and in different communities where patients were repeatedly pushed toward death and even called selfish for rejecting that option.

I will quote the minister again who said herself, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.”

In response to the testimony we heard, Conservatives sought to amend Bill C-7 to guarantee that a physician or other health care worker would not raise euthanasia or MAID with a patient, unless the patient raises it first. This amendment would have ensured that, for instance, a person with a disability who goes to the doctor for something unrelated would not be offered facilitated death out of the blue. This would have solved the problem the minister identified, but the government opposed this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. We have a point of order from the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, he is completely off topic. We are talking about financial assistance for persons with disabilities, but he has spent the last 10 minutes talking about medical assistance in dying, which is a totally different subject.

I hope our colleague will get back on course.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I understand the hon. member's point of view, but as he knows, we do allow some latitude on how members talk about certain issues.

However, I would invite the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to get back to the subject of Bill C-22, which we are currently debating.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I will continue to exercise the rights I am given by the House to speak about this pertinent issue, which fundamentally relates to this legislation.

The government does not want to hear the many concerns raised by Canadians living with disabilities. This is critically linked to their quality of life. The structures the government has put in place are denying vital supports to Canadians who need them and pushing them toward this widening door the government has offered when it comes to facilitated suicide.

Again, the minister said, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.”

Of course, the government wants to go even further. Next year in March, euthanasia for those with depression or other mental health challenges will become explicitly legal and the government is now studying euthanasia for children. In a world imagined by the current trajectory, a parent could bring a teenager suffering from depression to a counsellor and find that the teenager is being offered suicide facilitation instead of suicide prevention support.

Recently, Dr. Louis Roy from the Quebec College of Physicians recommended that euthanasia be legalized for infants with certain disabilities. Imagine that someone would actually come to a parliamentary committee in Canada and recommend the killing of young children because of their disability. So much for autonomy. I hope the government would have denounced the vile views expressed by Mr. Roy, but it has not so far.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I invite the hon. member to bring us back to Bill C-22, as we are going into a totally different bill, and the hon. member has one minute left.

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

Madam Speaker, I expect better when it comes to ruling on the rules. You know that there is broad latitude. I have a 20-minute speech. I spent the first half of the speech discussing financial benefits, and I said that I would spend the second half of the speech discussing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will interrupt the hon. member to remind him that I was very broad in my interpretation of how the rules work, and the member had ample time to expose, precisely, the arguments he has been bringing forth. He has one minute left in his speech, and I would like to remind him to bring it back to Bill C-22. That is all I am saying.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, what I find to be extremely offensive about what just took place toward you is that the member pointed at you and said he expected better from you. That is not the way that any member of this House should treat the Chair, and not even the individual but the respect that is supposed to be shown to the Chair. I would encourage that member to apologize to the Chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for his care, but we in the chair know that we are subject to displeasing members.

The hon. member may proceed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that members of the government, like members of the Bloc, do not want to hear about the subject that is a pressing priority for Canadians living with disabilities. They would prefer to talk about how they are introducing generic framework legislation with no particulars. They do not want to talk about the fact that they have been called out by every disability rights organization in this country for the fact that they have put in place a framework that is denying vital supports to Canadians with disabilities while widening the push, for Canadians facing disabilities, toward facilitated death.

People living with disabilities have a great deal to contribute to society, and they need to be offered workplace supports alongside income supports. We also need to recognize that a person's dignity is not dependent on their circumstances, their context, their perceived productivity or their ability to contribute. Human dignity is inherent in all human beings.

I will vote for Bill C-22 while maintaining extreme concern about the way the government views and treats Canadians living with disabilities, and about its apparent lack of desire to hear from parliamentarians and to hear the legitimate concerns that organizations are repeatedly raising.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was going to make a joke about figures of speech and the need to educate my friend about figures of speech after reading his Twitter feed, but what I want to ask him about is specifically around the quantum that he thinks should be realized. He spoke about the vagueness of the legislation, the punting of some of the eligibility criteria and the punting of the quantum to the regulations. It is a fair criticism, and in the Old Age Security Act we do not do that as Parliament.

Having said that, would the member support a submission to finance, for the coming budget cycle, that says the amount should be no less for people with disabilities of working age than it is for low-income seniors?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to name a specific number on the fly, but I do agree in principle with my colleague that it would be legitimate to submit recommendations from parliamentarians to try to provide parameters around the appropriate numbers. I think that should be done in the context of not just saying a specific number for a benefit, but prescribing how the federal benefit would interact with benefits at other levels and how it would interact with the issues I raised about the need to provide appropriate support for Canadians entering the workforce.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to reiterate the comments I made earlier. I am a little annoyed, not to say appalled, that some members are using their speaking time in this House to deliver speeches that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, as my Conservative colleague just did.

Talking about medical assistance in dying and access to suicide while using language like “killing children” is outrageous and pure demagoguery. I am extremely shocked by this.

This is a serious bill that we in the Bloc Québécois will support. It aims to provide financial assistance to people with disabilities, and that is what my colleague should have talked about during his 20 minutes of speaking time. I find this very disturbing, and I wanted to say so.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish the member was more offended by the realities on the ground in this country and by the impact they have on the lives of Canadians with disabilities than he is by the fact that I have raised those issues in the House.

He did not like the fact that I referenced killing children. Dr. Louis Roy, from the Quebec College of Physicians, gave testimony before a committee of this House in which he recommended offering euthanasia to children who are less than a year old. Maybe the member did not have a chance to see that testimony. I would encourage him to review it. I think it is highly relevant to this conversation. If the message we are giving to parents who have children with disabilities and the message we are giving to Canadians with disabilities is that we are working hard to pave this so-called easy way out, that has a great deal to do with the conversation we are having today.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to focus on the very beginning of the member's speech when he talked a bit about the need to support people with disabilities in the workplace. I have had disability advocates, including people with lived experience, come to me and talk about how this is not only discrimination in hiring, but accommodation and accessibility in the workplace. If we want people to feel welcome in the workplace, we need to ensure that we get rid of ableist policies and that we do everything we can to accommodate people with disabilities.

The House of Commons is an ableist workplace. For people with disabilities who want to run to become members of Parliament, virtual Parliament would be a huge step in ensuring that we have policies that support accommodation and accessibility. I am curious as to whether the member can respond to those comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I was with the member for most of the way. I agree that all the things she spoke about in terms of accommodations are important. The House of Commons has within its Standing Orders provisions that allow any standing order to be abrogated in order to accommodate a member with a disability, and that is important and positive.

I believe there are ways to achieve that accommodation without virtual Parliament. My sense is that many members are keen on taking advantage of virtual Parliament and are Zooming in from their own offices, even on Parliament Hill. The institution can accommodate and has accommodated elected officials with disabilities outside of a virtual context.

I certainly agree that accommodation is very important. Cardus's research identifies that for employers, the costs of accommodation are actually much lower than are often initially expected. That research is very important and is hopefully encouraging to employers that are considering doing more in this area.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was three weeks ago now that we had this debate on Bill C-22 in the House and heard members of all parties communicate their support for Bill C-22. In the time since, I have put forward a unanimous consent motion on that basis to move it to committee so that amendments can be proposed and we can move forward with getting this benefit to Canadians with disabilities.

Can the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan speak to what he could do to get support from parliamentarians in this place to move on with getting Bill C-22 to committee?

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

Madam Speaker, this is an important opportunity to talk about how legislation is scheduled in this place. The government has most of the days and the government schedules when legislation takes place. What the government has done with Bill C-22 is scheduled it for one day of debate, and then did not schedule it for weeks and weeks. Then the Liberals wondered how come the legislation has not passed.

Clearly, the legislation needs to have a certain amount of time for debate in the House. If the government had set this as a priority, and it should be a priority, it could have scheduled it for a number of days in that first week, and we could have completed second reading debate right up front.

It is a bit unreasonable for the government to say that if it is going to move this bill forward, we have to agree to adopt it, even while the government fails to prioritize it among its selection of bills. I think Bill C-22 should be a priority, and I would encourage the government to prioritize it in its selection of days so we can indeed complete the debate required on the issues around it and move it forward.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on the many issues he has brought up.

It is interesting what I am hearing around the room. I have an earpiece that I have to use because I cannot hear. I am deaf in one ear. People do not understand this because they cannot see my disability and I do not talk about my disability. There was a big concern about that with masks during COVID. People who are disabled because of their hearing read lips, and we could not read lips when we could not hear things. We heard comments from people who said we are speaking too loudly. Well, we speak loudly because we cannot hear and understand them. The issue of invisible disabilities is extremely important to a lot of disabled people.

I would like to quickly speak of a constituent who is 43 years old and has four children. He has lost the ability to raise his children. He had cochlear implants put in. His concern with this legislation is that while there are regulations, they do not tell him what he can do and how he can get back to work.

I wonder if the member would mind commenting on those invisible disabilities and the ability for people to get back to work.

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

Madam Speaker, the member raises many important points, in particular recognizing the diversity of disabilities that exist. When we talk about disabilities, they could include many different kinds of things that in a particular social context make it harder for people to do a job that they could otherwise do. We need to recognize that not all forms of disability fit with what our expectations might be and not all forms of disability are visible.

That is why this program needs to be well constructed. It needs to be versatile and it needs to encourage accommodations for people that respond to their particular circumstances. It is why we would have liked to see more details on this from the government in terms of the legislation. These are important questions we need to be asking at committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, going back to the preceding question asked by the member for Kitchener Centre, I do not disagree with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. He is right that it is the government that sets the days and the agenda. However, a lot of this place operates in good faith. We have to operate under the assumption that we want to move forward to eventually get to a place of voting on a particular bill. The problem, which the member knows better than probably most Conservatives, is that the Conservatives use various tactics to slow the day down. They will move a motion of concurrence that burns away three hours and then will put some points of order in there, again to burn more time to try to burn away a day.

It is very clear and obvious to Canadians as a whole that the Conservatives use multiple tactics to slow down anything getting through this House because they want to see this government fail. That is their objective and motive behind this, and the member knows it.

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

Madam Speaker, look at the facts. This fall, the House has sat for about three weeks and the Conservatives have given unanimous consent to expedite two pieces of legislation, Bill C-29 and Bill C-30. That is a pretty impressive, breakneck speed for the opposition to agree to the option of certain pieces of legislation.

This is only the second half day that we have debated Bill C-22, and yes, it needs to be debated. We support the legislation and want it to move forward, but we want the government to do better, and debate in Parliament is part of the process.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, we heard him say it himself. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan basically just said, “Yes, we let go some legislation that we all agreed with. Are we not the heroes of the day?” This is legislation that, by his own words, we all agree on. He said that we all agree on it. Then he suggested it is somehow some kind of handout to the government to allow that legislation to pass through this House because they already agree with it. We heard the argument come from him just moments ago.

In any event, I want to start my speech today by referencing what happened during the last speech from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the way he went after the Chair in this House by saying to the Chair that he expected better. It is extremely disrespectful to the chair occupant. It is extremely disrespectful to the individual who happens to be sitting there at the time, and more importantly, it is disrespectful to the institution. The institution of our parliamentary system is based on one individual who presides over the meetings to ensure fairness and comes from an impartial perspective, despite the fact they may have come to this place under a particular party banner. We lend that impartiality and benefit of the doubt and we treat that individual as though they come from that place of impartiality for all chair occupants.

I know I certainly have a great relationship with the Deputy Speaker, who happens to be from the Conservative Party, and I try to extend that to the Deputy Speaker from the NDP and indeed yourself, Madam Speaker. For a member of this House to point at the chair occupant who happens to be sitting there at the time and say, “You should do better,” is extremely disrespectful to this entire institution.

Quite frankly, the member should apologize. I asked him to do that when it happened. He did not do that. He will have more opportunities to do that. I really hope he does. He can feel free to interrupt me in my speech on a point of order to apologize to you, because you deserve it, Madam Speaker. You should not have had that occur.

We are talking about this piece of legislation and how all parties in the House appear to be supportive of it. The Bloc has spoken in favour of it, as have the NDP, the Greens and the Liberals, obviously, and the Conservatives appear to be supportive of it. Maybe that is why they spend their entire time talking on this particular topic about anything but this piece of legislation, as we witnessed prior to my speech.

If we go back and look at the actual platform commitments of all political parties, we will see there was some degree in there of moving forward with a national disability benefit. We have come to a certain place in our society where we respect the fact that we need to start looking at our disability benefits from a national perspective.

Right now, like many of the programs we have out there, there are piecemeal projects in Ontario. There is ODSP, which is the Ontario disability support program, and there are various different ones in other provinces. What we saw in the last election was that all parties committed to doing something about this very important issue, and we have been called to do so by many individuals throughout the country, repeatedly.

We know that persons with disabilities face unique challenges, challenges that are not seen and are not realized the same way as those faced by persons without disabilities. We also know that individuals with disabilities, proportionately speaking, represent a larger population of those who are experiencing poverty. As a matter of fact, when we look at poverty rates, they can be significantly higher among individuals who have a disability.

One of the very important things to talk about here is that, at least from the government's perspective, from the Liberal Party's perspective, when we go to tackle something as large as this, because make no mistake, this is a very large program that has a lot of moving pieces to it, we need to work with our counterparts. This is not something that is very clear, clean cut and simple, something that can be just tabled, passed and implemented. This is something on which we need to start going back and talking to various different provinces and regions that are providing benefits like this.

For example, what we do not want to happen in my province of Ontario is for the federal government to introduce a benefit like this and have our provincial government see it as an opportunity to claw back from existing programs that are already in place, such as the ODSP in Ontario, as I just mentioned. If we do that, the benefit would be counterproductive in terms of providing more supports for Canadians who really need them.

Members can imagine that when we talk about the provinces and territories that have to work with the federal government on this, it is not going to be a one-size-fits-all situation, which is why this legislation is about a framework. It is about establishing the framework by which we can then go and have these discussions to create the right programs, balance them against existing programs that are in place in the provinces and regions, and make sure there is a net gain to actually lift people with disabilities out of poverty. When we talk about that framework, we are talking about the various things the bill would seek to do. It is not simple, as I indicated, and there are a lot of moving parts.

For example, who would be eligible? The bill needs to make sure that it clearly identifies who would be eligible. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and others who spoke earlier were saying that the details were not in the bill and that the details should be there right now. Well, these are the things that need to be worked out, such as who is eligible, the conditions that need to be met to determine eligibility and the amount that individuals would receive, ensuring, again, that anything that is given at the federal level is not counterproductive or used as an opportunity to claw back at the provincial level.

We need to see about indexing the benefit to inflation. We are seeing extreme hardship right now as we face global inflation, and we see that the benefit would have to somehow adjust to meet those inflationary increases. There are also the payment periods, or how often the payments would be made, what the most beneficial way is to make the payments and how they would be rolled out to individuals. These are things that all need to be considered.

There is the application process for individuals who are perhaps currently getting other disability payments in their province. How would they apply, and how would we ensure fairness across all provinces and territories, despite the fact that many individuals are already accessing other benefits? There are also the applications made on behalf of people who are incapable of making their own applications. What will the process be to ensure that this can be taken care of?

There will be circumstances in which an applicant would be ineligible to receive the benefit, so we need to make sure that we properly identify that as well. Of course, the other end of that would be establishing a list of offences for people who try to abuse the benefit, and there is a lot of talk about that, especially when people talk about CERB and those who abused it. We need to use the time now to ensure that whatever we put in place properly respects and reflects that.

For example, some of the offences could include people who falsely identify information, individuals who are caught counselling people on how to falsify information with the intent to steal all or a substantial part of the benefit, or those who knowingly making false or misleading representations in relation to an application. All of these things need to be properly looked at.

The problem, as I indicated previously, is that we are not looking at this just through a federal lens. The legislation, the benefit, would be touching upon other benefits that already exist out there, so, for all the reasons I just talked about, what is being proposed here is framework legislation. This is legislation to set up the framework on which this benefit will be established, which is monumental in terms of a national approach. We have never had a benefit like this before, and it is long overdue. So many Canadians out there deserve it and, quite frankly, have been waiting a long time for it, but we need to continue to push forward and do this properly.

We know that more than six million Canadians over the age of 15, representing over 20% of Canadians, currently identify with having a disability. That is what we know right now in Canada. Only 59% of Canadians with disabilities between the ages of 25 and 64 were employed in 2017, compared to 80% of those without disabilities. Therefore, the data indicate that those who have disabilities are not employed, from a percentage perspective, as much as those without disabilities. That is really important. Persons with disabilities who were working earned less than Canadians without disabilities, 12% less for those with milder disabilities and 51% less for those with more severe disabilities. These are the facts we know of what the current situation is like. We are not even talking about people who are not working; we are talking about people who are working with disabilities and comparing them to people without disabilities, and we see that those with disabilities are making a substantially lower amount compared to those without disabilities.

Around 850,000, or 21% of working-age Canadians with disabilities, live in poverty. These are individuals who are living below the poverty line and quite often are already struggling as it is, in addition to the increased burden that is placed upon them by having a disability. We know that the House has spoken unanimously in favour of bringing forward disability legislation. We are finally seeing this here today. We know that all members of the House support it, and I really hope we can see this move on so we can get to the point where we have a vote on it and see it come to fruition.

There are certain things I believe we should try to avoid being political about, to the best of our abilities, and probably one of the most important is taking care of some of the most vulnerable people in our community. If there is no other reason we assemble in this place or no other reason for government to exist, it is to help the most vulnerable people in our communities. That is exactly what this piece of legislation is doing. It is recognizing the fact that, yes, disabilities are not what people may have thought them to be decades ago, and that they are expensive and include a lot more than those traditional ideas of what a disability was. They include things like, as my Conservative colleague mentioned earlier, hearing impairment and an inability to communicate as a result of that. It is so important that we, as government and as parliamentarians, make sure we establish the supports necessary to take care of people in their moments of need. Therefore, I really hope we can see this legislation pass through this House and work together to ensure the framework is moved along as quickly as possible.

I note that this piece of legislation to establish the framework requires that it be reviewed by Parliament after the first three years of the disability benefit being in place and every five years after that, which is unique, because most of the time that review period is a five-year period. The importance of this, I think, is highlighted in the fact that the government insists there be oversight on this to adjust, balance and reposition in the event that things need to be tweaked along the way.

I will conclude with that. I really encourage all members in this House to vote in favour of this. I hope we can move quickly on it. I did not take the full time allotted to me to speak to this, and I hope others choose to do the same and help to move this along very quickly so we can vote on it, put it into legislation and build that framework.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the member for Kingston and the Islands, and I want to reiterate that we do have a point of agreement.

I believe all provinces would have the incentive here to simply claw back or even draw down what they would usually give to someone who is in particularly dire need, particularly persons with disabilities. However, the issue here is that this bill should ideally have had first reading and then been referred to a committee. As in British Columbia, we are seeing more and more legislation coming out that gives absolute power to the minister and department officials to do everything by regulation. That is exactly what this bill does.

As well intentioned as all members who have spoken on this are, essentially it does not take leadership and say that this is the dollar amount we believe every Canadian citizen, every person with disabilities who cannot work for themselves and who is vulnerable, needs to be able to live. Essentially, by abdicating that role, we are going to be giving that power to department officials and the minister. The member may agree with the minister, but later on another government could come in and the number will change. Then none of us will have the ability to do anything other than squawk in the House.

Does the member believe that the bill should have gone straight to committee? Does he believe it should have had a number to show some leadership? Again, I thank him for his frankness around the provinces.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all I would say that I agree with the hon. member in terms of the incentive. Certainly there is an incentive there for other levels of government to use the opportunity to claw back, because they see another form of payment coming, and use that money for something else. It is very basic. It is fair to say that this would be something that would be very attractive to different levels of government. One of the first things we would need to do is to ensure that this does not happen.

The member also asked about the oversight on this and what it would look like down the road. As I indicated toward the end of my speech, one of the things about this bill, which is unique, is that the first time it has to be reviewed in terms of the oversight on it is three years after the legislation comes into force. That is unique, because typically it is five years. I would say that Parliament would have oversight on this. I would say that there are a lot of programs out there on which the member might use the logic he brought up. He might consider why the same thing is not done with OAS, for example. I will leave it to him to come back to the House on that.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague already mentioned, the bill is rather vague on the details. Some clarification will be needed. I note, however, that the government seems to be anxious not to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, and that is appreciated.

Currently, persons with a disability or an impairment may be entitled to health benefits, transportation allowances, adaptive equipment and employment supports, among other things. It is important that these support measures not be reduced or clawed back if someone receives the benefit. The bill is currently so vague that it raises concerns about possible clawbacks.

What suggestions would my colleague make to address this lack of clarity in the bill in order to ensure that persons with a disability or an impairment will not be penalized?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the concern, again, similar to what we have heard from the Conservatives, is that there is not enough information or details in the bill in terms of who is going to be eligible or how much they are going to get. These are the things that I talked about in my speech.

I talked about why this is framework legislation. Those details need to come out after engaging in that consultation process to determine exactly what it should be. When it comes to spending money, we will still have a budget every year that would have to be approved. That money would presumably be inside that budget envelope and be approved by the House.

The member's last comment, specifically, with respect to how we make sure other jurisdictions do not end up clawing back is one of the most important things here. ODSP in Ontario, the Ontario disability support program, on its own barely lets people get by. What I would hate to see is the Ontario government utilize the fact that there is this new federal program to claw back from the provincial side. Ontario might be different from Quebec, and it might be different from other provinces and territories. That is why we need to make sure that, whatever we do, we respect those jurisdictions but ensure that this is going to be additional to what people are already receiving.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that there is not enough information on how much people with disabilities will get and who will be eligible, but I am also concerned that there is not a clear timeline on when people will get this benefit. The minister has stated publicly that it could be three years. People with disabilities need help now.

Does the member think it is acceptable to wait three years?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that it is acceptable to make people wait any longer than is absolutely necessary. This is long overdue and needs to come into effect as soon as possible.

I also want to ensure that, when it is done, it is done right. I want to make sure that the proper research is done so that, when establishing amounts like the member is asking about, establishing criteria like we have heard from the Conservatives and the Bloc, when all of that is done, it is done in a way that respects the fact that we have multiple different jurisdictions already engaging in disability payments, that they do not claw back on those payments and that people are receiving this benefit equally across the country.

I appreciate the New Democrats' passion on this, but I feel as though they are trying to apply a certain degree of simplicity to what I see as a very complex equation and problem that we need to iron out and make sure we get right.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening very intently to debate on this very important piece of legislation and something that sticks out is the evolving concept of “nothing about us without us”, it being simply for the disability community “nothing without us”.

Could the hon. parliamentary secretary comment on how Bill C-22 lives up to this mantra and, additionally, just how important the leadership of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has been to the House?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that question goes back to the other three questions that I have been asked. The questions have all been about timing, amounts and determining all of this stuff in advance right now, but the “nothing without us” concept is all about ensuring that these decisions are made with the disability community and ensuring that, when we talk about how much the payment will be and the criteria for receiving it, it is not a top-down approach but an approach that works with individuals with disabilities.

I personally believe that the new benefit needs to be done in consultation with persons with disabilities. That is why I support this particular framework that we have in front of us.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what the member proposes to be part of this legislation. I heard him mention that they don't want us to have to claw back, so I guess that is on Conservatives. In a couple of years' time when we form government, we do not want to have to claw back.

What measures are going to be put into this legislation to make sure that we do not have a similar situation to what we had with CERB and other programs, and will the program be efficiently administered, unlike what is happening with passports and Veterans Affairs issues right now?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing that I can do to ensure that a potential future Conservative government does not claw back or eliminate this entire benefit altogether. As a matter of fact, I am quite worried that something like that might happen.

When I was talking about clawbacks, I was talking about the provincial government clawing back, like the Conservative member asked me earlier. He specifically said it is almost human nature for provinces to want to claw back a bit when they realize that money is coming from another area. That is what we want to ensure does not happen. This is supplemental to other provinces and territories that also provide supports and would not replace them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Public Safety; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Public Safety; and the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Health.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today on this very important bill, Bill C-22, around establishing the Canada disability benefit. I want to acknowledge the work of my NDP colleague, the MP for Port Moody—Coquitlam, and others for their perseverance in bringing the voices of those living with disabilities, as well as the tremendous amount of work led by those living with disabilities and many allies, to Parliament. It is clear we need the government to act now and implement this much overdue benefit.

Constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith with disabilities and allies are asking for their voices to finally be heard. I ask my colleagues to consider what their lives would look like if they were living with a disability and as a result were legislated into poverty. I think of Jocelyn, a constituent from my riding whom I have spoken about before in this chamber, who is struggling to keep food on the table for her and her children as a result of living with a disability.

Jocelyn is a single parent of two young children who holds an education, work experience and a drive to contribute and give back to her community. Unfortunately, Jocelyn was in multiple accidents, leaving her unable to work and relying on the minimal disability income provided to make ends meet. Jocelyn described to me the challenges she experiences in covering just the basic costs of living. Jocelyn was very clear that all she was hoping for is the certainty her children would have food on the table and a place to call home. Housing and food are certainly not luxuries for her and her children. These are basic human rights.

In the 2015 election, the Liberals ran on a platform of delivering equitable opportunities for those living with disabilities. We had a glimmer of hope before the most recent election called by the Liberals, followed by inaction. This promise could have been delivered within the last seven years of the Liberal government so that those desperately waiting had the basics they need, yet here we are once again with no action.

Why are those living with disabilities being treated by the government as if their lives do not matter? The impacts of this inaction, this complete disregard for fellow human lives, is evident across Canada. It is imperative that federal leadership is taken today to provide Canadians with disabilities the basic human rights they deserve. Instead, more and more Canadians are becoming homeless, relying on food banks, getting sicker instead of better without access to the medications they need, and often left without the affordable and necessary adaptive equipment they need.

A lack of federal leadership trickles down in many ways. People living with disabilities are being made to feel their lives do not matter. I feel it important to once again share the story of a constituent in my riding who described to me that he felt he did not matter and that, because of his disability, his life was considered disposable and was being treated as such by the government. I know this constituent is not alone in his experience. I am hearing from more and more people living with disabilities who feel they have little hope of things ever getting better for them, feeling frustrated by the government and needing action today.

People living with disabilities continue to contribute to our communities in countless ways. I think of Anne, for example, another constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and also a friend who is living with disabilities. Anne was told by a job placement agency years ago that she should settle for sitting at home and watching daytime television. Despite this clearly misguided and uninformed recommendation, I met Anne when she returned to complete her post-secondary education at Vancouver Island University as a fellow student.

With barriers removed for Anne's success, Anne thrived as a post-secondary student. She graduated with distinction, continued on to finish her master's degree and is now an author and a strong community advocate for those living with disabilities and their right to access barrier-free education and housing and to participate fully in the community. Despite Anne's accomplishments, Anne continues to be bogged down by a student loan with payments that are unrealistic with the minimal income she receives.

When we take a moment to step back, it becomes evident that ensuring those with disabilities are, at minimum, living above the poverty line does not only benefit those living with a disability like Anne and Jocelyn, but it benefits Canadians as a whole. The symptoms of reacting to poverty costs us all. When people cannot afford healthy, nutritious foods, we see increased costs to health care, as just one example. The same applies when people cannot afford the medications they need or a safe roof over their heads. We pay more as Canadians when we are reacting to the symptoms of poverty than if we prepare and respond proactively by providing the means for all to live with dignity and respect.

If people have, at the very minimum, their basic needs met, including a place to call home, healthy food and enough money to pay their bills, everyone benefits. Those living with disabilities are not exempt. Poverty does not benefit anybody. Economists predict that poverty in Canada would be reduced by as much as 40% overall by eliminating disability poverty alone.

Yet another resident in my riding, Kate, shared with me her experience living with disabilities and trying to make ends meet. In addition to living with Chiari malformation, a structural defect in the skull that causes part of the brain to push into the spinal canal, leading to symptoms such as severe headaches, numbness of the limbs, loss of muscle control, coordination issues, dizziness and fainting, Kate suffers with early-onset osteoarthritis, ADHD, anxiety, depression and several food and environmental allergies. To make matters worse, she was also diagnosed with cancer.

One would think Kate had enough to deal with in her day-to-day life. Instead, she has been legislated into poverty by the government, because she is living with disabilities. Compounding Kate's serious health concerns, she has not eaten more than one single meal a day in nearly a year. She skips breakfast and lunch so she can enjoy and afford one dinner a day. As a result, Kate has been prescribed by her doctor a list of supplements to counteract the malnutrition she is experiencing. Unfortunately, Kate cannot purchase the supplements she has been prescribed with the little funds she is forced to live on.

With the increased cost of living, Kate's minimal income is stretched even thinner. Kate described adding a bag of frozen vegetables to her cart just recently, the same bag of vegetables she spent her few dollars on in the past, crying with the realization that this same bag had increased in price from $4.00 to $5.29. How much more could Kate possibly cut back from only one meal a day? The reality Kate is facing trying to make ends meet with a disability is unfortunately all too common. Kate describes her experience of living in poverty, pointing out, “Poverty is relentless. It is a constant, nagging, oppressing force that never lets up.”

There is a saying that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. In a country as rich as ours, I am sad to say the government gets a fail on how we treat those living with disabilities.

Let me be clear. Some of the strongest people I know are living with disabilities. The incredible strength I have seen exhibited, despite being kicked down over and over again, is formidable. People living with disabilities are contributing members of our communities with their own unique stories, talents and skills. People living with disabilities have loved ones, hobbies and goals they are working on, just like all of us, yet because many are unable to contribute through financialized forms of labour, we treat those living with disabilities, as my constituent stated, as disposable.

However, many people living with disabilities deserve what everyone deserves: basic human rights. Why must those living with disabilities fight so hard to be able to meet their most basic needs? The Liberal government has let Canadians living with disabilities down at a time when they need the government to step up most.

Thankfully, there are ways we can move forward today to begin treating those with disabilities with the dignity and respect they deserve. With the support of my colleagues in this chamber today, we can move forward with a Canada disability benefit. If it is delivered with the best interests of those living with disabilities and in partnership with provinces and territories, those living with disabilities could once again have hope.

To those who are expressing their concerns and have been fighting for too long, I hear them and promise them that I will do all I can, working alongside my NDP colleagues, to push for this to be done in a timely manner and to finally start doing what is right.

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

Madam Speaker, I think what is significant here is that we are taking a historic step in terms of passing this legislation, recognizing how important it is that as a national government we are there to support people with disabilities in a tangible way. In listening to the debate, whether it was on the first day or in today's debate, it is obvious that there are going to be issues that the standing committee will deal with to see if there are ways we could improve upon the legislation.

My question to the member is with respect to that. Does the NDP have, and is she aware of, specific amendments it is hoping to propose at the committee stage, in hopes that this legislation passes soon?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do hope this bill is supported by all members and sent to committee to be worked on. There is much work that needs to be done. I have full faith that my colleague, the NDP member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, will bring forward some amendments to ensure that the information within this bill is specific enough and has the timelines needed to implement the program in a way that will benefit those living with disabilities and put that money where it belongs, which is in their pockets so that they can afford to make ends meet.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I have been asking members on the government benches about, and I am hoping that maybe the member has thoughts on this too, is that there is not a lot of content in this legislation right now.

The Old Age Security Act is actually very similar, when we are talking about providing a benefit to individuals at the very bottom of the income scale in order to support them. Old age security is meant for pensioners, those people who have retired or simply cannot work and happen to find themselves struggling in very difficult situations, which is kind of what we are talking about here, helping those who are unable to work due to whatever disability it is that they have.

The Old Age Security Act already has a lot of good content examples, for things like criteria and cost of living adjustments, to make sure that the benefit received is not impacted by inflation. I wonder if the member would agree with me that we should look at the Old Age Security Act at the committee stage to try to remove some of the ability for cabinet to simply set things by regulation, so that we parliamentarians can then set it into legislation so that it becomes fixed.

Having it in legislation is a much better proposition for persons with disabilities. It gives them certainty. I wonder if the member agrees with that.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that far too many, in a country as wealthy as ours, are living in poverty. That definitely does include seniors and those living with disabilities. We have a high child poverty rate. There are actions that we know can move us forward to start to alleviate the poverty being experienced. This national disability benefit is one such benefit that can be put into place today and actually start making a difference, a real difference in people's lives.

To answer his question, everybody needs to be lifted out of poverty. Let us definitely look at some examples of what has been working well and get the bill to committee so we can start doing the work.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her strong support of Bill C-22, alongside the rest of the NDP caucus. As she mentioned, there are a number of groups across the country who have called out concerns with respect to what is not in the bill. Today, most recently, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance has done the same.

Can she share more about what she can be doing, working alongside all parliamentarians in this place, to ensure that strong amendments are brought forward at committee as soon as possible to strengthen the bill?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for all of his work and advocacy around this bill and getting people with disabilities the support they need and deserve.

It is vital that we are getting all hands on deck and getting this work done today. That includes having our federal Liberal government working alongside provinces and territories to ensure that this benefit is provided in such a way that those living with disabilities are receiving the benefits that they need and deserve. Ensuring that clawbacks are not happening is just one example.

Absolutely, there are many amendments that still need to be done. This is not the bill that the NDP would have put forward, but it is a step in the right direction.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Minister of Seniors is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and privilege to rise in this House this afternoon to join the debate at second reading of Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act. I am particularly pleased to participate in this debate based on many of the conversations I have had over the last few weeks with constituents in my riding of Perth—Wellington.

I want to highlight one specific conversation I had last week. It happened at the Local Community Food Centre in my riding of Perth—Wellington. For those who may not know what the Community Food Centre is, it is a wonderful institution in my riding. It is called “the Local”. We just call it “the Local”. I like to compare it to a kitchen. It obviously has a kitchen but it is like a family kitchen. When someone enters, they are part of a family. The people who greet them are always there with smiles, are always there with a helping hand and are always there for good conversation. When I was invited to meet with community members to discuss issues affecting those living with disabilities, I was absolutely thrilled and honoured to participate in that conversation.

When I arrived last week on Friday at the Local, there greeting me right away was Uncle Glen, with a big smile. He is not officially my uncle, but I call him Uncle Glen. He is Glen Broadfoot. I think I got a hug as well, which was wonderful. I was offered a cup of coffee by another community member, and we began an important conversation about what is needed for Canadians living with disabilities. If there was one word that came out of that conversation that I think encapsulates this piece of legislation and the hopes for it, it is the word “dignity”, dignity for Canadians living with disabilities.

In that conversation around a circle of chairs last Friday, the word “dignity” came up time and time again. One participant talked about how a haircut was considered a luxury. Another individual talked about how she is not able to have a social life due to the meagre amount she receives each month. She cannot even go for a cup of coffee at the local coffee shop, Tim Hortons, to have that interaction with the community. After hearing stories and challenges like that, it becomes all the more important that we have this conversation today about what we as Canadians and parliamentarians want to see to support Canadians living with disabilities.

Another participant in that conversation talked about how she worked a few hours a week and received a certain amount of money, but every time she worked that hour and every time she brought home that paycheque, money was immediately clawed back from her monthly ODSP cheque. Although she enjoyed and was able to take part in that opportunity, it was clawed back.

When we come to discuss this piece of legislation and what we want to see going forward with the Canada disability benefit act, we want to encapsulate some of the concerns that have been expressed by the people whom I and all members of this House have met with. However, one of the challenges with a bill like Bill C-22 is that it is the bare bones. It is the structure and it is the foundation, but it is not the actual meat on the bones. That will come later through regulations.

I want to use the few moments I have this afternoon to highlight some of the things that I think are necessary, and what I think a lot of Canadians think are necessary, for this piece of legislation and should go into it.

The first thing is about the clawbacks that have been mentioned a few times in this House, either from provincial programs or from other entities or work income. It is my hope that when the regulations for this piece of legislation are developed, there are safeguards in place to ensure that when a dollar is earned through this benefit, a dollar is not taken elsewhere, whether it is through a provincial program or through money that someone may have earned from workplace employment. Too often we see governments at one level give a dollar and governments at another level take a dollar away, so that is the first thing I hope to see happen with this piece of legislation.

I want to highlight one opportunity that I think is there. Two parliaments ago, in the 42nd Parliament, the House debated a bill entitled “Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities Act”, which was Bill C-395, and it stood in the name of the now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton. It was a bill that would have ensured that when people earned employment income they were not negatively impacted in their other benefits, including and most specifically disability benefits. Therefore, I hope that, when this bill is considered at committee, and we expect it to be taken up in the next few days, some of the principles from that bill are enshrined within this one to ensure there is not that disadvantage.

The other thing I very much hope we will see through this piece of legislation once it is implemented through regulatory means is that it is done with a disabilities' lens in mind. What I mean by that is to ensure this program is set up in such a way that it is clear, understandable and easy to use for anyone making applications to the program. We know that as Canadians we file a lot of information with various government entities, whether it be the Canada Revenue Agency or Service Canada, which already have a lot of the information needed to process this type of benefit. It is my hope that when the regulations come into place they are done in a clear, efficient and easy-to-use way so that Canadians living with disabilities from coast to coast to coast are able to access the benefits that ought to be provided through this benefit without additional means, barricades and blockages to prevent them from obtaining these important benefits.

As I wrap up my comments and thoughts on this piece of legislation, I want to read a couple of very short postcards I have received from constituents in my riding, which I think help to summarize the importance of the disability benefit and supporting Canadians living with disabilities.

One constituent wrote to me stating, “We must take care of our most vulnerable. Only by lifting others up do we lift ourselves up.” Another constituent wrote, “It's such an important thing to look after and aid the people living with disabilities in our city, in our province and in our country. The challenges of poverty associated with disabilities is demoralizing. Please debate and pass this bill.” Those are just two examples of constituents in my riding who have been pushing for this important benefit for a long time.

As I wrap up my comments, I want to once again thank the many constituents who have contacted me on this piece of legislation. I specifically want to point out the good work that is being done by the folks at the Local Community Food Centre, which is working to bring all community members together in a safe and welcoming place that respects and promotes the dignity of persons living with disabilities.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to chime in today on this very important bill. Also, this debate is occurring on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. I am sure my hon. colleague is aware of this important day. I am also really glad to hear there is a community food centre in his riding. We are neighbours in fact, so it is good to hear that the Community Food Centres is doing so much good work in his community.

I echo the member's comments with respect to dignity and the right that all Canadians have to that dignity, ensuring they can do normal things like go and get a haircut, pay their rent and go to Tim Hortons for a coffee. Today is a day where the whole world is focused on the issue of poverty reduction, so I would like to ask the member this point blank. This is an important bill, one that I am passionate about, one that I signed the letter, with various members of this House, to fast-track. Will he be supporting the Canada disability benefit act?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was fairly clear in my comments that I will in fact be supporting Bill C-22. I think it has been clear from the Conservative Party that we will be unanimously supporting that piece of legislation.

However, I want to take a few seconds to again focus on the importance of where we go from here with this piece of legislation. It will be going to committee and later to regulations. We must ensure that this piece of legislation does not get bogged down in a regulatory process where bureaucrats are affecting the outcomes of peoples' lives. We need to make sure that we are in this for the right reasons and in it to support Canadians who are living with disabilities from coast to coast to coast.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, so I am glad we are talking about this and the realities that so many people living with disabilities face. As a collective, as a country, we have to take ownership of the fact that our inability to create accessible spaces has excluded people and left them in poverty, so I am glad we are having that conversation and I hope we continue to actually take the next step.

With respect to this piece of legislation, although I will support it, although I appreciate the intention, what really matters to me is the impact. What we see in this piece of legislation is that there is nothing concrete that is really going to make a successive difference. I do not want to see this just passed and the actions not taken. I wonder if the member could reflect on that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for North Island—Powell River for her important question.

The member is absolutely right. It is the impact. It is the impact that this or other pieces of legislation will have on Canadians living with disabilities, and there is a challenge. However, this is not a concrete piece of legislation. This is a framework, a foundation, but it does not actually list what would come out of it.

From personal experience, as my mother-in-law lives with a disability and uses a wheelchair, I know that different programs in the past, particularly those focused on accessibility, were done with good intentions, but they were not always implemented in a way that is cognizant or reflective of what is needed by persons living with disabilities.

Again, I will give an A for effort on this piece of legislation, but the real work is going to come down the road to ensure that there is a meaningful impact and that this piece of legislation does not claw back benefits that might be received elsewhere or make it more difficult for persons living with disabilities.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech and for recognizing the many types of disabilities that we have out there.

This past weekend, I was fortunate to be golfing with a young man whose left hand and left foot are disabled due to cerebral palsy, and on the very last hole of the tournament, he was the last guy up. He hit his golf ball on 14th hole of the Estevan golf course, and eight of us watched it sail over the water, hit the green and roll into the hole. He got a hole in one, and it was spectacular.

Now, his nickname is Ace, and I hate to say this, but he has had three holes in one. However, it was such a fantastic thing to see, and the eight of us were all over him, cheering him on with this great and fantastic thing.

I chatted with him a little about the legislation before us during that golf tournament, and one of his concerns was about the steps that were in it, particularly the regulations and what those regulations would be saying, which is a big challenge. I wonder if my colleague could comment on where he sees these regulations, because the reality is, at committee those regulations will hopefully get some answers to them.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question, and I congratulate Ace on his hole in one, which is something I have never in my life achieved. However, he is absolutely right about the regulations. Going forward, we need to make sure that the regulations are clear, direct, to the point and do not have any unintended consequences that would negatively impact a person living with a disability.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to be speaking tonight to 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.

I was thinking about this bill on my flight to Ottawa last night, and I would be remiss if I did not mention Bethesda Christian Association. For the majority of my mother's life, she has volunteered with Bethesda, and as a child I volunteered with Bethesda as well. My mom also worked for the organization for over 20 years. Working with Bethesda taught me a lot about humanity and taught my family a lot about compassion, humility and respecting the rights of every single person.

I have had the privilege of knowing one woman since I was born, Darlene, who also went to the same church as me when I was growing up. One of my favourite childhood photos is of me sitting at the family piano with Darlene. To know Darlene today has brought richness to my life. Darlene lives with mental disabilities, but she lives life to the fullest. She has taught me so much, even though I am an outgoing person, about getting out there and not being afraid to shake the hand of a stranger or say something in church at the appropriate time. She has brought so much richness to my life.

I also know that women like Darlene have been challenged financially. Irrespective of government, we have seen a reduction in support staff and direct supports for women like Darlene living with disabilities. That is not good. As a Conservative, one of the tenets I hold to is that the government has a responsibility to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves. Many Canadians living with disabilities, especially those with mental challenges like Darlene, really do need support from taxpayers to live their best and full lives. For a country as rich as Canada, I do not think that is a hard threshold to reach.

I am pleased to say that I will be supporting this bill today because of what I learned form Bethesda Christian Association growing up and because we need to do more to support those living with disabilities. However, when I looked at Bill C-22, especially the “Regulations” section, clause 11 of the bill, it says a lot. I will give a couple of examples. Paragraph (a) says, “respecting the eligibility criteria”; paragraph (b) says, “respecting conditions that are to be met in order to receive or to continue to receive a benefit”; and paragraph (c) says, “respecting the amount of a benefit or the method for determining the amount”.

The bill goes on and on like this for about a page and a half, but it does not say some of the things that people are looking for. How much will they actually receive from the government under a Canada disability benefit? What would a Canada disability benefit cost to the public coffers, and when will the disability benefit be costed out? Another question that I was struck with upon reading the bill is this: What amount does the government plan to provide persons with disabilities through the Canada disability benefit?

How does the government plan on coordinating the Canada disability benefit with other provincial benefits? If this benefit is to operate in coordination with provincial benefits, how will the government ensure that there is no provincial disparity for those accessing the benefit in respect of the tax code?

As another point, what will the eligibility be for the Canada disability benefit? Will it include those living with invisible disabilities? How will that criteria be established?

Will the Canada disability benefit be indexed to inflation? With the rising cost of inflation in this country, this is a big concern to many currently living with a disability.

Here is another point: When should Canadians expect to start receiving the Canada disability benefit once the bill is passed? Currently, the bill's coming-into-force date is to be determined by an order in council. In addition, since almost all information about the benefit is to be determined through regulation, will the government be open to increasing the parliamentary oversight outlined in the bill?

How will the government ensure that the Canada disability benefit considers the complex web of programs currently in place, which, for many Canadians with disabilities, can result in benefit cuts and higher taxes as a consequence of taking on work. Especially in the context of veterans living with disabilities, that is a very important point.

How will the government ensure that the applying of the Canada disability benefit is inclusive and not a difficult bureaucratic process? How will we make this form simple to fill out? How will we ensure that the Canadians who need this support will get it as quickly as possible? How will the Canada disability benefit be impacted if there are changes to provincial or territorial programs?

I will be supporting this bill, but there are a ton of fundamental questions that the framework needs to answer when this bill is hopefully passed by Parliament and brought before what I assume will be the HUMA committee.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend for the speech. I am looking forward to doing some Canada-Netherlands Friendship Group work with him if he is interested. We have some work to do and he is my co-chair, so I will be counting on his engagement there.

My friend talked about how it is important, as a Conservative, to stand up and help people who need it most, people who do not have access to certain services. I am glad he is so engaged in this bill and I am thrilled to hear he is supporting it.

Does that category of people, the people who need it most, include families with young kids who cannot afford to get their teeth fixed?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Milton for his question, but the debate today is on Bill C-22, not Bill C-31.

As I mentioned in my speech on Bill C-31, we have to look at the inflationary impacts of what we are doing. As I outlined in the suite of questions I posed, which I hope committee members and the government listened to, we need to do a full costing of this bill to see what impact it will have on Canadians and on Canadian taxpayers in the context of the inflationary period we are in right now.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair for our rather late debates.

Does my colleague find the bill to be well drafted? Does he not feel that the government is being given a blank cheque of sorts? Should the bill not include some terms and conditions? Should the government's intentions be more transparent? Above all, should the money be transferred to the provinces so they can redistribute it to people? Once again, this may be more the jurisdiction of the provinces rather than that of the federal government.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill needs a lot more work. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill so we can study it in committee and make changes and amendments. This will ensure that the legislation is compatible with provincial programs.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Over a million Canadians right now are living in poverty. Having a disability benefit is so critically important, but the government has failed people with disabilities again and again. It is now asking people with disabilities to wait three years. It has presented a bill that does not actually tell us how much people will get or who will be included.

Can the member speak to how vital it is that people with disabilities know how much they will be receiving, who is going to be receiving this benefit and when this benefit will come?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the points raised by the member for Victoria, I think they are essential.

Going back to Darlene, whom I mentioned in my speech, when she goes out for coffee at Tim Hortons or an ice cream and a burger at McDonald's, she has to tabulate that every single month. She lives dollar to dollar. The Bethesda Christian Association that supports Darlene lives dollar to dollar as well.

Yes, getting that critical information, like when the benefit will come into force and how much people with disabilities will be living on, is essential. I hope that information is brought forward by public servants at committee as soon as possible, because there is no point going through this legislative exercise if we do not have answers to those fundamental questions.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my aunt was actually one of the residents of Bethesda, so he may have run into her. She passed away a number of years back, but it was interesting to hear that in his speech.

One of the big concerns I have and that I hear from the disability community is around access to MAID and approval for MAID. Over and over we are hearing of people who are in distress, but not necessarily terminal, accessing MAID. I was wondering if he could address that as well.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just last year, or this year if I am mistaken, a woman in my community received MAID because she could not find adequate housing. What we need to do as a government and as a society collectively is to ensure that human dignity is respected, and we need to ensure that people living with disabilities have hope and support. I hope with this framework and with amendments at committee, we can get there and provide a new level of dignity and a new level of hope for those Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-22, an act to establish the Canada disability benefit. In short, what this legislation seeks to do is provide an income supplement to Canadians with disabilities that complements provincial programs and supports. Unfortunately, in Canada, many persons living with disabilities are stigmatized and marginalized. Many live in poverty. Indeed, those who are of working age and live with a disability are significantly more likely to live below the poverty line than those who do not live with a disability.

Persons with disabilities deserve to be supported so they can live healthy, happy, productive and meaningful lives in which barriers are removed. They deserve a helping hand to escape poverty. In that spirit, I support this bill in principle.

However, there is much that is unknown about this bill. We do not know who would be eligible for the benefit. We do not know what amount someone who is living with a disability would be entitled to receive. We do not know payment periods. We do not know how the benefit would be dealt with in terms of being indexed for inflation. We do not know what the application process would look like. We do not even know when the benefit would take effect.

Those are a lot of unknowns. After seven years and now more than a year since the government introduced a substantively similar bill on the eve of the Prime Minister's calling an unnecessary and opportunistic election, we have legislation that provides no further details. We have a minister who has been unable to shed any further light. All we have is a loose framework, with all of the details to be determined at a later date, perhaps years down the road. As a consequence, I would submit that we, as members of Parliament, are in an untenable position in some respects, being asked to support a bill the details of which are unknown in terms of the scope and impact of the Canada disability benefit.

The Minister of Employment and Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion stated in her speech that she is, quite appropriately, working with her provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure the benefit has its intended impact, that it is an income supplement and that there are not unintended consequences, including clawbacks and taxes that would undermine the effectiveness of the benefit.

While it is good that the minister is engaging in those discussions with her provincial and territorial counterparts, the issue of clawbacks for the disability community is a much broader one than simply in respect of this proposed new benefit. I certainly support providing an income supplement to low-income Canadians living with a disability, but we know the best social program is not a new benefit. The best social program is employment for those who have the opportunity and ability to work. After all, employment provides an opportunity for dignity and self-worth; it provides a sense of purpose. It provides opportunities for social connectedness, in contrast to the isolation many persons living with disabilities face each and every day.

Employment improves mental health and one's overall well-being. Not all Canadians living with disabilities are able to work, but many are and many do. Nearly one million Canadians living with a disability are in the workforce, including 300,000 Canadians who are severely disabled. Many more would like to work, but for all practical purposes, they are unable to do so. They are unable to do so because when they go out and work and earn a bit of income, their earnings are offset by the clawing back of programs and supports. We know that in some provinces, for every dollar earned, one can see a clawback of a dollar or nearly a dollar in social support. Therefore, for many Canadians living with disabilities, there is in fact a disincentive to participate in the workforce. This is counterproductive, it is unfair and it has the perverse effect of trapping Canadians living with disabilities in a cycle of poverty, which is something that this bill seeks to address.

As my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, stated in his speech, my friend, the leader of the official opposition and member for Carleton, introduced a bill in the 42nd Parliament, Bill C-395, to address this unfairness. In short, that bill sought to ensure that any person living with a disability would never be disadvantaged, that they would never see more in clawbacks and taxes than what they would earn in income from going out and working. Instead of supporting that bill, the Liberals voted against it.

One can debate the particulars of that particular bill, but it is not just the member for Carleton who has raised this issue. In 2017, a unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources recommended, as a key recommendation, that the federal government play a leadership role to ensure that Canadians with disabilities are not disincentivized from participating in the workforce.

In conclusion, let me say that this bill is a step in the right direction. There are a lot of details that remain and time is of the essence, but there is more work to do beyond this bill to remove barriers, so that, most importantly, Canadians living with disabilities can enjoy the same opportunities that other Canadians enjoy to be able to go out into the workforce and earn a living and have that dignity and self-worth that come with a job. That is how we reduce barriers. That is how we reduce stigmatization and marginalization, and that is how we lift Canadians living with disabilities out of the trap of poverty.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have a chance to join in this debate. It is clear that Bill C-22 is far less than what was expected. It does not provide the details and so much is left to be filled in later, yet the needs are clearly urgent. People living with disabilities in this country are disproportionately and scandalously exposed to poverty.

I totally agree that having a job is a great way to build self-worth and respect, but would my hon. colleague not agree with me that no one with a disability should live in poverty, whether they can find a job or not?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely would concur with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that we have to do everything to ensure that Canadians living with disabilities are not trapped in poverty. We need to remove barriers so that Canadians living with disabilities can find employment, but we also have to provide other supports. This is one additional support and it is one that I support if it is ever rolled out the door, because unfortunately it could be some time between now and the time that the money is actually delivered to Canadians living with disabilities. It has, frankly, been too long.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.

Keeping people with disabilities active in the labour market, finding accommodation measures and promoting their integration also helps to address the fact that too many people with disabilities are in a vulnerable situation. That was confirmed to me by the director of Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et région, Marie-Christine Hon.

How does this fit into the discussions we need to have about accessibility? People with disabilities are not asking for much.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the member for Shefford raises an important issue about access and taking steps to reduce barriers to help those living with disabilities.

The member for Carleton provided a concrete measure in his bill that would help persons with disabilities be able to have that opportunity to enter the workforce through free, concrete measures within that bill, namely measurement, action and enforcement. It was very disappointing that the Liberals voted against that very good bill.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, inevitably, there will always be people with disabilities who cannot be gainfully employed. I hope they are not going to be ineligible because of that.

I want to ask, instead, about indigenous peoples with disabilities and others who have disabilities who live in rural and remote communities, communities that have a higher cost of living. I wonder if the member agrees that maybe there needs to be a supplement to this benefit for people who live in rural and remote communities.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have to do to address the cost of living is to tackle inflation, which is at a 40-year high. It is inflation that is the result of the Liberal government's out-of-control spending, propped up with the support of the NDP.

If the member is serious about reducing the cost of living and making life more affordable, that would be a good place to start.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about the lack of benefits for people with disabilities and the poverty that is often the reality for them, and the sad state where they are actually being given an option of using MAID as a terrible solution to the problem.

Could the member speak to that, and maybe to some of the reasons why we want to get behind our folks with disabilities in Canada?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the record of the Liberal government in not listening to persons with disabilities and disabilities rights organizations when they expressed alarm at the reasonably foreseeable criterion being struck down by one judge in one decision.

We have seen heartbreaking cases now of people who have turned to MAID because of such things as a lack of adequate housing, which is something completely not what MAID was set up to do. When I asked the Prime Minister a question about that, instead of addressing the issue, and instead of showing some compassion, he said that we were wrapped up in ideology. I think that speaks to his attitude toward Canadians living with disabilities and how insensitive he is.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to boldly travel through time to 6:45 p.m. and see the clock as such.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.